i think there is too much of a fight going on about evolution it never says in the bible evolution doesn't exsist i believe even once reading in the bible that god gave animals the ability to "change" among themselves. This doesn't have to be an absolute of either just cause you believe in evolution doesn't make you atheist. if you don't believe in evolution look at the difference between you and your sister,father, mother, and children if you have any you look different and act different from them yet all come from the same roots, humans are animals in MY MIND created by something and then left to change.i question my religon alot but have never given a doubt about evolution since i had a revelation at the age of 12 the bad thing is christians are forced to believe that the science of nature is against their views ITS NOT people believe this stament i hear all the time it angers me " well if they say i come from a monkey, then im no better then a chimps great great grandson and god made us to be special and in his image not as a lowly animal" get over yourself you aren't the most important thing out there, there is 6.6 billion people in this world is anyone truly better then another i mean we are helpless to when,where,and how we are born, we are helpless to ourselves, but we can all agree humans are not the average run of the mill animal we are unique and different thats what makes us so interesting and special we're not godly creatures we are riddled with mistakes is it not those mistakes and bad things that are capable of shaping the most? You need to expirence true sadness to know what true happiness is.

You are partially correct Chris. There is no inherent conflict with religion.
The problem stems with the religious feeling threatened towards evolution, partly because they misunderstand what it actually is.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins. Creation does.

There should be no argument between Evolution and Creation.

There should, however, be an argument between Abiogensis and Creation because, unlike Evolution, it does deal with origins.

Evolution does conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the Bible, everything is created from the get go fully evolved, no speciation. There is serious conflict.

I would agree, but those who do not take the bible literally would have to disagree, such as theistic evolutionists.

But creationism isn't centered around the christianity remember. That means there should not be a conflict, since creation deals with origins and evolution doesn't.

i don't rember reading in the bible adam and eve had the latest fashion and where loving computers and tv, those took the evolution of our minds and our knowledge did it not? so obviously evolution exsists there there is no dening it.

The issue most religious have is with Biological/Chemical/Cosmological evolution Chris.

We are just as mentally capable as the first homo sapiens. We just are just lucky enough to have history to learn from.

The Bible leaves no room for speciation, which occurred. If the Bible is true, then speciation isn't. And speciation is supported by most evidence.

but the evolution of the mind is chemical we are all merely a mix of chemicals with energy running through it evolution of the mind is evolution of the body, as we learn the chemicals in our brain may change that may lead to the child changing imaginemillions of years of that what it could do.

Indeed, but that would be a kind of mental evolution, not biological or chemical evolution.

I disagree. The Bible's version of creation is completely at odds with evolution. The most prominant example being natural selection.

According to evolution, humans came about after a very long time of trial and error. You had an organism and through this organism you had a variety of other organism. The "branch" of offspring that had the best adaption survived whereas the other "branches" did not. This process occurred over and over and over until modern lifeforms developed.

According to Biblical creationism, the earth was created as a perfect utopia. No pain, no sin. Complete Heaven. Then humans came along, sinned and broke fellowship with God, and the world became corrupt and turned into the world that it is today (carnivores, survival of the fittest, poisonous plants ect.)

Evolution = death brought man into the world
Bible = man brought death into the world

Can't have evolution without natural selection and you can't have natural selection without death. The Bible is very clear that death is a by-product sin and sin didn't enter our reality until after man had been around. This makes the two incompatible.

(P.S. I am not trying to debate which is true. I am merely showing that they can't both be true. )

evolution is the adapation of an organism to its environment. religion or the bible doesnt challenge this. evolution can occur on three levels physical, mental and spiritual. people evolve day by day through learning from their experience and people have also evolved physically over thousands of years. its not a matter of weather people beleive in evolution, evolution doesnt challenge religion evolution is the answer to how we are here not why. trying to answer why were here with how were here doesnt make sense their two seperate questions with seperate criteria for finding the answers. religion and science are both trying to find answers they often become parralell in doing this but they should both stay on there side of the fence and not get crossed over.

the part of us that god made in his image is our soul its not on the physicall level. yes we are equal with all animals on earth physically but spiritually we have a higher awareness. we are of a more evolved consciousness and have the ability to question our own existence. through this (intelligence) we can heighten ourselves spiritually and even end up on the same level as god

yes i agree if your religon gets in the way of a new way of thinking what good is it to you,im a christian myself and i have no querrl with evolution

