Death_By_Pod

What is the cause of Gods exsistance? What caused God? The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that God couldnt have always exsisted, so if he exsists he needs a creator and his creator needs a creator ad infinitum. If you put the entire universe on a 24 hour time frame, the exsistance of humans makes up the last two seconds of that 24 hour time frame. Evolution is pretty slow. No, I"m sorry, but it says everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence. God's current definition leaves him at beginningless. And Chambochae, you didn't really offer any proof for your reasoning that physics doesn't apply to the universe... says who? The Queen of England? P.S read my posts all of you; you just ignore them like the plague (because they have some meaning).

I've seen you get this wrong so many times now. The laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics, only apply to things inside our universe, not NECESSARILY the universe itself. In order to prove your reasoning, you would have to prove the laws of physics apply to the universe as a unit, in other words you would have to prove that the laws of thermodynamics apply outside this universe, and for all you know the concept might not even make sense. In the same way that for all we know pi could be a number other than 3.14... , or that 'numbers' have no recognisable definition, or that the concept of 'definition' doesn't make any sense at all! You are reasoning with things that you just don't know hold any relevance whatsoever to the situation. I'm a bit confused, because it seems to me that the law of thermodinamics applies to the total amount of useable energy in the universe, and states that as time progresses, this number drops... Eg. at the big bang, there was so much available energy in so small a space that it was impossible for even hydrogen atoms to exist... but as time progressed, and the universe inflated, the overall level of useable energy dropped, leading to the first atoms being born... As time progressed, more and more energy became unavailable, allowing stars and heavier elements to form. Eventually, we come to the universe in the condition that it is in now... but as time progresses, the amount of useable energy continues to decrease (radioactive decay, and solar fusion being two examples) Please correct me where I'm wrong, but it really seems to me that because the law of thermodynamics applies to all things in the universe, it just makes sence that it is applying to the entire universe (because, after all, the universe is the sum of its components...) Also, I would argue that numers have an inherent value appart from humans assigning it to them: eg, before pi was known, the circumfrence of a circle was equal to its diameter times pi... that was something that humans simply found out, not something we invented. Pi can not be any number other then what it is, because by deffinition, pi is the number you get when you divide a circle's circumferance by its diameter... which happens to be approximately 3.14... and would be regardless of what it was called, or what circle you use to determine it. In the same way, two is exactly this many periods ".." it isn't this many, "..." or this many, "." because two is the convention that we use for this many periods ".." (and every other concievable object in that quantity) the meaning behind the word was there long before the word was coined, and the meaning will remain long after the word "two" ceaces to be used. So where does this meaning come from? Where, other then intelligence, has meaning ever come from? What rock assigns meaning to the term, "limestone?" What star defined "white dwarf?" What atom created the meaning of "iron?" In truth, it is humans who gave meaning to these terms, before meaning was assigned, the term "white dwarf" could have refered anything, or nothing at all. Intelligence is the only force that has been observed to give things meaning. And I would argue is the only force capable of doing so... so the fact that there are things that have meaning apart from human deffinition (abstract concepts like numbers being counted among these "things" but in fact, everything has an inherent meaning if you really think about it; limestone was what it is before it was assigned that name [humans gave the name, not the object, meaning] and will continue to be what it is even if it ever ceaces to be called limestone) points to some sort of overmind that created and gave meaning to them... and to a Christian, that is part of who God is... He's much more then that, though. In fact, no matter what box, I try to put God in, He just won't fit. To attempt to define Him is to do Him a great injustice. Good points Jonnysmum, especially about Jesus being a horrible failure as far as con artists are concerned :wink: Funny, isn't it, that throughout the Bible, prophets (people who speak on God's behalf) have backed up their words from Him with clear evidences (miracles) Show me a miracle, and I'll believe you... until then, I'll happily go on being stupid in your eyes, (as I suspect will most Christians :wink: ) because we're interested in doing what makes Daddy happy, even if that doesn't neccicarily lead to the good will of our fellow man :wink: His idea of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like was later proven to be skewed. If in fact a proper mix was used, I will grant that "organic" molecules would have formed, but nothing that is at all useful for creating life. He would have come up with embalming fluid... (which for those of you who don't know, is toxic to absolutely all forms of life, because of damage that it reeks on the cellular level) :roll: Though interesting historically, Miller's experiment proved nothing... To be honest, I wish that people would stop pretending that it "proves" evolution... Even my Historical Geology teacher from two years ago agreed with me on this point. I would also point out that life is more then simply ameno acids... They have to combine in a precise order to create a protine that is capable of self replication. The only force that has ever been observed to create order out of chaos is intelligence. Because of the complexity of the ordering neccicary, and the fact that most cellular systems can not be simplified without losing functionality entirely, it really does not make sence to say that life originated from any force other then intelligence. Ok, I will try and give a response to you. Firstly the problem of physics is that we can not go to every location in the universe and test the laws of physics. We know that the law's of our physics work on planet earth and to a less of an extent the solar system and the galaxy and most likely the rest visible universe. However it is impossible to really know if other galaxies conform to ours. Maybe they consist entirely of anti-particles or maybe it exists in a slightly cooler part of the universe which has undergone another phase transition providing another force for it to play with. It is just really difficult to tell; and this is just INSIDE our visible part of the universe. There could be even more mysterious things lurking about (not to mention stuff inside our visible universe). There could be whole new universes inside our universe. The law may work now (because it is obviously what we observe) but it may fail in the future if the universe collapses. It's like saying the sun is this temperature so therefore it must alway be this temperature; further observation shows this is false and may happen for the second law of thermodynamics as well. What you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see to get is that our laws of physics probably donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist OUTSIDE the universe. Therefore you can not use the second law of thermodynamics as proof for the universe having a beginning unless you prove that the law exists outside of the universe. It allows the possibility that universes may be created of destroyed at any time. It also means the big bang is plausible. About objects and ideas having meaning and definition: Why try to add Complexity (God) to the universe when the laws of physics are capable of creating everything you see here without the need for a higher power. If we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then there is no need for things to have a meaning, the universe will carry on "as is". Unless I'm reading you wrong here... "Funny, isn't it, that throughout the Bible, prophets (people who speak on God's behalf) have backed up their words from Him with clear evidences (miracles)?ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Mr Einstein and his special theory of relativity would beg to differ ;). Time is a very real, if not tangible, thing. The only thing in special relativity that describes time is time dialation. However I agree with teh idea that time is an intangeble concept. The only reason why time exists is because conciosuness exists (sure stars will keep going through their cycles and the universe will expand but there is nothing to measure the rate of change therefore we dont know what time it is in the universe). Time is thought of as a never ending line of images (divided by a interval of time). It is a screen shot of everything that happens at that specific moment. Einstien talked about these images bending depending on your frame of refernce (time dialation, length contraction). Also time has a flow (for eg. it moves in the direction of increasing entrophy) and also there is time travel (moving forward by travelling near the speed of light) and backwards (through rotating around extremely warped space-time). If you were a backwards time traveler (which has no real evidence to even suggest its existence) you would always go through some kind of space (therefore you move through time). If you went from October 2004 to October 1990 it would still seem mentally like October 2004 (its just the next day in your life), however everything around you would be living in 1990.

