Ok, through 10 years of catholic school and countless hours in church I think that I have come up with a theory to explain both creation AND evolution together and how they can fit. I know it isn't perfect so that's why I am posting, for revisions/help. This will be quite long, but deffinately worthwhile.

Ok so... Evolutionists believe that the world was here for billions of years, and creationists (most) think that the world was created like 20k years ago (from my catholic schooling). So here is my explaination.

Let's say that the world really is billions of years old and that God was always there as preached in the bible. So say God created the big bang, then waited for billions of years untill everything was created and evolved, and 20 thousand years ago, just when humans where getting past the ape part of their evolution, God "Breathed life into them". However by breathing life into them actually means "To give a soul".

Because the difference between a human from an evolutionist point of view is that humans have no soul and are purely the atoms that they are made of. While Christians believe that all humans have souls which set them apart.

So yeah, world actually was created billions of years ago which backs up much of todays modern science. And humans have souls and there is a God.

BAM.

Suggestions....

Congratulations that theory's been around for a long time, theistic evolution anyone?

EDIT: Define soul please.

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 10-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tr1p:



Let's say that the world really is billions of years old and that God was always there as preached in the bible. So say God created the big bang, then waited for billions of years untill everything was created and evolved, and 20 thousand years ago, just when humans where getting past the ape part of their evolution, God "Breathed life into them". However by breathing life into them actually means "To give a soul".



...Then who created God?

Seems a bit silly to do that when He could just create the world as-is instantly. That's what always bugs me about the "OH! OH! BIG BANG! That means there's still some uncertainty about the history of the Universe we can exploit!" approach to religion... if God is so all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he bother with all that evolution?

quote:...Then who created God?

God is the Alpha and the Omega. I assume this means he's a concept similar to... I dunno, anything metaphysical, I love to use circles as an analogue because they're so everday. So God is this big ineffable (well, you can eff it a bit) concept, much like 'the limitless' which some Greeks thought everything derives from but which has no nature in itself because then it would have to derive from something else and be finite (or something like that, I forget), except it's conscious and can decide what's going to happen. Which immedaitely prescribes it a nature, but then Christianity doesn't have to make sense.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-27-2005).]

Probably simpler to just say God compressed the passage of time so each day of his creation was a billion years of universe time. Good idea though.

The core problem in each case is the way dogmatic Christians have a sense of self importance literally on a cosmic scale, and presume the universe exists explicitly for their own sake. I guarantee you this could be cured by getting them to take one acid trip, laying them down on some grass looking up at the stars, and telling them that this planet is just a ball of rock orbiting a single star in a galaxy of a hundred million other stars, in a universe of a hundred billion galaxies. First damn thing I'd do if I was president of the world. *puts pinkie to the side of mouth*

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 10-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Probably simpler to just say God compressed the passage of time so each day of his creation was a billion years of universe time. Good idea though.

The core problem in each case is the way dogmatic Christians have a sense of self importance literally on a cosmic scale, and presume the universe exists explicitly for their own sake. I guarantee you this could be cured by getting them to take one acid trip, laying them down on some grass looking up at the stars, and telling them that this planet is just a ball of rock orbiting a single star in a galaxy of a hundred million other stars, in a universe of a hundred billion galaxies. First damn thing I'd do if I was president of the world. *puts pinkie to the side of mouth*



Heh, I've done that before, but without the acid. We always think of the stars as little dots in the sky, but if you look at them for long enough you really do get the sense that they are real three-dimensional objects that occupy the same universe as you do. Then you feel small.

So the difference between evolution and your theory is that yours includes a "soul" which we cannot see, measure, weigh, touch, feel, smell, hear, listen to, experiment on, examine, scrutinize, or test.

Great!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So the difference between evolution and your theory is that yours includes a "soul" which we cannot see, measure, weigh, touch, feel, smell, hear, listen to, experiment on, examine, scrutinize, or test.

Great!



Why's that so hard for you to grasp?

Einstein proves that we're made up of energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. When you die, where does it go? Does there not have to be either an infinte amount of energy, or a source of all energy? Science proves that the 'stuff' in every creation is also found in the dirt. If you're going to follow scientific theories, at least keep up with science. Einstein was also agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Why's that so hard for you to grasp?

