PDA

View Full Version : Planet X, The Ones Who Came Before and 2012



TheDarkKnigg1
04-10-2010, 07:11 PM
I just found out about THE oldest human civilization on Earth, the Sumerians (6000 years ago). This civilization wrote most of the Bible stories, used math, science etc... Point being they knew just as much stuff as we do today. They also said we (humans) came from being's called the "Annunaki," who came from another planet in our solar system. This planet is known as Nibiru, or Planet X. Apparently the Annunaki came to Earth to do some work. They genetically engineered some stuff and created humans as slaves.They created them to look exactly like themselves, same body, shape and insides. The only thing they changed was the way we use out brain. They only allowed us to use 10% of our full potential. I agree with this theory more than the "humans evolving from apes" theory. We don't look anything like homo-(habillis, erectus etc... They all looked like monkeys, whereas we do not. So we couldn't have evolved from them.

Now i don't know what happened after we were created, or what the Annunaki did when they were done. BUT...
DOESN'T THIS RING A BELL?

Assassins Creed 2, "The Truth". "The Ones Who Came Before" were supposedly WAY more advanced than us and they created us as slaves.

Now the 2012 part. One of the many theories about December 21st 2012 is that "Planet X/Nibiru" is supposed to return to Earth or at least pass it by. Maybe the Annunaki have seen that we are basically destroying ourselves now and they are going to destroy us, thus ending human civilization in 2012.

I don't know if ANY of this is true on not, it's just theory. Some of it does make sense though. Assassin's Creed is definatley getting some ideas from these theories.

Let me know what you guys think of all of this stuff. Feel free to expand on all of this, i would love to learn more about it.

Interesting video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...GdQ4&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqHq1oGdQ4&feature=channel)

AJ_Rimmer_Bsc
04-10-2010, 07:54 PM
theories of the past and evolution will always be vague.

whats crystal clear is where we are heading,we will be the shortest lived and most forgotten of the species to have existed here.

who would have done the most damage.
we are in fact the most loathsome creature to have graced this floating rock hurtling through space.

evolving ?..bollox
we have been devolving since the first monkey lit a fire or wielded a stick.

does kinda prove aliens have never been here,they woulda wiped us out if they had,becauase we display all the traits of a virulant and destructive disease.

there,that`ll teach ya to get all existential on a game forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

obliviondoll
04-10-2010, 08:35 PM
Sorry to dissapoint, but...

Check your sources. (http://sitchiniswrong.com/)

That's a website made by someone who actually knows how to do real reasearch. There are quite a few of them studying ancient Sumerian culture and language. And the one you found is the most prolific and public figue doing so, but also the most widely-ridiculed by people who actually know what they're doing.

godsmack_darius
04-10-2010, 09:38 PM
Thank you, I completly agree with the intervention theory of the Annunaki and sumerians, we DID NOT EVOLE FROM APES, THIS IS NOT OUR PLANET

http://video.google.com/videop...1285345463618889531# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531#)

Watch this video, and buy his book if you want.


and here is a similier link

http://video.google.com/videop...=2669013599514568012 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531#docid=26690135 99514568012)

And here is his website

v

http://www.lloydpye.com/

I will gladly mention my knowledge on it, I completly support the idea of intervention, we were gentically engineered,

Why do you think we have 46 chromosomes, and apes have 48, but we end up being better then them? we just lost 2 chromosomes...gone!

THEIR IS NOT ONE single human bone in a primate body.

We are like primates, but you will find we are also exactly pigs, mice etc.

when an animal (ape, monkey) is born if it hasgenetic deformities it is killed, or eventually dies. parents wont allo it too live. Humans have THOUSONDS!! And counting genetic deformities, so obviously we were born with them, when we were being created, the Annunaki DIDNT care, their making slaves, they dont care if they kill 1/100. or 1/10

I could go on forever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bokeef04
04-11-2010, 12:26 AM
how do you explain us sharing a similar digestive tract structure as some animals, e.g horses

also what do you mean not one human bone in a primate body, do you have a picture which shows different bones? cause i know a horse contains bones such as a scapula, tarsels/metatarsels, carpels/metacarpels, etc etc, all found in a human just in different proportions

i also don't agree that an animal with a genetic deformity is killed or dies, a genetic deformity could be something small that actually helps it survive, also I'll tell you now that animals have alot of deformities or genetic disorders in them aswell, bad conformation in horses e.g which often can result in them being superior to others, seabiscuit and Phar Lap are 2 that come to mind

also was reading that the reason we have 1 less pair then apes is because we appear to have 1 chromosome that matches 2 of theres, a bit hard to explain, but think of it as chromosome 2 in a human is the same as chromosomes 2 and 3 in apes

goldenarm009
04-11-2010, 09:02 AM
how do you explain us sharing a similar digestive tract structure as some animals, e.g horses

The idea is that we weren't just created out of thin air, but that the Annunaki genetically engineered humans using the DNA from pre-existing and naturally evolved early homos. This explains the "Missing Link", how scientist and archealogists seem to keep finding Homo-Habili and Homo-Erectus skeletal remains, but there has never been found a single bone of a creature that actually shows our evolution to there's. It's like there should be something between the two species if we evolved naturally, but there simply isn't.

Graham Hancock wrote a lot about ancient astronaut theory, and David Wilcock has some similar theories for 2012 as well. Then again, they both have **** in their names, so you never know.

godsmack_darius
04-11-2010, 12:23 PM
You got it goldenarm

Their isnt ANY proof that links us too them.


and bokeef04, did you learn that in your textbook at school or ciollege with that respect, I wouldnt trust it

Assassin_Mitch
04-11-2010, 12:44 PM
I can't tell if this is a religious topic or if its actually about the game....

S.H.O.D.A.N
04-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Planet X is going to pass near Earth?
Cool maybe we can get some Illudium Phosdex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RedXIIIx
04-11-2010, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by godsmack_darius:
Thank you, I completly agree with the intervention theory of the Annunaki and sumerians, we DID NOT EVOLE FROM APES, THIS IS NOT OUR PLANET

http://video.google.com/videop...1285345463618889531# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531#)

Watch this video, and buy his book if you want.


and here is a similier link

http://video.google.com/videop...=2669013599514568012 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1285345463618889531#docid=26690135 99514568012)

And here is his website

v

http://www.lloydpye.com/

I will gladly mention my knowledge on it, I completly support the idea of intervention, we were gentically engineered,

Why do you think we have 46 chromosomes, and apes have 48, but we end up being better then them? we just lost 2 chromosomes...gone!

THEIR IS NOT ONE single human bone in a primate body.