1. Quantum Fluctuations appear out of nowhere and annihilate with their anti partner almost instantly. One of the few natural reasons for its use is to help black holes "radiate" energy (the anti partner falls in the black hole, making it smaller while allowing the particle to be released into space). 2. Our current universe has a beginning that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that all the energy that makes up the universe began at the same time as the universe did (it could have clumped in another dimension, been the implosion of a previous universe etc. there are many possibilities). 3. Therefore this line does not hold true (even if you were right, your logic is stretching what reality really means and how it relates to origins of the universe) 4. This law exists in a classical sense. It is true that if you put the universe in a box everything in that box will move towards higher entropy, however we are talking a lot about what happens outside of the box and for all you know thermodynamics may not exist at all. Because the universe is not a "steady state" model there is a beginning and a possible end. Even if you disregard this fact stars themselves have a beginning and an end. This cycle represents life for a species as without an energy source there is no way life could exist. A pro evolution experiment would be: The famous experiment done by Stanley Miller when he was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s. Miller essentially put methane, or natural gas, ammonia, hydrogen gas and water vapour into a beaker. That wasn't a random mixture; at the time he did the experiment that was at least one view of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like. Then he did a brilliant thing. He simply put an electric charge through that mixture to simulate lightning going through an early atmosphere. After sitting around for a couple of days, all of a sudden there was this brown goo all over the reaction vessel. When he analysed what was in the vessel, rather than only having methane and ammonia, he actually had amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. In fact, he had them in just about the same proportions you would find if you looked at organic matter in a meteorite. So the chemistry that Miller was discovering in this wonderful experiment was not some improbable chemistry, but a chemistry that is widely distributed throughout our solar system. This means that when a planet with suitable elements for life as well a star to power planet interactions, life will most likely form. 5. Therefore this line makes even less sense then the last claim. As I said before evolution takes a really long to make "perfect" animals for their environment. As they move away from their old environment they make develop weaknesses as they enter a new environment sparking the need for even further evolution. As the universe as well as our planet (which has been in existence for a lot less) and the habitable environment has had a finite lifecycle, humans have had extremely little time to develop to what we have become today. If you need to post completely ignorant posts asking for people not to refute them, what is the point of a discussion? Maybe someone else would like to have a go against this solid rebuttal.