Einstein proves that we're made up of energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. When you die, where does it go? Does there not have to be either an infinte amount of energy, or a source of all energy? Science proves that the 'stuff' in every creation is also found in the dirt. If you're going to follow scientific theories, at least keep up with science. Einstein was also agnostic.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, but changes form daily... There's not an infinite amount of energy or a single source... The energy you use to walk around your house has been in this universe forever, and has changed many forms before leaving the sun and arriving in your food... You then convert it again by moving... If there was a infinite source of energy, science as we know it would have to change...

What do you mean by 'stuff' in every creation?, I'm confused...

I think Rust was trying to point out that this theory is just evolution which is testable, with an added element of a 'soul' which is not...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-28-2005).]

I think you're confusing evolution and atheism. Evolution doesn't say God doesn't exist, atheism does. You are comparing atheistic evolution vs theistic evolution and I agree with you that it's quite possible theistic evolution exists.

Creationists who take the bible literally would call you a heretic because you are allowing physical death before sin and the bible says that didn't happen (well, ok, the bible doesn't say anything about physical death but don't expect that from stopping them).

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Energy can not be created or destroyed, but changes form daily... There's not an infinite amount of energy or a single source... The energy you use to walk around your house has been in this universe forever, and has changed many forms before leaving the sun and arriving in your food... You then convert it again by moving... If there was a infinite source of energy, science as we know it would have to change...

What do you mean by 'stuff' in every creation?, I'm confused...

I think Rust was trying to point out that this theory is just evolution which is testable, with an added element of a 'soul' which is not...



There is potential and Kinetic energy.

Objects with Potential energy, don't have energy, unless energy is ultimatley transferred from something with kinetic energy. Your body, has kinetic energy. Animals, have kinetic energy, because it's something that remains in motion. Energy can be directed. A ball doesn't roll unless it's pushed. A lightbulb doesn't give off light, unless energy is directed at it.

Let me get this right, you're saying there's a limited amount of energy?

Didn't Einstein show that it is possible to move at the speed of light? If that then is possible, (according to the bible it is, and that's before Einstein's time) then you'd HAVE TO HAVE AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY.



The 'stuff' I was talking about is called, amoeba.

I may not be 'The Superior Intellectual', but I know I listened in school. Gosh, that was so 8th grade, too.

The main flaw with evolutionism is it leans towards abiogenisis (creation of life by random chance or no thought from a "God"). Energy comes from somewhere, how do you explain it just "popping up" for the big bang? The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created/destroyed, but that's what happened according to scientists.

Abiogenesis isn't random it's chemistry. Complicated chemistry but still chemistry.

Energy pops in and out of existence all the time, it just never exists long enough to effect classical physics. The laws of thermodynamics aren't all encompassing. Quantum mechanics "breaks" them all the time.

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

The main flaw with evolutionism is it leans towards abiogenisis (creation of life by random chance or no thought from a "God"). Energy comes from somewhere, how do you explain it just "popping up" for the big bang? The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created/destroyed, but that's what happened according to scientists.

Very good. Thank you. So when Adam was just a body, without breath, He had potential energy, but when God put some of himself in Adam (a more literal tranlation) The potential energy became alive, kinetic. God created us in his image, a little lower than himself. "Ye are gods, children of the Most High". If we're to imitate God, then we would act as him, but as children in him. We're not God, but we have the ability, or desire to create things, to love, to give, to be as our father.

Example: You have a son that sees you building things, often. He gets he own little tool kit, and begins to imitate you.



God is the ultimate source of energy, and God is infinite.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

There is potential and Kinetic energy.

Objects with Potential energy, don't have energy, unless energy is ultimatley transferred from something with kinetic energy. Your body, has kinetic energy. Animals, have kinetic energy, because it's something that remains in motion. Energy can be directed. A ball doesn't roll unless it's pushed. A lightbulb doesn't give off light, unless energy is directed at it.

Let me get this right, you're saying there's a limited amount of energy?

Didn't Einstein show that it is possible to move at the speed of light? If that then is possible, (according to the bible it is, and that's before Einstein's time) then you'd HAVE TO HAVE AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY.



The 'stuff' I was talking about is called, amoeba.

I may not be 'The Superior Intellectual', but I know I listened in school. Gosh, that was so 8th grade, too.

