The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

I believe that anyone can change, including myself. Whether I might see new evidence, have a change of heart or maybe just fedup of my own point of view. Like there was a time I was an avid Panday supporter... Then a PP supporter...

That's good to hear (except the politics part...LOL).
If we live each day as if it was our last, then certainly our lives will be different for the better!!

[sMASH]

prometheus was baddddddddddddddddd

[AdamB]

check this

thanks to the wonders of modern technology, moms and dads these days are able to find out a baby’s gender with ultrasound months before delivery. This is most commonly done between the 18th and 26th weeks of the pregnancy, but some newer ultrasound technology can determine the baby’s gender as early as 12 or 13 weeks.

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him.

so the person's fate is sealed? If the angel writes "wretched" is there any way to change that?

I assume the angel doesn't know these 4 things, but just writes what it is told.

Generally according to Islamic theology, angels do exactly as they are commanded.

These 4 mentioned things cannot be changed. It is not forced upon the person, but is the foreknowledge of GOD who knows everything that will occur without influencing the outcome (before it occurs, when it is occurring, and after it occurs - HE is neither unaware nor HE forgets).

Since this is a religious discussion, it would be good here to see the views of other religions (not individuals) pertaining to PRE-DECREE OR PREDESTINATION. Of course, individuals can share their views but make it clear whether it is personal or conforms to the belief system of an established religion.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ Predestination, in theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God.

How does predestination and free will co-exist?

I have the free will to turn left, however, God already knows I will choose to turn left, so is it really free will?

or if God already knows what all our choices will be, why then the need to test us?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the term is "sentient"

according to scientists, man evolved into sentience and so, as other animal species continue to evolve, they to can eventually evolve into sentience.

Is this Darwin's Theory of Evolution that you are referring to? If so, what were the assumptions and have any of them been disproved?

evolution is a science

Unlike religion, science works very hard at disproving itself.
The whole concept of science is to constantly and thoroughly test every theory until proven or dis-proven.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. This process has been proven, from the smallest bacteria in the development of anti-biotics to the empirical evidence of vestigial organs in animals such as the hind legs of a whale which have evolved into no more than tiny flaps. Remember whales are mammals.

Humans also bear what some consider vestigial behaviors and reflexes. The formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex; its function in human ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators.

There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulonolactone oxidase, a gene, that is functional in most other mammals, which produces an enzyme that can make vitamin C. A purported mutation deactivated the gene in an ancestor of the current group of primates, and it now remains in the human genome as a vestigial sequence called a pseudogene.

[AdamB]

I find it pointless that an average of 70 years on earth should determine my fate for all eternity.

Besides, if all of the loose women are in hell... all hot sweaty and naked.... why do I want to be in heaven with a bunch of prudes?

Again, because we may not see the wisdom or agree with the execution of justice does not mean that it does not exist or is appropriate.

There is a view in a particular sect of a particular religion that Hell doesn't exist, that the punishment of hellfire for all eternity does not fit the crime of disobedience for a few (70) years on the earth. They say the Good will be rewarded with life back on earth (maybe some in Heaven) and that the evil doers will cease to exist.

However, if some (if not most) of man were to live for 50,000 years, they would do the same as if they had lived for only 70 yrs.

well if a person lived for only 15 yrs, surely they would have more time to be pious if they lived instead for 50 yrs.

the mentality of a 15yr old is far different from that of a 50yr old

on another note, is there free will in heaven?

We prefer to say Paradise rather than heaven because the heavens refer to the layers of the skies above.
Quran 67:3 [And] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks?
67:4 Then return [your] vision twice again. [Your] vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.
67:5 And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with stars and have made [from] them what is thrown at the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze.

Paradise is not the place for testing. This present life on the earth is for testing to determine who are worthy of the most generous reward, the likes of which no eye has ever seen or been imagined.