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve been to church quite a few times and was a member of CEBS (Anglican Boys Society). But do you know what I was a kid, they subliminally brainwashed us while covering it up as a bit of fun and games. Eventually to realise how stupid religion is in context of the universe and grow out of it. When youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re young your mind is vulnerable to scare tactics such as heaven and hell as well as being open minded of things such as a grand creator or a human that performed the impossible as well as the silly stories of the bible. Your 13, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re young and the universe seems mesmerising for it to appear from apparently nothing therefore the idea is jammed into your mind that religion is the answer. Give a decade and review your ideas, you may realise there is more to life then a god who made everything from nothing.

Nothing said about aliens in the Bible. We'll cross that bridge (if and) when we come to it? Frank Drake would like to have a word with you... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html Using really pessimistic values I still get a result of 5 communicating civilisations in THIS GALAXY. However using average values Drake came to a conclusion of 10000 communicating civilisations whatever the value using relatively scientific values you get a value that is > then 1, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just a matter of time before we find one.

A more important question would be; What if Aliens transcend God and the bible, becoming this figure far more knowledgeable and amazing then any of the miracles and feats God and Jesus has done combined? Are the Aliens or God worshipped? If God, how could you worship something of lesser status. In current terms, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like worshipping your countries leader over God; you just donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do that.

Ohh as a side note anyone that is interested in learning a bit about modern science can visit this website which contains information and the entire T.V series based on Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. The site talks about Gravity and modern theories and what it all means. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