Can you show me a website please HellzShellz?… I find it hard to believe that there is an infinite amount of energy in this world…

Chemical energy is stored potential, and by “Hitting” it you won’t get it to release its energy at all… Secondly, a ball on a hill has potential energy and will roll down it without you touching it… It’s not so simple for me to understand this concept…

I think you’re confused however, I thought that Einstein said you CAN'T travel at the speed of light, only very close to it, but to travel FASTER than light would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore impossible… But I could be wrong, any references I could read?

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

The main flaw with evolutionism is it leans towards abiogenisis (creation of life by random chance or no thought from a "God"). Energy comes from somewhere, how do you explain it just "popping up" for the big bang? The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created/destroyed, but that's what happened according to scientists.

Its an interesting concept you pose... You can't understand energy "Popping up" from nowhere without something creating it... Yet wholly grasp the idea that God himself did not have a creator but definitely exists…

Edit:

If his existence is timeless, why “pop up” and create the world 18 billion years ago, and come back to “breath” life into humans after every other animal he created, clearly lived fine, as to evolve INTO humans... Then come back once more to tell us about him in the last 2000 years…

Lastly, to offer a theory such as "Intelligent Design" or “Creation”, to be accepted scientifically you have to able to prove its true or prove its not true... If you can't prove either way, then its simply not science and shouldn't be taught as such...



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Why's that so hard for you to grasp?

Einstein proves that we're made up of energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. When you die, where does it go? Does there not have to be either an infinte amount of energy, or a source of all energy?

No. Just no.

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

I think you’re confused however, I thought that Einstein said you CAN'T travel at the speed of light, only very close to it, but to travel FASTER than light would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore impossible...

Correct.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Osiris89:

The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created/destroyed



Originally posted by Axiom:

I think you’re confused however, I thought that Einstein said you CAN'T travel at the speed of light, only very close to it, but to travel FASTER than light would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore impossible.

???????????????????????????????????????

Think 'bout it, eh?

If energy cannot be created or destroyed than it is an infinite entity in its self....

No?

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Why's that so hard for you to grasp?

Einstein proves that we're made up of energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed. When you die, where does it go? Does there not have to be either an infinte amount of energy, or a source of all energy? Science proves that the 'stuff' in every creation is also found in the dirt. If you're going to follow scientific theories, at least keep up with science. Einstein was also agnostic.

What, of anything I said, even hinted at me not "grasping" something?

My point was that it's a ridiculous theory because there is absolutely no reason to add a "soul" something that is not quantifiable, testable, examinable, etc. He is adding it not because it adds anything to the theory (i.e. it doesn't help explain anything of our creation/evolution), but because he can't pathom the possibility that there is no such thing as this ridiculous concept of a "soul".

By that token, we should add the magical pink dildo to the theory. It's pink, and invisible. Yes, both. That's how magical it is. We can't see it, but it exists deep inside all of our rectums, and it has really helped in evolution and creation.

That is how ridiculous it is.

P.S. You got Einstein all wrong. He said absolutely no such thing.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-28-2005).]

Unfortunately you can't start talking about evolution - a scientific theory, then randomly throw in a "soul", which as it has been mentioned, cannot be measured or tested. What exactly constitutes having a soul? If it is to be able to make tools to make ones life easier, then species such as Homo Habilis (NOT a modern form of man)is thought to have existed about 2.5 million years ago were doing this. If you are talking about being able to communicate by language, then you are talking about MODERN man (Homo Sapiens) who emerged about 150,000 years ago.

This is still way to early to be in the biblical time frame, which goes back at a maximum to 20 thousand years ago (though it is believed to be only about 12 thousand years ago). By this point, man had colonised the whole world with the exception of the poles, different cultures were already beginning to emerge around the world, and early art was being produced.

So where exactly the "breathing life" into man actually takes place... I'd really like to know?

[This message has been edited by Twiggy (edited 10-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Can you show me a website please HellzShellz?… I find it hard to believe that there is an infinite amount of energy in this world…

Chemical energy is stored potential, and by “Hitting” it you won’t get it to release its energy at all… Secondly, a ball on a hill has potential energy and will roll down it without you touching it… It’s not so simple for me to understand this concept…

I think you’re confused however, I thought that Einstein said you CAN'T travel at the speed of light, only very close to it, but to travel FASTER than light would require an infinite amount of energy, therefore impossible… But I could be wrong, any references I could read?