We are like primates, but you will find we are also exactly pigs, mice etc.

when an animal (ape, monkey) is born if it hasgenetic deformities it is killed, or eventually dies. parents wont allo it too live. Humans have THOUSONDS!! And counting genetic deformities, so obviously we were born with them, when we were being created, the Annunaki DIDNT care, their making slaves, they dont care if they kill 1/100. or 1/10

I could go on forever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is extensive evidence which indicates that chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes. Nor do chromosomes have to equate with the complexity or relative fitness of an organism.

You obviously have no idea what your talking about to make such a ridiculous claim. Humans and primates don't share a single bone? Have you even seen a primate skeleton before? You would have to try to not see the similarities.

Yes.....primates, pigs, mice and humans are all animals. Although, we are morphologically, physiologically and genetically similar to the great apes. ERVs alone offer enormous evidence that we have descended from the great apes.

Every organism develops a large amount of genetic mutations throughout it's lifespan. The majority of them are neutral, some may be harmful and some may be beneficial. Natural selection removes the negative traits and allows the beneficial traits to takeover within the population.


Originally posted by goldenarm009:

The idea is that we weren't just created out of thin air, but that the Annunaki genetically engineered humans using the DNA from pre-existing and naturally evolved early homos. This explains the "Missing Link", how scientist and archealogists seem to keep finding Homo-Habili and Homo-Erectus skeletal remains, but there has never been found a single bone of a creature that actually shows our evolution to there's. It's like there should be something between the two species if we evolved naturally, but there simply isn't.

Graham Hancock wrote a lot about ancient astronaut theory, and David Wilcock has some similar theories for 2012 as well. Then again, they both have **** in their names, so you never know.

The concept of missing links is a joke in itself. Evolution is an ongoing continuum. The "missing link" can never be found because every time a fossil is found, somebody demands a new "missing link" between the new fossil.


Originally posted by godsmack_darius:

You got it goldenarm

Their isnt ANY proof that links us too them.


and bokeef04, did you learn that in your textbook at school or ciollege with that respect, I wouldnt trust it

Your obviously more knowledgeable than somebody whom has a doctorate in biology.

AJ_Rimmer_Bsc
04-11-2010, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by RedXIIIx:
"reasoned response amidst a flock of gibberlings"
.

while i applaud your attempt to inject facts and reason into this thread,i see no way your going to get the tin foilers to accept we are all simply products of accidents and genetic lotterys.

i once tried to explain to a nazi skinhead why i laughed so hard at him sunbathing.

another time i tried to explain to a jehovahs witness that his god was a real nasty piece of work,who`s soldiers [angels] had by his own belief committed attrocities equal to adolfs.

once i even tried explaining to my mrs why she MUST check the oil in her car every few months...

and i failed miserably.

but again,i applaud your attempt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

godsmack_darius
04-11-2010, 04:53 PM
Soo your saying macro evolution is possible? Yeah right.

The closest we get to Macro evolution is micro evolution, Darwinism are just to got up in the fight against creationists so say yeah we are wrong.

Explain why we "evolved" 2 chromosomes magically fused together and our walking technique gets worse.

We cant even adapt to this planet! 25% of north america hasnt even been foot surveyed, coz we cant even get in their, its too diffucult, so they just air survey it.

And, if you just study biology, which I am assuming you do, of course your gonna disagree wtih me.

You dont have to be an expert in any sort of subject too see we didnt come from apes,

you dont have to be an expert in economics to see the monatary system is a fraud.

Coming from an average joe guy like me, I look at different section of the "scientific fact" unlike you, who would look at it from a biology stand point.

And no, We dont demand a missing link, since their isnt that many. but their is no actually missing link, Ive seen the skeltons, ive seen the skulls, and its idiotic too think that we evolved from that in us. and if their was a missing link, their would have to be dozens of missing links to connect us to "them"

And their isnt! coz their isnt any, their wasnt enough time between the information we have know linking alllll the way too us, for them to evolve like that

bokeef04
04-11-2010, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by godsmack_darius:

Explain why we "evolved" 2 chromosomes magically fused together and our walking technique gets worse.

can you explain why people with Turner's syndrome only have 45 chromosomes? or that there are disorders that result in 47 chromosomes?

nothing can 100% adapt to this planet, no creature has adapted completely to this planet, we have humans living on every continent on the planet, how many species have?

I'm waiting for the skeletal pictures which show that apes have different bones to us?

also you say all these textbooks are wrong but what makes you think this Lloyd Pye is infallable? maybe i'll listen to the teaching of Lloyd Pye then go join the scientologists?

I don't have the answer, and i doubt you know it either, you only have a belief, but if you do have the answer then I'd like the conclusive infallable proof please, i was merely giving you my side and pointing out things i know, from which i have learnt first hand, i'm not a biologist or scientist of any kind, i just work with horses

RedXIIIx
04-11-2010, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by godsmack_darius:
Soo your saying macro evolution is possible? Yeah right.

The closest we get to Macro evolution is micro evolution, Darwinism are just to got up in the fight against creationists so say yeah we are wrong.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution in the time frame in which they occur. Speciation has been observed more than enough times.



Explain why we "evolved" 2 chromosomes magically fused together and our walking technique gets worse.

There is not a specific reason why it happened, nor was any magic involved. You are assuming that the fusion of the chromosomes effected our walking technique, but that is not likely as the fusion probably had no phenotypical effect. If the fusion provided no beneficial effects, then it was likely caused by the founder effect and genetic drift. The organization of chromosomes are irrelevant, because only the net amount of genetic information has any affect.



We cant even adapt to this planet! 25% of north america hasnt even been foot surveyed, coz we cant even get in their, its too diffucult, so they just air survey it.

Organisms adapt to their specific environment, not entire planets.



And, if you just study biology, which I am assuming you do, of course your gonna disagree wtih me.

You dont have to be an expert in any sort of subject too see we didnt come from apes,

you dont have to be an expert in economics to see the monatary system is a fraud.


Yes, I am a biology major.

If you were feeling sick, would you go see a doctor or a mechanic?

Would you speak to a physicist about biology?

If you are not an economist, you may be able to make a guess at the current situation, but you would not know if you were correct, nor would you understand why. Likewise, how do you expect to understand evolution when you know so little about it?



Coming from an average joe guy like me, I look at different section of the "scientific fact" unlike you, who would look at it from a biology stand point.

Why would anybody look at biological evolution from any point other than biology or biochemistry?



And no, We dont demand a missing link, since their isnt that many. but their is no actually missing link, Ive seen the skeltons, ive seen the skulls, and its idiotic too think that we evolved from that in us. and if their was a missing link, their would have to be dozens of missing links to connect us to "them"

And their isnt! coz their isnt any, their wasnt enough time between the information we have know linking alllll the way too us, for them to evolve like that

I'm assuming that you are aware that fossilization is an extremely rare process? Skipping from A to C is hardly unreasonable given the low probability of fossilization. The fossil record on it's own may not be sufficient to create a clear image, but when collaborated with genetic evidence, it becomes difficult to ignore.

