I think I see the problem here and it's simpler than I first thought

reply to post by Mike_A


I believe that if one has enough faith in Christ, then he could raise the dead. Now trust me i wish i had that much faith. Someday.

reply to post by Conclusion


So true is actually just defined as whether or not represents a belief in Christ?

reply to post by Mike_A


That is true for me. To you it may be something else.

reply to post by Conclusion


So then if a mentally disturbed person believed he could fly, and since truth (i.e. whether something is fact or not) is subjection could this person actually fly?

reply to post by Mike_A


Ok going to take your aspect for a moment. Define Mentally disturbed.

reply to post by Conclusion


Well the example is self defined; it’s a person who believes he can fly. For the sake of argument let’s say this person suffers from schizophrenia.

But to be honest you can disregard any mental illness, I mean kids believe many fantastical things without having any underlying pathology.

The point is this person, for whatever reason, believes they can fly. Can they?

reply to post by Mike_A


Well as i said before, I believe that if someone has enough faith, they could do anything.

Mind you there is a difference between mental illness and having faith.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf


IMO....

the earth is 4.5 billions years old.....

IT was terra formed to fit intelligent life forms hundreds of thousands probably millions of years ago.....and has changed during certain cycles..

Since these beings terra-formed the earth in the first place, based on their knowledge of knowing how to do so and that of gravity and nature.............They are aware of the cycles that take place because they have created them , themselves kind of......

Anyways...yea all these predictions are not predictions but truth's that are bound to happen whether we want them to or not..........

reply to post by Conclusion


Yeah not sure why I mentioned mental illness, it's not really necessary to consider.

Back to the point, kids believe that Father Christmas is real, they have absolute faith in that; the same for the Easter Bunny and all sorts of things but none of them actually manifest in reality.

So given this and other cases in what sense can it be said that truth is subjective? It seems that this is only the case when the validity of the belief cannot be validated.

Whether a majical God created humans or they evolved,
my big question is
if we are the improved model, why are we physically incompatible with our environment?
Why aren't humans living in cold climates outfitted with dense body hair like all the indiginous animals in the region?
And why is it that pound for pound the monkey family is 4 times stronger than we are?
Why do we have such thin skin and tender feet. Walking barefoot will build up callouses, but not the pads that other animals have.
Hunter gatherers would have to have thick skin to cope with the brush that they must walk thru.
Is having an enhanced brain such a great trade off?
Why did no other species develop more intelligence?

Physical evidence for evolution is scanty. Much that has been touted as evidence has proven to be fraudulent.
Science clings to a chaotic array of bone fragments and religion clings to folk tales. Decoding the folk tales tells us that it was ET's that had a hand in our creation. Likely it was ET's who brought us here before the meddlers in the folk tales began their genetic experiments....to make us in their image.

You're right it is simple, but not like you thought.
Earth is older than 6000 years, but it is arrogance to state 4.5 billion years.
I could be only 1 billion years or 500 million years. They don't know.
And it really is not that important.

reply to post by OhZone

if we are the improved model, why are we physically incompatible with our environment?

We are, the fact that we can survive is testament to that fact. We don’t have to be perfectly adapted, we just have to be able to get along well enough to pass on how genes.

Why aren't humans living in cold climates outfitted with dense body hair like all the indiginous animals in the region?

Because humans aren’t indigenous to those areas. Humans evolved in central Africa thus the lack of body hair and other features commonly associated to the colder areas humans now inhabit. We only migrated to the colder regions in the last 10000 years or so.

However we do see signs of humans adapting to their new environments. White skin for example is likely a response to the different UV levels at the higher latitudes.

And why is it that pound for pound the monkey family is 4 times stronger than we are?

Why do we need that strength? We survive well enough without it.

Why do we have such thin skin and tender feet. Walking barefoot will build up callouses, but not the pads that other animals have.
Hunter gatherers would have to have thick skin to cope with the brush that they must walk thru.

That assumes that these were the conditions under which we evolved. As already stated we evolved in central Africa and likely inhabited the plains which would be a great driver for our current physiology. Hunter gatherer tribes that still inhabit these areas do well enough with bare feet and thin skin.

Is having an enhanced brain such a great trade off?

The range of areas we inhabit and the dominance we have in these areas suggests that it is.

Why did no other species develop more intelligence?

Because they didn’t have the same combination of genetic variation and environmental drivers as our ancestors.

One thing I notice is people who do not believe in biblical/religious creation insist on throwing terms around that belittle it even as they attempt to portray acceptance/tolerance in others beliefs.

I have seen this occur in every thread. For example, the creation "myth" or magical being or fairy tale, even flying spaghetti monster. The bible and its accounts therin have not and cannot be disproven.

Perhaps if people gave a little more respect for others beliefs, things would not be so tense. And this includes telling people they will burn in hell if they don't believe in god or other similar slights from the other side.