Dude, use google. Yea, it's called a 'gravational pull'. Um, If I throw a ball up in the air, it's going to be pulled back down on count of the gravational pull. My goodness. GO BACK TO SCHOOL NOW!!! I love yall, but wow! Were yall stoned all throughout school? Being that this IS totse, I'm not doubting it. Sheesh. Einstein said it was very possible. Energy isn't limited, if it was, do you think we'd be having billions of people with energy surging through their homes? We'd be like, "NO! YOU'RE GONNA CONSUME ALL OF OUR ENEGRY." There's a HUGE universe out there.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Dude, use google. Yea, it's called a 'gravational pull'. Um, If I throw a ball up in the air, it's going to be pulled back down on count of the gravational pull. My goodness. GO BACK TO SCHOOL NOW!!! I love yall, but wow! Were yall stoned all throughout school? Being that this IS totse, I'm not doubting it. Sheesh. Einstein said it was very possible. Energy isn't limited, if it was, do you think we'd be having billions of people with energy surging through their homes? We'd be like, "NO! YOU'RE GONNA CONSUME ALL OF OUR ENEGRY." There's a HUGE universe out there.

It appears Einstein wrote two papers in the 20’s about Infinite Energy, which he later refuted stating, and I think this quote is very relevant…

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

Source: http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html

You should have listened harder in year 8... You we're way off the mark... Energy would not run out if it was limited because as YOU stated, energy cannot be destroyed... It repackages itself in a different form of energy and continues...

And yes I was stoned at school, but still managed to understand correctly it seems…

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

It appears Einstein wrote two papers in the 20’s about Infinite Energy, which he later refuted stating, and I think this quote is very relevant…

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

You should have listened harder in year 8... You we're way off the mark... Energy would not run out if it was limited because as YOU stated, energy cannot be destroyed... It repackages itself in a different form of energy and continues...

And yes I was stoned at school, but still managed to understand correctly it seems…

It can't be destory and it can't be created either. It's there. IT'S JUST THERE. Well, tell me, when you die, how does the energy that leaves your mortal body 'repack' itself? If you say reincarnation, I'll personally haunt you down and kick you in the eye, out of love, of course.



You don't need to look up Einstein, you need to look up, 'Speed of light'.



[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 10-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B]It's pink, and invisible. Yes, both.

Now where have I heard that before...

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

It can't be destory and it can't be created either. It's there. IT'S JUST THERE. Well, tell me, when you die, how does the energy that leaves your mortal body 'repack' itself? If you say reincarnation, I'll personally haunt you down and kick you in the eye, out of love, of course.



You don't need to look up Einstein, you need to look up, 'Speed of light'.





If no more energy is been created, there's obviously not an infinite supply of energy...

You die, your body gets eaten by maggots... They convert your potential energy into their kinetic, eventually going back up the food chain until another human eats that energy again, and the cycle begins once more...

If what you say is true, then tell me when you die, where the energy goes if it can't be destroyed? and don't say something like "Off to heaven in the spirit" or I'll personally hunt you down and kick you in the eye, for been stupid, of course...

Edit:

I don't want to argue about the science of Einstein anymore HellzShellz... Its become too off topic, I really want to debate the religion in this forum…

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-29-2005).]

I don't mean this in any kind of rude or sardonic way but every inquiring teenager with two brain cells to rub together comes to that theory sooner or later.

Good job. You're well on your way to independant thought.

(I mean truly and genuine.)

Cheers,

Lost

HellzShellz, you are slightly misunderstanding the nature of energy. It's true from a thermodynamic standpoint that there are only two types of energy, kinetic and potential. However, that is very far from meaning that all kinetic energy has to do with motion on a macro level.

Kinetic energy has to do with the motion of particles themselves. Heat for example is a measure of the total motion of the particles in an entity, i.e. if there is enough kinetic energy in the particles of a glass of water, they will start to escape the intramolecular forces of the liquid and fly off, which is water boiling. You can look at that and say the glass has a high measure of heat energy, or you can say it has a high measure of kinetic energy, both are accurate.

Potential energy is just stored kinetic energy, and has less to do with the motion of an object's particles as it does to do with their configuration (a stretched rubber band) or their relation to the environment (a ball at the top of a hill). But what both kinetic and potential energy are is simply the ability to do work, to change the motion of something. And there is a fixed amount of it in the universe.