SWJS
04-11-2010, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by RedXIIIx:
Common Sense, Reason, and Logic Thank you for bringing common sense to this thread. Much appreciated.

Sprayer160
04-11-2010, 11:49 PM
to much time on wikpedia and video games, nothing wrong with that btw.

godsmack_darius
04-13-2010, 08:24 PM
Yes Fossilization is a VERY rare process! "Mother nature" as you like to call it, likes to clean up after herself, if she didnt, I can guarantee you their will be a damn loud of fossils everywhere.

I forget the specfic steps in fossilization, and how it accures, but I no its not as simple as dying, and sinking into the earth and all that cool stuff. its all towards luck. Dont judge me on it

And sprayer160


Nothing wrong with playing to many videos games http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif thats why we are here. when we finish playing them, we discuss them :P

TheDarkKnigg1
04-13-2010, 08:34 PM
Anyone want to talk about how this theory relates to AC2??? That was what i was hoping for :P

goldenarm009
04-14-2010, 02:34 AM
Xios1986



Its a well established Chinese theory that there was once an ancient civilization, highly technologically advanced and more evolved than the present day humans, living a LONG LONG LONG LONG time ago, pre-dating like pre pre pre pre history... you get the picture...

It appears Assassins creed has taken on this theory as its central plot line. Here are my thoughts:

Long before our current state of being there was a time when another race flourished on the earth. This race was highly evolved in comparison to us. you could even say the course of their evolution was more 'complete' than us, in so much as they simply were able to become 'better' than we will ever be able to. Due, in part to the fact we as a species were made by them, so the state of humanity is a distorted imitation of beings we were designed on, It makes allot of sense in respect to our fractured, far from perfect nature as a species.

I think this race (i shall refer to as the 'proto-beings') had a pretty similar course of history to us in many respects, they evolved, through a long time to a point of supreme technological advancement and mental/physical development. Time is relative, advancement as a species is also relative, to us they were highly evolved, purely because we aren't as 'far along' as they got. or possibly because our perception of them is always going to be inferior as we are, by nature, inferior to them.

Eventually they got to a point of technology they could create life, engineer genetics and whatnot, and thus they created a society of beings to do the work they had been doing themselves for so long, (i think humans would do very much the same if we had the opportunity... a practical solution to allot of lifes needs, a synthetically created slave race with a system of mental control as an integral part of the initial design) They designed us very like them as they saw themselves as the most fitting framework to build beings over that could accomplish daily tasks and build and serve e.t.c. (try getting a donkey to build a house...)

Part of the design of this slave race was a system of control, because they understood that any living thing would not like to be a slave, so to solve this (and possibly a moral choice on part of them) they created a system of mental control as part of the design when 'drafting' how to make the slave race, to simply blind their creation (us) from the truth, keeping us in a state of mental illusion. (We can only imagine how far reaching and complete the effects of a willful manipulation of perception of reality will be like to experience)

When designing the race on themselves, it appears they very well may have inadvertantly also distilled in the slave race their (the proto-beings) need from freedom of individuality of choice e.t.c, possibly this is just a natural aspect of sentience they forsaw as an issue in their creation when in the context of them creating a slave race. The natural desire for freedom, anyway.

Part of the design was a system of control, so the Pieces of eden were made along with the slave race, a sembyosis. We as the slave race have in us as part of our very design neuro-transmiters created specifically to be manipulated by the force emited by the pieces of eden (as hinted on in one of the files unlocked in one of the puzzle glyphs), and consequently, the pieces of eden were designed and built specifically to effect that neurotransmitter in us, inorder to control us. As i said, a sembyosis.

This is why the pieces of eden have such an effect over us, it is a specific deliberate relationship between us (humans, the slave race) and the pieces of eden, alone.
The pieces of Eden are advanced 'tools' of technology designed specifically to effect (arguably) every aspect of our being, physically and mentally, en-mass and individually, as we are both (us and the PoEs) two mutual ends of a synthetic creation designed for a specific purpose.

Time went on in this ancient Civilization and for a time everything was ok, we as the slave race worked away blissfully unaware of the truth of our reality, kept indefinately inside a mental prison kept in place by the pieces of eden...

for this was our purpose, the very reason of our creation.

yet the proto-beings made us to much like them and for some reason something changed, unhappiness in us began.
Wether it was cross breeding between the proto beings and humans, or basic evolution.. who knows. What IS known, it seems, as at some point the effect of the pieces of eden seemed to weaken. Now the 'ins and outs' of why where and how and how widespread in regards to this point is easily a long discussion of its own so i will stick to what is known.

a man and a woman of the slave race named Adam and Eve, for whatever reason, knew to some degree that they and their race were being controlled by these pieces of eden, they found themselves, for an amount of time, outside of this mental control.

So they took it upon themselves to revolt against their masters and succeeded in stealing a piece of eden. Now if we are going on established religion as an acurate metaphor, Eve stole the apple from the tree of knowledge (think about the relative metophorical connotations of this statement in relation to the current subject). This caused our entire race to fall from this state of ignorant bliss, to wake up from the mind prison. (to fall from grace)

This created a war, as mentioned by minerva in the end scene. the slave race rose up against the proto-beings after having awakened to the truth of their situation. The slave race either left, or were banished from Eden, the civilized area the proto-beings lived. (man was banished from the gardens of eden).

The war raged, and both the proto-beings and mankind were so busy on eachother a solar flare was not noticed and it hit the earth burning everything to a crisp. very very few survived.

Now it is possible that Adam and eve having the piece of eden heavily influenced the fact they survived the catastrophy, that is protected them somehow, and thus began a new tree of evolution that leads to the present day mankind. (hence the legend of Adam and Eve in established belief)

Ovre time history turned into legend turned into myth and eventually became all but forgotten, twisted and distorted through various political means and the artefacts' (which survived the catastrophy) true purpose was lost. And because we are a species intimately linked with being controlled and manipulated, it grew naturally from us as time went by, and a branch of us became the templars, hell bent on finding these pieces of eden to control and gain power over us all.

It is also possible that a chain of events took place, a long standing prophesy right from the beginning. If you choose to believe that Adam and eve are half human half proto-being (supporting the fact they seem to be immune form the effects of the pieces of eden), and take into account that Subject 16 is a direct descendent of Adam or Eve, and an assassins (this would explain why the assassins have increased agility and certain powers like eagle vision). It is possible that the cross breeding 'had' to have happened, the uprising 'had' to have happened as Eve and Adam HAD to get the apple to survive inorder to be the begining of a line of assassins that reaches up to the present day, through Altair to leave codexes for Ezio for Desmond to experience through him while hooked into the Animus, for Minerva to speak to Desmond through Ezio. Time is relative. Its a chain of events, everything having to be in its place... like a tapestry across time.