VERY good point youve hit on their, but i have one question to ask you How was God created? A very good question... After all, how can it be that something that exists independant of time, can be created? How can that which is non-temporal have a temporal property such as a beginning? It simply isn't possible for the God of the Bible (who exists apart from time) to posess the quality of being created. Psycho hit on a very significant point though. The complexity and precision of the coding of DNA for example, is far greater then any language that has ever been spoken by a human being; The human brain is capable of trillions and trillions of times more calculations per second then the most advanced super-computers in the world; flagellum are capable of spinning hundreds of times faster then the most advanced internal combustion engines in existance-- but are also capable of reversing instantly... yet there is no way that they can be simplified and still funcion at all. This universe, which is supposed to be moving toward a state of chaos, is full of these instances of ordering far beyond what humanity is capable of. But how is that possible? The only force that I'm aware of that has been observed to be capable of bringing order out of chaos is intelligence. So based on that fact alone, it is reasonable, observing the many cases of complex ordering in the universe, (which is supposed to be moving toward total dissorder) to conclude that it came from intelligence. Then there's this incredibley fascinating twist called the "Big Bang Theory" Which says that space and time had a beginning in the distant past. What caused it? Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause, so what is the universes cause? Why is it here??? Theories abound, but evidence is strangely lacking from all of them. (which is why the majority of physicists are called theoretical physicists now... for the past thirty years or so, their theories have outstripped actual research) In fact, many scientific theories never will be able to be empirically examined... They simply deal with realms that are either too small to detect, or simply not available for examination in the three spatial dimensions we occupy. Hi I have a couple of answers to a few of your questions, there is a force that can bring order out of chaos, and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s called Gravity surprisingly enough. However gravity originally helped create chaos in the early universe (by repulsive force) but it is now working in our favour by keeping matter clumped together (which is the reason why planets, stars and humans exist). This clumping of matter is a decrease in chaos and an increase in order (however overall entropy increases as we emit radiation therefore the law is not broken). If the Critical mass density of the universe is exceeded (which I have a feeling it is, with all the new dark matter ideas being conceived) then the universe will slowly accelerate into itself and eventually cause a new big bang with a new universe. This is gravity to the extreme, working to reset itself. Another form of creating order for this example is a star (you can replace it with anything really, but things such as glass blowing require intelligence so I'm not going to use it as an example). When a star runs out of fuel it may turn supernova and explode into a zillion pieces therefore increasing chaos. But gravity slowly collects all the pieces and turns it into a large mass again. The pressure of this large mass with light it up like a furnace which in other words is a new star, therefore turning chaos back into order again (However the supernova explosion creates radiation so there is a loss of energy and an increase in entropy, so it does not break any laws). Your other question concerning the "big bang theory" can also be answered (you sound awfully like Fred Hoyle, but he is dead now and was proved wrong). It is a Point Particle Theory, which is based on classical theory which has been proven wrong (it is still taught in schools because it is easy to understand and very accurate for what we need it for in our everyday lives). You hear that? All the Laws of classical physics that you believe in to exist are wrong! Then what really are the laws? Well thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what we are working on at the moment; the reason why everything is a "theory" is because we have only been working on them over the past decade. It is also true that we may not be able to currently confirm quite a few theories because we lack the technology to resolve at such tiny levels theoretical physics works on. However our technological curve is growing upwards at quite a fast pace and should become increasingly closer to test theories in your lifetime. There is a super collider being constructed at CERN that will be able to test the LOWER LIMITS of string theory (it is unlikely that we will see anything interesting however it is within theoretical reach). It will also produce new exotic materials and possibly S-Particles and Gravitons which will help our current theories cause even more. Try to describe to Jesus what a computer is and how it runs or to a citizen living in the 50's what a space elevator is and how it runs and they will both look completely confused, Yet we understand what they are and how they operate today. Give it time and eventually all will become clear. Your views on todayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s science are rather insulting, claiming science really has no reason to continue on its crazy path of unprovable ideas. What most people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand is that many theories carry a symmetry that works in such elegance and beauty that it seems wrong to question the validity of it. Much Like the marvel of nature, our theories that are being produced replicate similar mathematical beauties that we only see in nature. Now on the more important aspect of your Big bang question; Does it have a beginning and an end? A fairly popular view on Big Bang shows that there is NO Beginning and End. The universe pulses much like a heart, it grows from a tiny clump to what it is today. It slows down then eventually starts to pull back on itself shrinking down to the tiny clump and ultimately repulses back into a new universe, with this cycle continuing endlessly.

dont even make me get my bible and find 10+ different verses that says HOMESEXUALITY IS IMMORAL AND WRONG and as for the mary worship...Johny hit the nail on the head...its idol worship...she should be recognized....but not worshipped and as for the writing....its not called THE WORD OF GOD for no reason senor :wink: and to all you people who feel we were brainwashed...think again it's not like this was forced upon us....it was our own choice How does THE WORD OF GOD get communicated from God (outside this universe and real existence), to us (Living inside the universe and abide by a SET OF PHYSICAL LAWS)? It just is not possible to communicate a message from God to us.