The reason why it never gets "used up" is that it simply gets changed from one form (as opposed to the kinetic/potential types) to another. A light bulb turns on when you direct one form of potential energy into it, electrical, which gets converted into electromagnetic energy (light) and thermal energy (the metal heats up). Or when you get up and start moving, the potential chemical energy in food that you ate earlier will be used, to get converted into thermal energy and kinetic energy. And billions of people don't power their homes because somebody is literally creating energy from nothing, it's possible because we convert the chemical energy stored in fossil fuels into electrical energy, and convert the radioactive energy of nuclear fission into electrical energy, even in some cases converting the thermal energy of the sun or the kinetic energy of the wind into electrical energy.

Energy never gets created or destroyed, just converted from one form to another.

As for the speed of light, Einstein never said it's possible to move as fast as it. His work on relativity actually showed the opposite. The reason is that when you start accelerating an object closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases proportionally. The reason light can move at this speed is that it has zero mass, since it is simply electromagnetic energy. But an object with mass will find it's mass starting to increase, requiring extra energy to keep accelerating it. By the time it's speed is close to that of light (relativistic) it will have almost infinite mass. So to increase it fully to the speed of light, and give it infinite mass, you would need an infinite amount of energy. In other words, moving as fast or faster than the speed of light can't happen (without folding space or some such thing, which isn't the same thing as having that much kinetic energy).

I admit, I'm very confused by the way you have alternated between saying energy can't be created or destroyed, and saying it's infinite / not limited (although infinite isn't the same thing as "forever increasing", but that's another matter).



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 10-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:



???????????????????????????????????????

Think 'bout it, eh?

If energy cannot be created or destroyed than it is an infinite entity in its self....

No?



Lou Reed, Only just now do I understand what you're saying here... If you can keep using energy, its infinite? I think that’s what your saying?

I'll try to explain this to you below...

Lets assume three things...

You have a $100 dollar bill;

You have no income, so you never create more wealth;

You have no expenses, so your wealth is never destroyed;

You can go to the bank and change your $100 dollar bill for two $50 dollar bills... Then the next day, go back and change your two $50 bills for five $20 dollar bills... Continue returning to the bank as you see fit. You'll never leave with less or more than $100 dollars...

Sure, you’ll have your wealth forever, but you will never be infinitely rich... Only maintaining a very finite value of wealth you started with...

Unless energy can be created, or destroyed, it is not infinite…

Edit: Sorry, again I'm argueing the science...

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 10-29-2005).]

Whatever. I guess science has it's religions too. I believe there is an unceasing amount of energy, and there has to be for traveling at the speed of light to be possible. Some don't. To each his own. Until science lays a clear and firm foundation and why there is or isn't, there will continue to be, "scientific branches of beliefs". Which makes science no better than religion.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Whatever. I guess science has it's religions too. I believe there is an unceasing amount of energy, and there has to be for traveling at the speed of light to be possible. Some don't. To each his own. Until science lays a clear and firm foundation and why there is or isn't, there will continue to be, "scientific branches of beliefs". Which makes science no better than religion.



Right. Searching for answers by conducting experiments and tests, finding evidence and then making a conclusion out of that evidence ... is no better than blindly believing in something illogical and with absolutely no evidence supporting it.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Good one!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-29-2005).]

WEll, a soul is....

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

I would say that according to that deffinition, everyone of us has it. All HUMANS that is...

Now substitue "soul" with "magical pink dildo" and at the fact that it exists inside our rectums. So the magical pink dildo deep inside our rectums is the animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

How are those two statements any different? There is no difference save for some hate you might have of magical pink dildos. The two statements are equally ridiculous because they are equally useless and equally baseless.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Now substitue "soul" with "magical pink dildo" and at the fact that it exists inside our rectums. So the magical pink dildo deep inside our rectums is the animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

How are those two statements any different? There is no difference save for some hate you might have of magical pink dildos. The two statements are equally ridiculous because they are equally useless and equally baseless.



But, you are forgetting the fact that String theory suggests 11 dimensions. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "higher form" in a higher vibratory plane of existence? Remember, the End Of Theories is not over - we still have a lot to learn about.

Of course, the pink dildo theory suits this argument quite well.

^You didn't just throw in the String Theory so you could try and sound smart now did you? Come on admit it.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

^You didn't just throw in the String Theory so you could try and sound smart now did you?



Yes. Yes he did.

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

But, you are forgetting the fact that String theory suggests 11 dimensions. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "higher form" in a higher vibratory plane of existence? Remember, the End Of Theories is not over - we still have a lot to learn about.