Inorder for Minerva to get the message to Desmond that a new catastrophy is coming (solar flare) and this chain of events has put Desmond exactly where he needs to be with the abilities he needs, due to his lineage, inorder to accomplish his task, to find all the pieces of eden and use them to protect the planet from the coming solar flare.

obliviondoll
04-14-2010, 08:43 AM
After seeing the amount of idiocy going on in this thread,I wasn't going to say much, except a congrats to RedXIIIx and the people providing passing support (Yes, I'm even congratulating Rimmer...)

Then I saw a post from godsmack_darius in which I simply couldn't bring myself to disregard the horrific dismemberment of the English language. What follows is the result of me correcting spelling and removing any grammatical errors to see if I have anything left. I'm correcting, but leaving unmarked, obvious typos, only picking up something looking like a typo if it's repeated. I'm also assuming he simply managed to misspell "there" a lot.


Originally posted by godsmack_darius:
Soo you're saying macro evolution is possible? Yeah right.

The closest we get to Macro evolution is micro evolution, <STRIKE>Darwinism are just to got up in the fight against creationists so say</STRIKE> yeah we are wrong.

Explain why we "evolved" 2 chromosomes magically fused together and our walking technique gets worse. Why is this even here? No relevance between number of chromosomes and method of locomotion...

We cant even adapt to this planet! 25% of north america hasn't even been foot surveyed, coz we cant even get in there, its too difficult, so they just air survey it.

And, if you just study biology, which I am assuming you do, of course you're gonna disagree with me.

You don't have to be an expert in any sort of subject to see we didn't come from apes.

You don't have to be an expert in economics to see the monetary system is a fraud.

Coming from an average Joe (names, even in this context, should be capitalised) guy like me, <STRIKE>I look at different section of the "scientific fact" unlike you</STRIKE>, who would look at it from a biology stand point.

And no, we don't demand a missing link, since their <STRIKE>isn't that many. [STRIKE]But their is no actually missing link, Ive seen the skeltons, ive seen the skulls, and its idiotic too think that we evolved from that in us. and if their was a missing link, their would have to be dozens of missing links to connect us to "them"</STRIKE> I gave up on this section, as there was a mass of spelling and grammatical errors my daughter would have picked up 2 years ago. When she was 4. Even fixing all the spelling (assuming you actually know the word "there" is a stretch) the whole section needed to go because it's unintelligible.

<STRIKE>And their isnt! Coz their isnt any, their wasnt enough time between the information we have know linking alllll the way too us, for them to evolve like that</STRIKE> Start from the first point where I gave up, get in mind what you wanted to say, and type. This time, once you stop typing, reread your work to make sure you ACTUALLY wrote what you intended to say.

If it's still this bad, then your claim of "average joe" is a claim that the majority of whatever country you live in is less literate than the average 4-year-old where I live.

Assassin_M
04-14-2010, 01:51 PM
The Sumaerians arent the Oldest People The EGyptians are 7000 years ago they existed

El_Sjietah
04-14-2010, 02:01 PM
More like 5000 years ago.

goldenarm009
04-14-2010, 03:09 PM
The Sumaerians arent the Oldest People The EGyptians are 7000 years ago they existed

There is evidence that modern human beings existed 200,000 years ago. There are also civilizations that predate the Egyptians and the Sumarians by thousands of years.

TheDarkKnigg1
04-14-2010, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by goldenarm009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Sumaerians arent the Oldest People The EGyptians are 7000 years ago they existed

There is evidence that modern human beings existed 200,000 years ago. There are also civilizations that predate the Egyptians and the Sumarians by thousands of years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to expand on that, i would like to know....

Six_Gun
04-14-2010, 09:53 PM
I hate to sound biased toward either scientific or spiritual theories, opinions or beliefs, but there's ways to argue just about every one out there. One thing that's ironic though is religious beliefs are more often than not argued based on lack of proof, making many accept scientist's form of proof sound convincing because it's often in terms most don't comprehend. However despite being backed by mere spiritual testimonies and often hard to believe religious stories in various forms of bibles, scientific theories often sound far fetched too, but are somehow accepted by many just because they sound elaborate and are tied together with explanations that aren't necessarily even convincing.

Example, if we were engineered by a highly advance race why tell me do many of us have inferior genes of cancer and other diseases? Would we not be like the genetically engineered super beings many sci fi movies tell of? Like I said, I don't like to cling specifically to religious or scientific beliefs or opinions, but I do find chat on the web to weigh heavily toward the latter and discount the former, when in fact there are so many theories brought up that are about as well thought through as the invention of plastic was concerning the environment.

After I hear all the science biased talk over any one of numerous subjects, I often sit back and think, at this point, a supreme being, God if you will, having created everything and all of us, makes a lot more sense than some of these hole filled theories, even if the stories people and their religions come up with about him sound far fetched. I've read a fair amount about the studies and findings related to planetary and galactic alignment, and it's hard to say what if anything will happen regarding human tragedy, but I think it's good to point out that many classical Mayan beliefs indicated they thought 2012 would bring a golden spiritual age, not catastrophe.

The fact is you can create catastrophe just by talking about it too much, people will believe most anything when they're panicked or intrigued. Imagine how Orson Wells must have felt when he learned many had committed suicide over his War of the Worlds broadcast? If you read enough of what's out there about 2012, even though the doom predicting far outweighs any rebuttals of it, I think you'll find that the evidence supporting it is as thin as the paper such books are printed on. It's primarily a big money making machine for those whom prey on the curious.

goldenarm009
04-15-2010, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by goldenarm009:

quote:
The Sumaerians arent the Oldest People The EGyptians are 7000 years ago they existed



There is evidence that modern human beings existed 200,000 years ago. There are also civilizations that predate the Egyptians and the Sumarians by thousands of years.



Care to expand on that, i would like to know....

sure, a basic internet search would have told u that but...

"Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago... by 50,000 BP (Before Present), full behavioral modernity, including language, music and other cultural universals had developed."
-wikipedia

obliviondoll
04-15-2010, 05:53 AM
Great job, goldenarm.

Here, have another excerpt from the same page you quoted:

"Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society."

And the link, for those who feel like checking references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Now all you need to ask yourself is, are we looking at the advent of humans biologically, 200,000 years ago, or at the advent of human CIVILISATION, which was a mere 10,000 years ago?

Here's a clue...


Originally posted by TheDarkKnigg1:
I just found out about THE oldest human civilization on Earth

Xanatos2007
04-15-2010, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by goldenarm009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Sumaerians arent the Oldest People The EGyptians are 7000 years ago they existed

There is evidence that modern human beings existed 200,000 years ago. There are also civilizations that predate the Egyptians and the Sumarians by thousands of years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indigenous Australians (Aboriginals) apparently have been here for over 40,000 years. How do they know this? I don't know, they must've found some ancient cave graffiti saying "Waka Mgumbi waz her - 40,503BC" or something.