Is it not possible that this concept we have of spirituality is nothing more than an internalized concept that elicits a physiological response, coupled with a need for our high levels of intelligence and self-awareness to understand the world around us? Implicitly, people believe in the concept of a soul for two reasons: 1) their religion tells them it is true, and their concept of self-identity is partially rooted in their religious beliefs, and 2) it just "feels" like we have a soul (i.e. it is intuitively conducive). Neither of those is grounded in any sort of scientific fact or logical reasoning. It's the same as the belief in Santa Claus....1) our parents and teachers and friends tell us he exists (at least, early on in life), and 2) we want it to be true. This doesn't make Santa Claus a real person. My question to you is, on what logical basis do you believe this "soul" exists? And further, on what logical basis do you believe God exists? This not a challenge, I simply want to know why and how a particular person comes to their religious conclusions when all logical methodologies fail to explain them. (And remember, because you look at the world around and it "feels" like some supernatural force at work is not an acceptable answer to this question. I "felt" like Santa Claus is true. I "feel" like extraterrestrial life could exist elsewhere in the universe. It doesn't make either of them true, logical, or valid.)

The fact there is so much diversity, yet so much common among different species on genetic levels, indicates the complexity and the nature of this universe, which must have come from intelligent design and not by chance.

The Evolution concept suggest it all happened by chance, not that god was behind or behind evolution. The concept itself is theory and not accepted as fact. Although its a coming of different sciences, providing theories in relation with their fields to support the overall theory. There are many faults and loop holes and mistakes in it too. It also has a political nature to it, and propagates the materialistic message and that everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest.

Animals, humans adapting to situation and conditions, due to genes that have been present all the time and dormant is classed as evolution, yet its simple lernign to live with what you have. Adapting is not evolution at any level. although they claims it is.

The whole universe is in a balanced state, the earth could have been one degree either way on its tilt, which would have result in no life, yet, somehow by chance, it dint.

What do you base that on?

There are over a hundred billion galaxies, Ozi. There's nothing particularly special about our one, or our Sun. Why is it is that people seem to be amazed that where they are has conditions that let them exist? It's a completely circular argument - if the conditions didn't exist, they wouldn't be there.

its fact, just like if there was less than 21% oxygen in the atmosphere, this would cause problems for life on earth and if it was higher, it would do so too. The atmosphere of the earth is in a balance proportion with the right amount of different gasses, if they were not at those levels, the impact would be huge, but its just happened by chance.

The thickness of the earth's crust constitutes another one of the delicate balances in the earth. If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust and this would have severe effects on human life.


I will try and find you something more concrete on the tilt, thing.

Yeh but we still aint found life in other galaxies have we, even with radio waves and other stuff which is rampant through universe, some one would have picked our signal and vica versa, but nothing.

the fact that the earths position, size, mass, atmosphere etc, are all finely balanced, suggests intelligent design, and not chance.

If you could, please.

I was under the impression that as well as rotating we "wobbled" on our axis, i could be wrong though.

That anthropomorphism at it's best, Tiggs, and, as you say, is the ultimate in circular arguing. It has no logical grounding. Because life has arisen WHERE the conditions were conducive to it people automatically assume that the conditions must have been put in place specifically FOR life. It makes no sense. People would say the same thing no matter what planet we evolved on or wherever we were in the cosmos. It's the inherent arrogance and lack of logic in the human psyche.

There's over a hundred billion Galaxies, Ozi. Each galaxy has roughly a hundred billion stars. Apparently, that's quite a lot to search through, even if you knew exactly what you were looking for.

Because we've evolved to suit the conditions as they are. If the atmosphere suddenly significantly changed we would suffer or die because we've evolved to survive in an atmosphere with 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen etc.

If the atmosphere was different, then life on Earth would have evolved to suit those conditions instead.



Only in the last few years have we even begun detecting the presence of other planets. Our radio waves have traversed such an inconcievably small distance, to say that they're a drop in the ocean would be a ridiculous overstatement.



There are an estimated 70 sextillion stars in the observable universe, that's an unimaginably large number. Many of these will have orbiting planets around them. Some of them may just happen to have the correct properties required in order for life to be created.

You know that's completely untrue right? The composition of the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly over the billions of years of the existance of life on this planet. Life always evolved to deal with it.

The earth's crust's thickness also varies hugely all over the globe. I don't know where you get this stuff.