Of course, the pink dildo theory suits this argument quite well.

What does that have to do with anything I've said? Does that suddenly change the fact that the soul he wants to add has absolutely nothing supporting it's existence? No.

Then you change nothing of my point, because that's my point in its entirety. He is adding a soul not because it adds anything to the theory, not because it helps explain some observable phenomenon, but because he cannot fathom the possibility of such a ridiculous thing not existing.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Whatever. I guess science has it's religions too. I believe there is an unceasing amount of energy, and there has to be for traveling at the speed of light to be possible. Some don't. To each his own. Until science lays a clear and firm foundation and why there is or isn't, there will continue to be, "scientific branches of beliefs". Which makes science no better than religion.



No, in science there is being right (i.e. understanding the current scientific convention or coming up with a hypothesis of your own that, after lots of testing and attempts to disprove it, seems to hold... or at least disproving the current scientific convention without being able to offer an alternative) and being wrong (i.e. not understanding it or coming up with a hypothesis that doesn't hold but still thinking you're right).

Travelling at the speed of light is not possible for objects with mass. Light can do it because it has no mass, and therefore it doesn't need any energy to travel at the speed of light. Again, I think knowledge of general relativity would help me here, but I don't have any.

So you're what's known in science as wrong.

There are people who 'believe' different things in science to the extent that they advocate different theories, but if they are halfway decent rationalists they don't actually see them as true until they are properly proven, at which point no rational person can disbelieve (without proving it wrong, usually things are proven but it turns out they don't work in extreme cases, eg. newton vs modern science)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Then you change nothing of my point, because that's my point in its entirety. He is adding a soul not because it adds anything to the theory, not because it helps explain some observable phenomenon, but because he cannot fathom the possibility of such a ridiculous thing not existing.



You seriously believe the world was created by a random probability?

I don't know if this counts for proof of a soul, but subjects have been hypnotized and said details of past lives, which were confirmed to be true. This, if more carefully studied, could prove consciousness does not die when the body dies.

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

You seriously believe the world was created by a random probability?

I don't know if this counts for proof of a soul, but subjects have been hypnotized and said details of past lives, which were confirmed to be true. This, if more carefully studied, could prove consciousness does not die when the body dies.

WOW, details of other peoples past lives that have been confirmed as true?...

I'm not following you here, Hypnosis is just a relaxed state of mind, making you open to suggestion... It can be likened to driving your car on the same route everyday.. Eventually one day you get to work and realise you did the entire trip without thinking... It can't make you connect with past lives, unless you've received some sort of suggestion guiding your mind in that direction... Do you have any references?

And secondly, The random chance aspect of Evolution is only when mutations occur, and we know that mutations occur every time DNA is split… The way little random mutations develop into diverse creatures is because of inheritance… With out inheritance, it would be unlikely random chance would result in today’s world, but it still wouldn’t be impossible…

The hand full of “Scientists” that agree with Intelligent Design use amoeba as their proof… They say the tail of this amoeba needs roughly 60 parts to come together in order for the tail to work… With the billions and billions of Amoeba in this world, its obvious that the probability that 60 things coming together with the influence of inheritance and random mutations is very realistic… More probable than a God making a single celled animal that human’s can’t see or appreciate…

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

You seriously believe the world was created by a random probability?

What the hell does that have to do with this thread or this discussion?

Do you like to masturbate while watching midget porn?

quote:

I don't know if this counts for proof of a soul, but subjects have been hypnotized and said details of past lives, which were confirmed to be true. This, if more carefully studied, could prove consciousness does not die when the body dies.

No. That doesn't count as proof of anything, specially given that hypnosis is not a reliable technique. It is well documented how easy it is to insert ideas to the patient by simply asking questions that might be the least bit leading.

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

But, you are forgetting the fact that String theory suggests 11 dimensions. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "higher form" in a higher vibratory plane of existence? Remember, the End Of Theories is not over - we still have a lot to learn about.

Of course, the pink dildo theory suits this argument quite well.

Exactly, a "a higher vibratory plane of existence?"... I refute the earlier evidence however; String Theory actually provides evidence that suggests the dildo was in fact purple... Magical non the less, but Purple...

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

But, you are forgetting the fact that String theory suggests 11 dimensions. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "higher form" in a higher vibratory plane of existence?

If you knew anything about string theory, you'd know that only three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension has "unravelled;" the other seven only exist on a subatomic level.