@Obliviondoll: Thanks for the spell-check on Pg1, it was beginning to hurt my eyes.

AMuppetMatt
04-15-2010, 08:58 AM
This isn't directly responding to anyone's post, I'm just making a comment that (don't worry) IS relevant.

Me and my mate often have big philosophical discussions and the outcomes are interesting, but one thing I don't get is this. He's a very devout Christian, and here is a (rough) script of one of the things I said when we were discussing humans and creation etc.

ME: OK Josh, what's more plausible? That humans were created in 1 day, supposedly almost instantaneously. Not only that, but the only evidence for this is one book written thousands of years ago. Books can be changed,there can be lies in books; and anyway, the part of the book I'm referring to isn't even written by a Christian, but a Jew. Jews still believe that you have to be circumsized to get to heaven, and yet you sit there saying that they're wrong about that. Why not Genesis?

Not only that, but you're saying that we were created by God. The only evidence for God is in one book (again, lies, misinterpretations in books). You can't see God, you can't see what he does (or at least everything so far has been explained by science), you can't hear God, you can't feel God.

So what sounds more crazy. That we were created in 1 day by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that no-one can see and the only evidence that this thing even exists is in one book.
OR
That we were created by genetics (which in theory humans CAN do right now) by Aliens or some higher civilisation. Look at the stars, look how many there are, tell me we're alone. What sounds more crazy?


Josh: The Alien one.



I'm not hear to debate anyone's faith, since that discussion I've become a Christian. However, don't be blinded because you've been brought up since day 1 to believe in God, go to Church every Sunday and pray every day. Because looking at it with an open mind, I know which one sounds more plausible (even though both sound pretty far fetched in truth).

Don't be blinded by faith

El_Sjietah
04-15-2010, 09:14 AM
Actually, it's even more plausible that life as we know it originated on earth and we are simply the result of millions of years of evolution. However, we as a species are too arrogant to accept such a down to earth explanation for how we came to be and why we're here, so we come up with these ridiculous stories of omnipotent beings and alien life forms that genetically engineered us, just so we can feel better about ourselves for the measly 80 years we spend in this universe.

/depressive rant

Murcuseo
04-15-2010, 09:47 AM
lol I love religious discussions, they're destined to go nowhere and achieve nothing but they're so much fun... especially when you get a scientific minded person and religious person in the same room... it's awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

No matter what you believe in, be it god, aliens races, mad scientists or nothing at all the most important belief or faith to have is in oneself.

I'm the live and let live type... if something you believe in doesn't effect me in any negative way you can believe what you like. If it helps you deal with life, its all good to me!

Although I do enjoy an ethusiastic discussion about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

As soon as you use religion to assert power on other people it becomes something entirely different, but I'm not even gona go there...oh, wait...to late...doh lol

AMuppetMatt
04-15-2010, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Actually, it's even more plausible that life as we know it originated on earth and we are simply the result of millions of years of evolution. However, we as a species are too arrogant to accept such a down to earth explanation for how we came to be and why we're here, so we come up with these ridiculous stories of omnipotent beings and alien life forms that genetically engineered us, just so we can feel better about ourselves for the measly 80 years we spend in this universe.

/depressive rant

Don't get me wrong, this is what I think happened. But I was using the more extreme example of Aliens to level the playing field with the whole "You just can't see him" thing. It all sounds a bit like Santa to be honest (remember, this is coming from a Christian).

El_Sjietah
04-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by AMuppetMatt:
Don't get me wrong, this is what I think happened. But I was using the more extreme example of Aliens to level the playing field with the whole "You just can't see him" thing. It all sounds a bit like Santa to be honest (remember, this is coming from a Christian).

Ah, I see.

Wasn't meant to attack you personally btw. Just had to get that off my chest.

goldenarm009
04-15-2010, 01:23 PM
Although I didn't start this thread myself, I can only assume that it's purpose was not to argue the existence of god, but rather it's relevance to the game itself.

The storyline of the game has taken on the idea of a massive conspiracy changing everything we think we know about human history.

In terms of Assassins Creed, these are facts:

Minerva tells Desmond through Ezio, that we were created by not one, but many "Gods", and a Great War raged between man and the Gods. This war distracted them from noticing a solar flare, which had a cataclysmic affect on the earth.

But let's be clear: we are talking about the storyline of the game, not real life.

Murcuseo
04-15-2010, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by goldenarm009:
Although I didn't start this thread myself, I can only assume that it's purpose was not to argue the existence of god, but rather it's relevance to the game itself.

The storyline of the game has taken on the idea of a massive conspiracy changing everything we think we know about human history.

In terms of Assassins Creed, these are facts:

Minerva tells Desmond through Ezio, that we were created by not one, but many "Gods", and a Great War raged between man and the Gods. This war distracted them from noticing a solar flare, which had a cataclysmic affect on the earth.

But let's be clear: we are talking about the storyline of the game, not real life.

Aaawww, stop it... you're spoiling the fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

SWJS
04-15-2010, 02:05 PM
It all sounds a bit like Santa to be honest (remember, this is coming from a Christian). Actually, St. Nicholas was a real person. Someone just told stories about him.

As for my beliefs, I combine religion and science. I believe in god, and heaven, etc. But, I also believe in evolution. I like to think of DNA as Legos, and God sitting and making all sorts of things out of Legos. Natural Selection = Strong lego structures go on to be added onto, weak lego structures fall appart. I like to think of the science of Evolution as God experimenting with his creations for the best result. Kind of like The Sims.

As for the whole "Earth being created in 7 days" thing, I believe 4 Billion Years is Seven Days to God. After all, a supreme, immortal being would probably feel like years were days.

While this isn't the point, I look up to God for salvation. I fear death, but the belief in heaven helps me to dampen this fear. I'm still capable of logic and reasoning, but the belief in God helps me to feel better about the fact that I could drop dead any minute of any day.

Plus, after my mom passed away, the belief I'll meet her again in heaven heps me to move on. It's not true that religion is just lies made up to control the masses. I have the choice to believe in it or not, and if I do believe, my take on life is better, and thus I am a better person for it.

godsmack_darius
04-15-2010, 07:10 PM
Humans (us, not apes, primates neandorfals, or however you spell it) only fdate back 200,000 years ago, we are brand spankin new on this planet. And I dont wanna get into arguments, but that is my belief, and Im pretty sure the Sumerians were the first civilization, but their are probably humans before them too,

shimpaku
04-15-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Actually, St. Nicholas was a real person. Someone just told stories about him.