Biblical creation has not been debunked
Theory of evolution has not been debunked
For that matter, ID or Alien intervention/creation have also not been debunked

This never ending argument almost reminds me of the other 2 sided clashes that never end..

Politics .... Right vs. Left
UFO's .... Believers vs. Sceptics

It is good to know that in each of these battles there are always and an ever growing middle point of view taking hold.

For instance I believe it is possible for some combination of Creationism, Evolution and perhaps some other factors as well. I am at least open to new ideas.

In politics, the independant crowd seems to be growing perhaps more out of frustration than anything.

reply to post by Mike_A


Its all about faith. That is faith in the truth. What do you put your faith in?

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Conclusion]

Mike, your arguments are not based on logic.
Nature never gives its creatures more brain power than it needs to survive.
Likewise it never takes away what the creature does need.
We cannot survive in Northern climates in our natural state.
Humans have been living in those Northern climates for more than 10,000 years.
There is no evidence that humans evolved on the African Plains.
All bones ever found were in forested areas or areas that had been forested at the same times that the bones lived.
.The question isn’t why do we need that strength.
The question is why did we lose it?
Wouldn’t it be to our advantage to have it? Look at all the heavy work we have had to do and still have to do.
If we were to lose our technology and our tools thru some great catastrophe the human species would suffer massive die off for lack of ability to cope with the environment and to find or grow food. The big brain would prove to be a big failure.

All of you evolutionists are basing your beliefs on the artist’s renderings of the alleged creatures that comprise this supposed chain of evolution. You have never seen the bones involved, and rarely any photo of them. Personally, I want more evidence than the imagination of some artist working from a skull cap or a jaw bone.
For instance Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth, which turned out to be a wild pig’s tooth.
There is so much fraud in this subject that I can’t believe that otherwise intelligent people have accepted it as fact, and will fight to defend it.

Power slave, Evolution has been debunked. It is just that in the minds of the believers it dies hard. Most of the debunking has been done by religious folks and I will say that they have done an excellent job.
However they lose their credibility when the propose that humans were created instantly by some super-natural force they call God. The first 5 books of the bible are a rehash of the much older Sumerian record.
Take away the super natural, because everything is totally natural, and you have ET’s who came down from “Heaven”. They created a hybrid in their lab. Look up the Sumerian Tale of Creation.
There is also the Babylonian & Assyrian Creation Story called the Enuma Elish.

Remember the Israelites spent a lot of time in Babylon. When they came out they wrote their condensed version of the story.
Babylonian creation myth

reply to post by PowerSlave

Originally posted by PowerSlave
One thing I notice is people who do not believe in biblical/religious creation insist on throwing terms around that belittle it even as they attempt to portray acceptance/tolerance in others beliefs.

I have seen this occur in every thread. For example, the creation "myth" or magical being or fairy tale, even flying spaghetti monster. The bible and its accounts therin have not and cannot be disproven.

How is that belittling it? Should I perhaps say 'story'? How is that better? I cannot say just 'creation truth' or 'story' as one implies absolute truth and the other is no better than saying myth or legend anyway. Some people do believe that creation whatever are myths, some don't, why should I pander to one to try not to offend anyone? And saying just 'creation' could mean anything.

I happen to believe dragons or dragon-like creatures may have once existed alongside humans, after all there's just as much evidence for them in human history. Does that mean I should take offence when people say they don't think dragons existed? No. Why should anyone else who truly respects other peoples rights to their own opinions? Political Correctness truly has gone insane.

Perhaps if people gave a little more respect for others beliefs, things would not be so tense. And this includes telling people they will burn in hell if they don't believe in god or other similar slights from the other side.

Biblical creation has not been debunked
Theory of evolution has not been debunked
For that matter, ID or Alien intervention/creation have also not been debunked

This never ending argument almost reminds me of the other 2 sided clashes that never end..

Politics .... Right vs. Left
UFO's .... Believers vs. Sceptics

It is good to know that in each of these battles there are always and an ever growing middle point of view taking hold.

For instance I believe it is possible for some combination of Creationism, Evolution and perhaps some other factors as well. I am at least open to new ideas.

In politics, the independant crowd seems to be growing perhaps more out of frustration than anything.

As for the rest of it, I completely agree, if people were to be respectful to everyone's beliefs then everyone would get along better, and the ever growing middle ground can only be a good thing as it opens up truly open minded debate.

reply to post by Conclusion

Its all about faith. That is faith in the truth.

But that’s what I’m trying to find out, how do you define what is the truth? The post I originally quoted made it seem as though something can be factually true for one person but not another dependent on their degree of belief. If that was the case then Father Christmas would really be coming down people’s chimneys on Christmas eve but he isn’t.

reply to post by OhZone

Nature never gives its creatures more brain power than it needs to survive.