I will have to research further to answer the question properly from Islamic perspective but since we were created to worship GOD ALONE, i would imagine that will not stop in paradise. Otherwise, our purpose behind being created would be to "live it up for forever in Paradise". Since this will not be the case for some (or most), then it follows that we will still have free will to choose which of the pleasures that will be available and to worship GOD.

It is mentioned in our books that the angels in Paradise continuously praise and worship GOD. We are supposed to be better due to our choosing via free will to worship HIM. So from this angle as well, I would have to say that we will continue to have our free will.

However, the conditions and situations that lead to bad / evil actions may not be present in Paradise, so we may only do Good although we have our free will.

This is a very broad topic, as I said I will research further and advise.

[bluefete]

Duane: REALLY???????????????

Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago

By Eddie Wrenn

PUBLISHED: 17:15 GMT, 13 June 2012 | UPDATED: 18:44 GMT, 13 June 2012


Humans evolved from a prehistoric shark that roamed the seas more than 300 million years ago, say scientists.

The primitive fish named Acanthodes bronni was the common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth - including us, according to new research.

A re-analysis of a braincase dating back 290 million years shows it was an early member of the modern gnathostomes - meaning 'jaw-mouths' that include tens of thousands of living vertebrates ranging from fish to birds, reptiles, mammals and humans.

Acanthodes, a Greek word for 'spiny', existed before the split between the earliest sharks and the first bony fishes - the lineage that would eventually include human beings. Fossils have been found in Europe, North America and Australia.

Compared with other spiny sharks it was relatively large, measuring a foot long. It had gills instead of teeth, large eyes and lived on plankton.

Professor Michael Coates, a biologist at the University of Chicago, said: 'Unexpectedly, Acanthodes turns out to be the best view we have of conditions in the last common ancestor of bony fishes and sharks.

'Our work is telling us the earliest bony fishes looked pretty much like sharks, and not vice versa. What we might think of as shark space is, in fact, general modern jawed vertebrate space.'

Cartilaginous fish, which today include sharks, rays, and ratfish, diverged from the bony fishes more than 420 million years ago. But little is known about what the last common ancestor of humans, manta rays and great white sharks looked like.

The acanthodians died out about 250 million years ago and generally left behind only tiny scales and elaborate suits of fin spines.

But armed with new data on what the earliest sharks and bony fishes looked like, the researchers re-examined fossils of Acanthodes bronni, the best-preserved species.

Prof Coates said: 'We want to explore braincases if possible, because they are exceptionally rich sources of anatomical information.

'They are much better than scales, teeth or fin spines, which, on their own, tend to deliver a confusing signal of evolutionary relationships.'

The analysis of the sample combined with recent scans of skulls from early sharks and bony fishes led the researchers to a surprising reassessment of what Acanthodes bronni tells us about the history of jawed vertebrates.

Prof Coates said: 'For the first time, we could look inside the head of Acanthodes, and describe it within this whole new context. The more we looked at it, the more similarities we found with sharks.'

The study, published in Nature, found acanthodians as a whole, including the earliest members of humans' own deep evolutionary past, appear to cluster with ancient sharks.

This new revision of the lineage of early jawed vertebrates will allow paleontologists to dig into deeper mysteries, including how the body plan of these ancient species transformed over the transition from jawless to jawed fishes.

Added Prof Coates: 'It helps to answer the basic question of what is primitive about a shark. And, at last, we are getting a better handle on primitive conditions for jawed vertebrates as a whole.'

Environmental biologist Dr Maureen Kearney, of the National Science Foundation in the US which co-funded the research, said the study shows us 'important evolutionary transitions in the history of life, providing a new window into the sequence of evolutionary changes during early vertebrate evolution.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1xl9rZKNf

[sMASH]

free will or predestination.

sumtimes i think about it like a game, chess for example. your opponent makes his move based upon how the board is layed out at the time, and his motive. understanding how the opponent moves, u can determine an objective he wants to reach. knowing how the board is layed out, u can determine a course of action. you do not have any influence over how he moves, he can do any thing he wants, but based upon your knowledge of him, his nature, and his environment, u can 'predict' what his course of actions are.