If God created time, then we can say that He exists outside of its influence. You only have a "beginning" or "end" within time, so God just was. It's tough to think about, but pretty reasonable too. If you think it is reasonable that god existed outside of time (God just was), wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t it be just AS REASONABLE that the universe, just was? Using your reasoning god and the universe are exactly the same thing (however since the universe has matter, the illusion of time takes effect). Time would not exist without the physical universe, therefore how would god be able to exist if he would be able to regulate any thought processes (as time does not move in a direction, or any matter exist to regulate such thoughts due to a lack of universe)? Are you saying that god is an energy-less object that is capable of creating energy in non existent spaces? There are no reasonable explanations for these anomalies you may as well replace god with any other crazy idea you want because it makes just as much sense.

So I can murder you and your family, and I'll gain salvation as long as I believe that Jesus died for my sins? Do you think God really wants that? Now I can finally start living a mafia-drugsmuggler life in a huge mansion ordering poorer people that work for me to kill others without having to worry about the christians telling me I'm bad. I'll just tell them I believe Jesus died for my sins, buying hookers, selling illegal drugs for hundreds of millions, killing people that are after me, laundering money, etc, right? I suppose it would be more fun than the ordinary american life of working for a few thousand bucks a month. Why bother when I can get tens of millions a month, and blame it all on Jesus. The one thing that you miss is that Jesus said, "If you love me you will do as I command." A murderer can be redeemed, as can an adulterer, lier, thief, or any of the rest of us wretches... There is no such thing as a sin that God is unwilling to forgive, save one... Refusing to allow Christ to change your life is, in God's eyes, unforgivable. It's called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. No, you can not continue with your old ways (or as you imply be even worse :shock: ) and be forgiven. It simply isn't possible, once you've experienced God's overwhelming grace and love, to ever turn back. I'll conceed that there are people who claim to have experienced God's grace, but there's no new fruit there (Points to sig) but I would argue, from personal experience, that these people have missed the point entirely. How can God know that you committed a sin, pray or ask for forgiveness or any of that when there is NO PHYSICAL COMMUNICATION (you can scream be he isnt going to hear you, unless he lives on earth) between us and God? We can not talk to him, see him or feel him. We certainly havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t detected anything which could be interpreted as god's voice, nor have we detected anything special being emitted when people pray or commit sin. This leads to the common conclusion that there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t anything there. Why would there be? There just is no reason to add such complexity, for this reason OccamÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s razor should remove god in favour of simpler science sans god.

Isn't that basically a religious statement? You're talking about theories that have no proof, and yet you believe them anyway. How is that any different from having faith in a God? For all you know, there could be an infinite personal triune God out there who created the universe, loves you, and is trying to get your attention. And that is every bit as likely as the theory you put forth. Actually I personally do not really believe in an Internal Multi-verse or M-theory's P-Brane Worlds larger then the universe, I was just highlighting them as an example of incorporating infinite possibilities. I also like the P-Brane World scenario because it help explains gravities weakness as well as leading to a possibility of communication between universes (via gravitons). (if you really want I suppose that you could draw to a conclusion that if you use extremely! fine methods of sending and receiving gravitons via different universes in a Brane World scenario that there could be an alien in another universe who has contacted us and it interested and willing to learn more about us. However the fact remains that it is impossible for the alien to have influenced our creation.) Now to get to re-answer your question in a new light; I believe in a Universe that undergoes an infinite amount of big-bangs and big-crunches. Basically the universe expands from a Planck (smallest length that exists, which you can not make anything smaller than) sized nugget, reaches a critical point where gravity overwhelms expansion and a collapse occurs back to the Planck sized nugget. From here it expands back again. This idea of an infinite universe coupled with the Anthropic Principle suggests a self contained unit unnecessary of an external environment. (The Anthropic principle: A doctrine that explains why the universe has the properties we observe are that, were the properties different it is likely that life would not form and therefore we would not be here to observe the changes). The problems that a lot of people dislike is the idea of probability, or that they tend to dislike the idea that it was all just chance. But history tells us that everything we do comes down to chance. It was chance that decided that our famous scientists did not die of diseases and prevent us from moving forward. It was chance that Hitler came to power and started WW2. It was chance that some inventors think of a revolutionary idea overnight. The whole world is based on human flaw that creates instability over the actions we take. Sometimes itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good, others itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bad but without it we would live in a static world (sometimes likened to the period where Christian rule in Europe slowed progress by disallowing revolutionary science and ideas to occur. Rather sticking to a tried and tested set of life). Btw theory that was constructed to explain things (string theory) is only around 20 years old and the latest revolution (from super-string to M-theory) is only 9 Years old. These refinements are getting developed faster and faster (it was only a hundred years ago when we just started to use electricity for all our needs). Give it 50 years and I will probably have the answer to religion.