As for my beliefs, I combine religion and science. I believe in god, and heaven, etc. But, I also believe in evolution. I like to think of DNA as Legos, and God sitting and making all sorts of things out of Legos. Natural Selection = Strong lego structures go on to be added onto, weak lego structures fall appart. I like to think of the science of Evolution as God experimenting with his creations for the best result. Kind of like The Sims.

As for the whole "Earth being created in 7 days" thing, I believe 4 Billion Years is Seven Days to God. After all, a supreme, immortal being would probably feel like years were days.

While this isn't the point, I look up to God for salvation. I fear death, but the belief in heaven helps me to dampen this fear. I'm still capable of logic and reasoning, but the belief in God helps me to feel better about the fact that I could drop dead any minute of any day.

Plus, after my mom passed away, the belief I'll meet her again in heaven heps me to move on. It's not true that religion is just lies made up to control the masses. I have the choice to believe in it or not, and if I do believe, my take on life is better, and thus I am a better person for it.

Well put. Almost my same sentiments/beliefs in God and religion albeit I'll have to disagree a tad with the idea of God experimenting, but a good analogy nonetheless. lol

RedXIIIx
04-15-2010, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It all sounds a bit like Santa to be honest (remember, this is coming from a Christian). Actually, St. Nicholas was a real person. Someone just told stories about him.

As for my beliefs, I combine religion and science. I believe in god, and heaven, etc. But, I also believe in evolution. I like to think of DNA as Legos, and God sitting and making all sorts of things out of Legos. Natural Selection = Strong lego structures go on to be added onto, weak lego structures fall appart. I like to think of the science of Evolution as God experimenting with his creations for the best result. Kind of like The Sims.

As for the whole "Earth being created in 7 days" thing, I believe 4 Billion Years is Seven Days to God. After all, a supreme, immortal being would probably feel like years were days.

While this isn't the point, I look up to God for salvation. I fear death, but the belief in heaven helps me to dampen this fear. I'm still capable of logic and reasoning, but the belief in God helps me to feel better about the fact that I could drop dead any minute of any day.

Plus, after my mom passed away, the belief I'll meet her again in heaven heps me to move on. It's not true that religion is just lies made up to control the masses. I have the choice to believe in it or not, and if I do believe, my take on life is better, and thus I am a better person for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is fair enough, and a somewhat common view; usually refereed to as theistic evolution. However, keep in mind that you cannot combine science and religion and still call the former science. Science is the process of making observations of the natural world and using those observations to explain natural phenomena, which cannot include any supernatural events or entities. If a supernatural being was involved with the process of evolution, then it may no longer be called science for it requires a supernatural entity. Your Lego analogy cannot coexist with evolution, because God's experiments replace the primary mechanism of natural selection; random mutations.

On a side note, I would challenge the logical coherence of your beliefs. Why does an omnipotent and omniscient entity need experiments in order to find the ideal results? If the best solution was known, why not just jump from A to Z and skip all of the intermediates and failed experiments?

In reference to the creation of the Earth; are you supporting the idea of a literal interpretation of Genesis, over an extended time period, or a god guided "pseudo-natural" development?

I would agree with your sentiment on your last point. While I may not personally subscribe to such a belief, I would be a fool to deny that religious beliefs/experiences have a profound effect on some people.

Just as a disclaimer, I would like to say that I am not personally attacking you. In such discussion I am often perceived as being overly aggressive or even hostile. While I disagree with the concept of theistic evolution, I offer you my respect, because it does show me that you are a rational and open minded person, rather than a willfully ignorant sheep. I partake in such discussions because I find it enjoyable to challenge other people's positions, not to attack, mock or belittle people's views.

SWJS
04-16-2010, 01:39 AM
Please think nothing of it. Your post is actually one of the more constructive and reasonable replies I've recieved. It's certainly better than "Stop talking. Seriously. Every post only makes you look even more foolish than you already do."

I understand your point about God and Science being like oil and water. They don't really mix. Which is true. One of the major reasons I think of them both in this manner is simply because I think it's, how should I put this, "ludicrous" that the belief in evolution makes you an atheist, or some such. By combining the two and saying God used evolution to help create his creations, it justifies many of the arguments posed between Christians like myself, and scientists. And personally, since the eggheads did more-or-less prove the theory of evolution to be fact, I find it silly that my bretheren refuse to accept it.

I understand that you would question the logics of the belief I support. Everyone has opinions, and we're entitled to them, no matter how "outlandish" they may be. The entire idea of God experimenting is just my theoretical explaination for how he might use Evolution to create life. As we've all seen, God's creations aren't perfect, as proven by extinctions, the fall of empires, etc. A better analogy would probably be God cooking, since cooking can be considered a form of Chemistry. To make the perfect dish, he must use the right ingredients, and he must cook these ingredients at the right temperature for the right amount of time. Some dishes fail and must be thrown out. Other dishes prove to be quite good, and therefore can be expanded on, such as adding cheese to a ham sandwich. Thus you have an analogy of how God would use Natural Selection, from my point of view.

An iterpretation of Genesis. Scientists have proven the Earth took 4 billion years to form. My interpretation is such: God not having the sense of time we have. Time may go by faster to him than us. An example would be A century only being a minute to him. That is my take on both Genesis and Earth's formation in scientific fact.

Indeed. Which brings me to another point. I would never commit crimes in real life, for I am a moral person. I do however, commit crimes in video games like GTA, because to me it isn't real, and as such I can shoot an NPC in cold blood and it not mean anything to me. I take refuge from the real world in video games, where I can do anything I normally couldn't IRL.

I know I myself can be tempermental and thick-headed at times, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make it a challenge to discredit the beliefs of others. As you stated, I enjoy partaking in such discussions because I enjoy expressing my opinions. Such is the purpose of a Message Board.


Originally posted by Shimpaku:
Well put. Almost my same sentiments/beliefs in God and religion albeit I'll have to disagree a tad with the idea of God experimenting, but a good analogy nonetheless. lol Thank you.

El_Sjietah
04-16-2010, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Please think nothing of it. Your post is actually one of the more constructive and reasonable replies I've recieved. It's certainly better than "Stop talking. Seriously. Every post only makes you look even more foolish than you already do."


That wasn't even about this subject. I actually thought your post about religion was well thought through, even though I don't share your opinion.

RedXIIIx
04-16-2010, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Please think nothing of it. Your post is actually one of the more constructive and reasonable replies I've recieved. It's certainly better than "Stop talking. Seriously. Every post only makes you look even more foolish than you already do."

I understand your point about God and Science being like oil and water. They don't really mix. Which is true. One of the major reasons I think of them both in this manner is simply because I think it's, how should I put this, "ludicrous" that the belief in evolution makes you an atheist, or some such. By combining the two and saying God used evolution to help create his creations, it justifies many of the arguments posed between Christians like myself, and scientists. And personally, since the eggheads did more-or-less prove the theory of evolution to be fact, I find it silly that my bretheren refuse to accept it.