Natural processes will favour anything that is beneficial to the organism survival. That includes brain power.

Random variations in genes produce all sorts of effect, whether they stick around depends on whether it is helpful.

Likewise it never takes away what the creature does need.

Of course it does, if thick hair is required because of one environmental factor which is then removed those with thick hair will now not necessarily be favoured and that feature will become diluted over many generations. (this relates to your point about strength)

We cannot survive in Northern climates in our natural state.

Of course we can, but our natural state includes the mental capacity to make tools and clothes.

Humans have been living in those Northern climates for more than 10,000 years.
There is no evidence that humans evolved on the African Plains.

The fossil record, the distribution of our known closest relatives and the distribution of earliest known human settlements points squarely at this conclusion.

Do you have a source about the earliest known Homo Sapiens living in forested areas?

Of course there are competing theories such as the aquatic chimp hypothesis that would allow for this possibility.

Wouldn’t it be to our advantage to have it? Look at all the heavy work we have had to do and still have to do.

But we are fully capable of doing all that with our current abilities. Other great apes need to climb through trees, knuckle walk and do many other things that humans do not do.

If we were to lose our technology and our tools thru some great catastrophe the human species would suffer massive die off for lack of ability to cope with the environment and to find or grow food. The big brain would prove to be a big failure.

How would we lose our ability to make tools? That would require something to destroy large parts of the human brain all in one go, what natural process other than disease could do that?

If you resort to disease as an explanation then your statement becomes “if the human race all contracted a debilitating brain disease then we would all die out”. But that’s obvious.

All of you evolutionists are basing your beliefs on the artist’s renderings of the alleged creatures that comprise this supposed chain of evolution. You have never seen the bones involved, and rarely any photo of them. Personally, I want more evidence than the imagination of some artist working from a skull cap or a jaw bone.

lol that’s an incredibly simplistic view. The physiology of organisms for which we only have partial skeletons is not determined through artistic licence, inferences are made by looking at known organisms and how they work. If all known organisms show a particular mark where a muscle attaches, and a fossil jaw bone shows these same marks then we can safely infer that a muscle was present at this point.

I think you’ll find that where we only have the top of a skull or such few inferences are made beyond maybe “it’s a different species, and it was probably around “this” big”.

Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man are not good examples because these were either hoaxed or wrongly classified in the early 20th century, long before modern scientific methods and these cases were corrected. The modern scientific process is not the same as it was back then; it is far more knowledgeable and rigorous. That’s not to say that mistakes don’t happen, but they are corrected and certainly an entire creature will not be constructed from just one tooth.

Take away the super natural, because everything is totally natural, and you have ET’s who came down from “Heaven”. They created a hybrid in their lab. Look up the Sumerian Tale of Creation.

How did the aliens come to be? And what about all other organisms on Earth? What about those that can still be observed to be changing?







[edit on 2-9-2009 by Mike_A]

My question is...

Is the universe the only existence?

Or is the Universe, just an experience we are having, i.e. is our real self "something" outside this universe experience, and what we are experiencing here, is nothing more than like in story book or playing a Computer Game?

Because of the systems involved, are we believing we are in the story or generated game/experience, rather than being involved from the outside ?

The story of the universe, may be billions of years old, but how old is the book or Game/experience, and how many times has it been read, experienced or played before ?

What I am trying to say here is, perhaps it is all just like playing a computer game, and because it is so well done, we are totally convinced through desception, that we are actually in a Universe and nothing else exists.

If so, man what a truly impressive game ?

But perhaps our understanding of what the universe actually is, would have a huge affect on our perception and understanding, to the point of giving us the freedom to explore both the Universe and our inner selves in a much more practicable way.

Perhaps evolution is but a story, and what & where, our true entity is, is something completely different than we believe it to be ?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Who knows? Perhaps we are like the marble in Men In Black, some other beings plaything? Perhaps we are some sort of massively complex computer game? If so, how excited must the person be to realise that this game (or at least a part of it) has become aware enough to ask those kinds of questions!

Have you ever played the game Creatures? It's a fairly old 'life simulator' with creatures with their own Digital DNA, that develop their own personalities and their own mutations as their generations get higher. It's something that makes me wonder things like this. Do the Norns within the game know they are in a game, or do they think their world is the only world around? I love the creatures games purely because they have the ability to make you think differently, including asking the question of what really is life? Does this game constitute artificially created, silicon based life? And I'd love to see what's going on in their heads.

(There is a free version of this, if you want I can give you a link to it?)

Apparently I forgot to mention, and the edit button's not working (must be on a timer) but the free game I mentioned is something that the company that developed it released for free by themselves, sort of like a taster to make people want to buy the full game. However that doesn't mean it takes away from the experience. I can U2U the link and you can see for yourself