It's not an accident; the universe has the correct cosmological constants to form life (correct charge of electrons, protons, Correct Mass, Gravitational constant etc.). If it were any different we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be here, pretty simple stuff. If we lived on any other planet on the solar system we would have a hard time living or any other life, however this does not rule out that there are other planets with suitable conditions for life (it is almost impossible to look for life in all corners of the universe). If were such a planet to exist then it would be likely life was to form. Then would you call this life an accident or alien unworthy to live under your god? You might then say is our combination of cosmological constants, an accident? Which I would reply that for all you know there could be an infinite amount of alternate universes with different constants but we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know about them because they do not have conditions suitable for life or that they are in another dimension which we are normally not interacting with (too small, too large, outside of viewable space). Therefore you can come to the conclusion that there must alway be a universe suitable for life.

Because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the only religion with followers willing to defend it when people say they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in a god or they do and list illogical reasons.

Please refrain from insulting people without reason or proof. Stop insulting non-Christians who do the above in moderation. We are not out of control, sending us on a path to destruction. The Swearing, rambling drunks are a minority group which you just blatantly painted as the majority. There are many people who drink and swear that lead very gratifying lives.

The sons of the first man ever created were building cities and playing musical instraments. If they had that kind of intellect already then they also would have had morals. Only man who has a sprit, has need of moral standards... i'll get back later :shock: It's not possible, unless there used to be a superior race of men billions of years ago before the dinosaurs. There is no evidence to back it up though. No, we didn't evolve directly from apes but from animals similar to them. I can't be bothered to list all the forms of evolutions from the first one to the current one, there are about 15. There are about 15 theorised forms. Though species similar to humans have been found, there is still no progression of evolution or direct human ancestors that have been uncovered. C. S. Lewis has some good arguements against moralaity being the product of natural selection in Mere Christianity, which I will be glad to type up if I can get my hands on the book. SPECIES - TIME PERIOD Ardipithicus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years ago Australopithecus anamensis - 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years ago Australopithecus africanus - 3 to 2 million years ago Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago Homo erectus - 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago Homo sapiens archaic - 400 to 200 thousand years ago Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200 to 30 thousand years ago Homo sapiens sapiens - 200 thousand years ago to present These Dates are only based on KNOWN fossil evidence. If you would go back any further you would combine with other species into a common ancestor shared with other modern species (and many other extinct species) this is our evolution path. I would like to remind you at this point that it is impossible to give every single new "evolutionary trait" a new species title or it is to document it all (many unfavourable traits would obviously kept at a minimum and chances are that the decomposing bodies were not in a environment suitable for fossilisation). These are points along time which best represent noticeable changes in features between species. To give you an example: You may ask how we get from Species A to Species B (for example from our common ancestor to the first ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅhumanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