I understand that you would question the logics of the belief I support. Everyone has opinions, and we're entitled to them, no matter how "outlandish" they may be. The entire idea of God experimenting is just my theoretical explaination for how he might use Evolution to create life. As we've all seen, God's creations aren't perfect, as proven by extinctions, the fall of empires, etc. A better analogy would probably be God cooking, since cooking can be considered a form of Chemistry. To make the perfect dish, he must use the right ingredients, and he must cook these ingredients at the right temperature for the right amount of time. Some dishes fail and must be thrown out. Other dishes prove to be quite good, and therefore can be expanded on, such as adding cheese to a ham sandwich. Thus you have an analogy of how God would use Natural Selection, from my point of view.

An iterpretation of Genesis. Scientists have proven the Earth took 4 billion years to form. My interpretation is such: God not having the sense of time we have. Time may go by faster to him than us. An example would be A century only being a minute to him. That is my take on both Genesis and Earth's formation in scientific fact.

Indeed. Which brings me to another point. I would never commit crimes in real life, for I am a moral person. I do however, commit crimes in video games like GTA, because to me it isn't real, and as such I can shoot an NPC in cold blood and it not mean anything to me. I take refuge from the real world in video games, where I can do anything I normally couldn't IRL.

I know I myself can be tempermental and thick-headed at times, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make it a challenge to discredit the beliefs of others. As you stated, I enjoy partaking in such discussions because I enjoy expressing my opinions. Such is the purpose of a Message Board.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shimpaku:
Well put. Almost my same sentiments/beliefs in God and religion albeit I'll have to disagree a tad with the idea of God experimenting, but a good analogy nonetheless. lol Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The support for evolution = atheism is indeed a conundrum, but it can be circumvented. From what I gather, your position subscribes to the idea of theistic evolution fairly closely.

1)Essentially, you support evolution, but believe that God set the initial conditions of the universe "prior" to the Big Bang and personally intervenes in the development of the universe and the continual creation of life. God mixes the ingredients, sees how well they bake and changes the recipe when necessary. Is that roughly correct?

That would be the position I have a bit of a gripe with. When science and "not-science" are compared, I would say that a middle ground does not exist. There is a solid line that separates biology, physics, etc from alchemy, creationism, theistic evolution, etc. It is the intervening of God that intertwines the natural world with the supernatural world. Once that happens, evolution can no longer be considered science. Of course theistic evolution is closer to the line than creationism, but it is still on the not-science half.

There is an alternative which seems to satisfies theism, without infringing upon science.

2)God set the initial condition of the universe "prior" to the Big Bang and let everything else develop on it's own, without any intervention. The Earth and all of the life it contains is the product of evolution; a process in which only the relative fitness of an organism determines it's fate. In other words, only the mechanisms were provided.

This position could be further modified to bring about a spin-off idea.

2.5)Since God is omniscient, it could be argued that the idea of "God's plan" is permissible or that evolution purposely resulted in Humans. If the future is known, God could have designed the natural processes in such a way that would end up in such a result. If such a scenario were true, it wouldn't infringe upon science because it would still take place outside of our realm.

My question to you is; which (if any) seems more agreeable, and why?
(This is starting to sound like an essay question, which ironically I actually wrote a paper on earlier this semester.)

AMuppetMatt
04-16-2010, 04:44 AM
I would like to chip in with something here, because I believe roughly what EziotheAssassin believes, however I'm guessing he'll come up with a different answer to your question(s). I'll have my say, I'm sure he'll have his (after all, I've started quite an interesting debate about God http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ... who could resist? )

1. Actually, I quite firmly believe that there is a middle ground to science and theism (or even monotheism). There is a famous old saying when it comes to the battle of Science V Religion, and that is "Maybe science is the answer to how and not to why?".
If you take science as a whole and look at what it has no only discovered but done (genetic engineering [making a mouse luminous by implanting the gene from a jellyfish], the cloning of Dolly the Sheep) you can't sit there and then say that we were created in a day or that we just popped into existence because a man in the clouds made it so. There is too much evidence and proof that we evolved . Science has taught us that much, and anybody who suggests that we were 'created' (if that is the right word here), cannot possibly just ignore everything that has been discovered.



I'm gonna now say the argument that actually turned me into a Christian. I think it's called the Teleological argument, but I might be wrong. If I've got the name wrong, I appologise.

Imagine that you are walking through a field, a meadow. You're walking through this field, and there are no landmarks, no building, no nothing. There is just rolling hills of grass. You're walking along and you come across a stone or small rock lying on the ground next to your foot. You can just assume that it got there by chance.
You pick it up, put it in your pocket and carry on walking.
After a bit, you stop and look down. Next to your foot; there is a small, working pocket watch, lying there on the ground. That couldn't have got there by chance, therefore, it's logical to suggest that someone, namely a watchmaker, made it.

Us being here is just like finding that pocket watch. I believe that God simply oversaw our evolution, that evolution did happen, but that he gave it a 'nudge' in the direction he wanted. Therefore, we were 'created', but we also 'evolved'.


2. (and 2.5) not sure if that's roughly what I said above, but I think that it is one of the few ways of looking at it where I don't have a problem with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


(Maybe we should rename this thread "Deep Philosophical Discussions "? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

SWJS
04-16-2010, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Please think nothing of it. Your post is actually one of the more constructive and reasonable replies I've recieved. It's certainly better than "Stop talking. Seriously. Every post only makes you look even more foolish than you already do."


That wasn't even about this subject. I actually thought your post about religion was well thought through, even though I don't share your opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you.

Originally posted by RedXIIIx:
The support for evolution = atheism is indeed a conundrum, but it can be circumvented. From what I gather, your position subscribes to the idea of theistic evolution fairly closely.

1)Essentially, you support evolution, but believe that God set the initial conditions of the universe "prior" to the Big Bang and personally intervenes in the development of the universe and the continual creation of life. God mixes the ingredients, sees how well they bake and changes the recipe when necessary. Is that roughly correct?

That would be the position I have a bit of a gripe with. When science and "not-science" are compared, I would say that a middle ground does not exist. There is a solid line that separates biology, physics, etc from alchemy, creationism, theistic evolution, etc. It is the intervening of God that intertwines the natural world with the supernatural world. Once that happens, evolution can no longer be considered science. Of course theistic evolution is closer to the line than creationism, but it is still on the not-science half.

There is an alternative which seems to satisfies theism, without infringing upon science.