As for the radio waves we've been broadcasting? That haven't even traveled over 1/100000000000000000000000000000 of the universe yet and if they were picked up by intelligent life it would take them the same amount of time to send a signal back.

So why is it then, with all this coincedence, that life formed in our solar system, and now where else in the universe as we so far know. I personally believe there is life beyond our solar system, but to the type of life form we are carbon based, it just so happened that everything came in to perfect balance, the mass of the planet, the size, location, atmosphere, tilt etc.

Not to mention that the radio signals would be incredibly decayed.

i knpw there are, and among all those odds, we got an earth perfectly balance, by chance.







The axis of the earth makes a 23-degree inclination to its orbit. Seasons are formed due to this inclination. If this inclination were a little more or less than it is now, temperature differences between seasons would reach extremes and unbearably hot summers and extremely cold winters would take place on the earth.

Yes the earth crust varies around the globe, but any slight changes to what it is, would have an adverse affect on life.

The radio waves is one example, i understand that, but the point is, nowwhere else can you see a planet like ours, with 70% water, which is a substance rare in space, the right size, the right distance from the orbiting star, the right mass, atmosphere, at right proportions, an ozone layer which is perfect, and changes in that would also have adverse affect, its clear, a perfect balance.

Because we don't actually know that much about the Universe, Ozi. We haven't even explored our own solar system for life thoroughly yet, let alone our Galaxy let alone the Universe.

It's big. Really big. Really, really big. Bigger than you could possibly imagine in your wildest dreams, and then some. Imagine the biggest thing you can. It's waaaaaaaaaay bigger than that. It's bigger than Mr Big in Bigland on International Big day feeling particularly Big.

70 sextillon stars, over 12 billion years. That's an outrageously big number of possible combinations.

Give us a chance, in universal terms we've only been looking for a nano second. And if the universe was the size of Earth we haven't even left our own street yet. I think you expect to much to soon.

In that analogy, we haven't even left the bedroom yet. In fact, we're still under the duvet, with our eyes shut and still yawning.

True. Ozi, imagine we're an ant....................ah forget it!

Actually, oxygen level reached about 40% during the Permian. Since about 1750, carbon-dioxide concentration had increased from 280 ppm to about 365 ppm today. And the angle of the axis' tilt also changes over time; it's one of the Milankovich cycles that controls climate. Doug

A couple of related links:

Scientists predict a billion Earth like planets in our Galaxy
Earth-like planet discovered 20 light years away

You're right. Googul "Milankovich Cycles". Doug

You have it backwards, Ozi. It's exactly those odds that makes life more likely. The larger the number the more chance of even a rare occurence happening and you're assuming life is rare on a sample size that is so minute it's hard to describe. It's like picking a 1"x1" square of sand in the sahara, deducing there is no life in that spot and then saying there must be no life on earth.



This inclination varies and has varied hugely throughout time and life persevered through it. Again, you're assuming something that would kill our species off (a species that has existed for only the blink of an eye in geologic time), if it even would, means more than it does. Life on earth has and will survive much worse. We might not but that's just it. We are neither the "ultimate" form of life nor are we necesary to life.



I'm not sure what you mean here. The thickness of the earth's crust varies massively. This crust is constantly moving and is nothing like it was 30 million years ago. We've gone through upwards of 6-10 instances of supercontinenting, where all the earth's landmass has congregated in one spot, throughout earth's history. Mountain ranges come and go. Seabeds expand and shrink. Nothing about the earth's crust is constant. Luckily, it happens so slowly that life has no problem adapting to it.



Actually astronomers and cosmologists posit billions and billions of planets like ours and we're just developing the technology to detect them. We've been able to detect large planets for a long time but planets the size of ours are much tougher to detect.

And, again, all those "balances" you bring up didn't exist for all of earth's history. Not even it's history while life existed. You're assuming perfection because we've evolved to live in the current state of the earth. For the vast portion of earth's history most of the life evolved today would not be able to survive. That's what I mean about anthropomorphism. It seems perfectly balanced because we evolved to exist in it. But say things were totally different an yet intelligent life forms evolved. They could claim that their planet is so perfect for them that some define creator made it for them. Yet, they'd be in error. Conditions are always going to appear perfect to any life that currently exists in those conditions.

Especially on this board YES..there is always someone making a thread on it


Hardly...man wasnt that advanced back then to make these discoveries...

wrong posting

Thanks Doug