We are spiritual beings and they are not. There is not one inch of valid proof in that statement. How come spirituality in some people is lacking? Would that you mean that people who are not spiritual are not people but are merely animals? Please explain this in a scientific manner without resorting to unprovable or out of scope evidence such as ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅfaithÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

No that is not true. The reason is that people twist and pervert their religion's teachings and take it's mandates out of context. Hmmm..Lets just say humans are just another part of the animal kingdom. If you compare us with all of the other kinds of animals you will find that the human species (ugh..i hate to refer to us as that) is the only one that has no preset pattern of behavior to determine how the animal (cringe) will respond to any given circumstance. There is no preset pattern because we get to make choices. If it were natural selection and instinct we'd all react the exact same way to any given circumstance the way that animals do. Animals never lie, divorce their mates, neglect their children, or engage in homosexuality, just to name a few. They dont have a choice. What makes us different from one kind of animal from another? We both share DNA which coincidentally consists of the same basic compounds and even some of the same sequence of DNA code (the difference in sequence brings about the difference in nature). Now logically you may say we share the same origins (DNA) then why do we break away from the creature "standard" of instinct (predetermined reactions)? Well what makes us different from a fish or dog? Evolution quite simply. We start at the start as primordial soup, one type of organism multiplying over and over again. Occasionally a mutation may develop in this soup (most likely by a lightning strike) and if the mutated organism performs better then its original then eventually it will survive better and over take its predecessor. Without getting into too much more detail eventually all the mutations get to us and everything we see. Now going back to the original question of instinct and how we are unpredictable. Well consciousness would appear to be a mutation and quite frankly itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s given us the insight to take control of the world and now we have practically survived the animals and populated the world with out siblings. Would it not be a benefit to have consciousness over our rivals and to use it and abuse it? If you take a look outside its obvious what consciousness has done for us as a race. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s funny that you mentioned how we are unpredictable but we do have some form of predictability. Well there are two types of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅinstinctÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Just out of curiosity, what is your moral standard and where did it come from? Hehe I see what youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re doing here; Well to answer your question my moral standard is to treat others with the same respect that you treat your family. Basically in a nutshell being kind and if its not too much trouble at all help out a bit (moving a couple of things or giving someone a bit of loose change so they can use the rest of their change to buy a packet of chips or something is better then just leaving it lying around your pocket). The other part of the question, where did it come from surprisingly enough isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the bible or god but as a by product of natural selection and instinct. If you act aggressive then more then likely you will be shunned by society and therefore your genes wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be passed down generations. For the opposite my kindness is a reflection of my character as well as providing me with a sense of self fulfilment. This is not based on a text or a leader but as a result of physical and social evolution. You might say this is a motivation in itself but you and myself do not walk around everyday thinking "hey if I do good I will be put in a good light by society", but this kind of thinking is subconscious rather then conscious (hell this is probably one of the only times IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve actually thought this out). It is unbiased therefore is not a motivator rather an instinct. I will leave this post with a quote- "At the other end of the spectrum are the opponents of reductionism who are appalled by what they feel to be the bleakness of modern science. To whatever extent they and their world can be reduced to a matter of particles or fields and their interactions, they feel diminished by that knowledge ... I would not try to answer these critics with a pep talk about the beauties of modern science. The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the world works." - Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

That's just childless. Even if the God is excist doesn't mean that he's taking care all of us so we can live our lives happily till the end. U should study some Bible and read what does it says about God, earth, humans and Lucifer. Most ppl says the whole God thing being bullsheet cuz u can't proof it but if u look really close things happening around u and spend little time thinking ur mind becomes so much clearer that u wouldn't believe it. Bible isn't the straight answer or at least wasn't for me but it gave me a lot. I believe there's a powerfull force what created the whole system. Im not sure is it the God from the holy Bible or is it something else. Maybe I will someday find out. Wow, this reply makes you look rather childish; At least spell correctly and form a coherent sentence (I might be a bit harsh but I feel people should have the decency to spell their work correctly (to a reasonable standard) in a serious discussion). My mind is a lot clearer without having to resort to a god thank you very much. How might you ask? I learn and now on my way to becoming a physicist (so this gives me a slight advantage). We have currently working backwards on the "big bang" theory and can now explain what happens down to about the Planck time scale (really really small. A Planck length is about as large as the theorised elementary particle), I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think the bible can explain the universe to this accuracy. There are many many things that religion has left unclear about the universe and if a religion fails to satisfy its audience (I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t get any further Direct Clarification) then I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see its relevance in society, pure and simple. (P.S I'm a Moral Agnostic which in theory places me morally above Christians as I'm not motivated about getting in to heaven rather to help mankind as a whole. Tehehe)