2)God set the initial condition of the universe "prior" to the Big Bang and let everything else develop on it's own, without any intervention. The Earth and all of the life it contains is the product of evolution; a process in which only the relative fitness of an organism determines it's fate. In other words, only the mechanisms were provided.

This position could be further modified to bring about a spin-off idea.

2.5)Since God is omniscient, it could be argued that the idea of "God's plan" is permissible or that evolution purposely resulted in Humans. If the future is known, God could have designed the natural processes in such a way that would end up in such a result. If such a scenario were true, it wouldn't infringe upon science because it would still take place outside of our realm.

My question to you is; which (if any) seems more agreeable, and why?
(This is starting to sound like an essay question, which ironically I actually wrote a paper on earlier this semester.) 1) Yes, that is fairly correct.

I understand. Make no mistake though, I do know the difference between science and theism. My decision to unify them, even though not scientifically possible, is merely to justify believing in both God and evolution, something many Christians are against. However, I was never aware that there was a solution that satisfies theists. I find that very interesting.

2)That makes sense. Basically God set the mechanisms for life in place, and let it develope on it's on. Much like releasing a baby bird into the wild once it can fly. It is a viable and interesting theory, I could believe that.

2.5) While I can never turn away from my beliefs, I would agree that the second explaination is profusly better. It can better explain how the beliefs of both theists and scientists can be intertwined to justify both, and still keep science from turning into sci-fi-fantasy. I am very flexible in my beliefs, and as such, I'm more open to a solution that accurately justifies my two opposing beliefs, allowing them to become one, without impossibly melding them together. So I can have my ham sandwich with cheese, but all the ingredients are still seperate from each other.

AMuppetMatt's thestic evolution idea is also a very good and welcome idea. While we can never come up with a perfect solution, it is nice to be able to believe it what you want, as well as it making sense to other people and being agreeable to others. It helps the world be a better place.

RedXIIIx
04-16-2010, 09:46 PM
Since these posts are becoming ridiculously large, I'll skip the quoting this time.

AMuppetMatt:

Heh, welcome; the more the merrier.

It is indeed called the Teleological argument, but is also known as the argument from design. I must admit, it is one of the arguments that I dread, but you spun it in a different direction. The argument is typically used by intelligent design proponents, whom deny the occurrence of evolution, in favor of creation by God. Your opinion obviously differs.

The accursed watchmaker analogy. Once again, you spun the argument in a pro-science way. The argument typically follows the notion that a complex item cannot randomly assemble itself - a painting needs a painter, or a watch needs a watchmaker. That analogy simply does not work, because neither a watch or a painting are of biological origin and capable of self reproduction. A common example would be the human eyeball. ID proponents argue that the eyeball is too complex to develop by "chance" - the irreducible complexity argument. That argument does not hold up either, because the variation of the eyeball can be seen and the complexity increases in stages. Many biologists, such as Ken Miller have made an interesting refutation/analogy to that argument.

I know that the above is not the position you hold, but I needed to say that before I can proceed. From what I can tell, you seem to be follow position one closer than position 2/2.5. Just to clarify, in position one, when I said "continual creation of life," I was referring to creating life by means of an evolutionary process. Or in your words, God gave evolution a nude.

This is where I would disagree. Even if life developed by natural means, such as evolution, it cannot be considered scientific if God nudged it in anyway, other than designing evolution. It can no longer be called science if a supernatural event/entity changed the outcome. This is why I prefer position 2/2.5, because it is similar, but science and religion are on the same field, but on different axes. Science strictly consists of observing the natural world. If God interacts in the natural world by "nudging" evolution, then it is no longer a natural process.

I may have repeated myself a bit, but oh well.


EzioTheAssassin:

Unfortunately I cannot type another page long response to you, since we more or less reached an agreement. Although, your signature could be viewed as support for Scientology http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif All hail Xenu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I've been engaged in such debates for many years now. Back then, my goal was to "deconvert" theists from their faith, by using science. Of course, that rarely worked, because they either didn't care if science opposed their views, created a science-theism explanation (theistic evolution), or just plugged their ears and ran off in ignorance (creationists).

These days I just argue for scientific literacy. My gripe was never about religion or religious people themselves, but rather their ignorance or mutilation of science. While I would still argue that theistic evolution is a minor "mutilation" of science, it is obviously significantly better than creationism. As you said, theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile theism and science, rather than just picking a side. For such reasons, I have been trying to increase exposure to position 2/2.5. You said that you were not aware that such a reconciliation was possible, and I'm sure you're not the only one. Essentially I say, "Keep your faith if you wish, but try looking at it this way."

This is one of the better discussions I have had in a long while. Being able to have a constructive debate without turning into a massive flame war is a luxury.

SWJS
04-16-2010, 10:58 PM
Hahaha. It could. However, I believe that among the trillions upon trillions of stars in just our galaxy a lone, at least one must have some type of Sentient, Extraterrestrial Life, living on a planet that is suitable for life. I actually find Scientology's belief to be more far fetched that Christianity's belief. Aliens dropping frozen souls into volcanos via golden airplanes. Cracks me up every time.

I've come to realise most of that plugging of the ears comes from people who use The Bible as an instruction manual for life. In truth, I don't see it as that. I see it as a guide, helping us stay along the good path, without forcing us to stay on it for all time. As long as we appologize or "repent" for our mistakes, it's okay to stray from the path and live a good life. If god truly loves his children, why send them to hell for something as minor as a cuss word, or eating too much? Forgive and Forget. I can understand hell as a punishment for murder or adultery, but going to hell for simply having a cookie out of mealtime is far-fetched to me. To me, as long as I believe and keep faith in God, I have his blessing. This is why I am open to new ideas.

Yes. It certainly is hard to be between the theists and logicists. Sometimes even talking to theists about an idea would make them throw the bible at you. Or beat you over the head with it. While I respect their beliefs, it makes no sense why they can listen to reason. I'm glad we were able to reach an agreement without hostilities. As you said, flame wars rage across the internet. I've been in a few, and they're never fun, unless you're a troll. I believe that if we all tried to come to some form of solution to each problem instead of trying to kill each other, we may possibly extinguish the fires and move on.

Look at silly me, building another wall of text.

AMuppetMatt
04-17-2010, 06:59 AM
Ezio: Well said, agree 100% on all points there.

Red: Have to say you've got me on that one, give me a week and I might have a response http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think we've successfully hijacked this thread, still, it's better than the other nonsense that was being weaved by others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(Hooray for the shortest post of a long while)

SWJS
04-17-2010, 01:26 PM
I think we've successfully hijacked this thread, still, it's better than the other nonsense that was being weaved by others Big Grin Amen to that.

godsmack_darius
04-17-2010, 01:35 PM
Wow, I like this new guy. Their should be more posts like the one he just sent, very understanding.

Although, my brain hurts form reading it...so scientific. I only understood the last part :P in that respect