to calculate the population at any given time based of these figures. final population = 6400000000 x e ^ (0.01 x (how many years into the future)) rate of 1 percent is an approximation based on 2 births persecond as a ratio of current population. e.g. aprox for: 10 years - 7 billion 100 years - 17 billion 1000 years - 140969 billion 10000 years - 1.7 x 10^44 billion I cant add anymore numbers as it breaks my pocket calculator (only goes up to 100 digits long). However these numbers are extremely approximated, and the rate of grow can change over time (more/less people want to have children etc.). But that simple equation can give you a decent approximation. N.B e is a constant (around 2.7182) like Pi (22/7).

GOD does NOT HAVE a beginning. GOD is considered the UNMOVED MOVER. Believing in GOD is NOT faith. CHRISTIANITY and JESUS is faith. You cannot call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Jesus. I guaruntee no Christians here have enough knowledge to argue. If you want to see real good arguements, go search online for the more intelligent people. Just because you have a good vocabulary doesn't mean ANYTHING! You're most likely in error. This is why Christians have the harder side. The vast majority of atheists say "Prove it, prove it, prove it," but the more intelligent ones will argue without idiocy. If you simply say, I don't believe in God because it's stupid, you obviously need to LEARN. So your saying Muslims are christians :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: (P.S Muslims believe in Jesus, but they believed that Mohammad was the LAST prophet)

Hehe well there will always be people who will disbelief the truth no matter what is said. People just have the mindset of what they learn was the truth, and when the real truth comes out they automatically claim it as a lie (the real truth not= my truth) :lol: I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think this is a debate about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅgodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

-agrees with that random guy- Wouldn't you think if God existed he would be able to get around physical laws? Also - if the matter + energy in the universe has always existed (which as to be true if God doesn't exist, because nothing can come from nothing), then that would be breaking Thermodynamic laws as well - one of them states that given enough time, all matter will break down into its smallest particles. Surely eternity is a long enough time for it to break down if matter has always existed. I'm looking around and... guess what? It hasn't happened. This = violation of thermodynamic laws. If god could get around physical laws then why has it not been made apparent to us? We have many things that record possible laws being broken and you thing that by some chance we would have accidentally picked up on it happening? If you want to become completely ignorant and say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s actions do not leave any physical impact in the universe then god will eventually kill us from a heat death (as godÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s interactions will increase the amount of energy in the universe [although godÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s actions itself may not be counted, as you said can bypass the laws]. He has to interact with the particles some how and when he does he increases the total energy of the universe eventually heating us up and killing everything). Matter has only been in existence for billions of years not eternity. We can do many things to work this out (Age of elements, age of stars etc). The law is not broken as you know the sun is working (spreading out its energy across the universe), stars are dying and we radiate heat from our bodies. You say that we came out of nothing, which for most people seems reasonable but as I said earlier we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand things in the macro-atomic and sub-atomic levels due to our way of perception. Decades ago physicists discouraged people from taking up the profession because they believed it to be a complete science (but as you know they were completely wrong) but now we are now learning things that we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t thought imaginable. This was all done through more abstract thinking (Atom [quantum] theory would send most non-scientists crazy just at the thought). For all you know the universe could be a quantum fluctuation of the macro-atomic (one level above the universe) level. It is shown that quantum fluctuations occur in vacuums (where ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅnothingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