now, apply that intuitive nature to a being with the capabilities of god, a being which can determine the movements of atoms, just like the movements of a pool ball on a pool board, but for the entire life span of that atom.

u can still choose what to do, but god knows his creation, and knows what your going to choose.



the distribution of one's wealth in islam. it is said that a person is allotted a specific amount of wealth in their life here on earth. no matter what u do, u do not get more nor less than than. some people are rich, some people are poor, others are inbetween. u can play lotto, make investments, save all u want, if your supposed to be poor, you would be poor. things would happen that would get that wealth away from you. if your supposed to be rich, no matter what you do, you would be that way.
you can choose the steps inbetween, but u have a role to play and rules to play it in. if u can choose which way to acquire your wealth, either by ways which are deemed good or ways which are deemed bad, then that is your test ( well, with respect to you personally).

to you, u do not know the outcome, u do not the future, so u still have to choose. u have the rules, and u must be guided accordingly.

how much stress u have in a situation is not determined by how bad it is, but by your attitude towards it.


but then, god knows you soooooo good, he knows what you would do any way... .

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Duane: REALLY???????????????

Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago

By Eddie Wrenn

PUBLISHED: 17:15 GMT, 13 June 2012 | UPDATED: 18:44 GMT, 13 June 2012


Humans evolved from a prehistoric shark that roamed the seas more than 300 million years ago, say scientists.

The primitive fish named Acanthodes bronni was the common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth - including us, according to new research.

A re-analysis of a braincase dating back 290 million years shows it was an early member of the modern gnathostomes - meaning 'jaw-mouths' that include tens of thousands of living vertebrates ranging from fish to birds, reptiles, mammals and humans.

Acanthodes, a Greek word for 'spiny', existed before the split between the earliest sharks and the first bony fishes - the lineage that would eventually include human beings. Fossils have been found in Europe, North America and Australia.

Compared with other spiny sharks it was relatively large, measuring a foot long. It had gills instead of teeth, large eyes and lived on plankton.

Professor Michael Coates, a biologist at the University of Chicago, said: 'Unexpectedly, Acanthodes turns out to be the best view we have of conditions in the last common ancestor of bony fishes and sharks.

'Our work is telling us the earliest bony fishes looked pretty much like sharks, and not vice versa. What we might think of as shark space is, in fact, general modern jawed vertebrate space.'

Cartilaginous fish, which today include sharks, rays, and ratfish, diverged from the bony fishes more than 420 million years ago. But little is known about what the last common ancestor of humans, manta rays and great white sharks looked like.

The acanthodians died out about 250 million years ago and generally left behind only tiny scales and elaborate suits of fin spines.

But armed with new data on what the earliest sharks and bony fishes looked like, the researchers re-examined fossils of Acanthodes bronni, the best-preserved species.

Prof Coates said: 'We want to explore braincases if possible, because they are exceptionally rich sources of anatomical information.

'They are much better than scales, teeth or fin spines, which, on their own, tend to deliver a confusing signal of evolutionary relationships.'

The analysis of the sample combined with recent scans of skulls from early sharks and bony fishes led the researchers to a surprising reassessment of what Acanthodes bronni tells us about the history of jawed vertebrates.

Prof Coates said: 'For the first time, we could look inside the head of Acanthodes, and describe it within this whole new context. The more we looked at it, the more similarities we found with sharks.'

The study, published in Nature, found acanthodians as a whole, including the earliest members of humans' own deep evolutionary past, appear to cluster with ancient sharks.

This new revision of the lineage of early jawed vertebrates will allow paleontologists to dig into deeper mysteries, including how the body plan of these ancient species transformed over the transition from jawless to jawed fishes.

Added Prof Coates: 'It helps to answer the basic question of what is primitive about a shark. And, at last, we are getting a better handle on primitive conditions for jawed vertebrates as a whole.'

Environmental biologist Dr Maureen Kearney, of the National Science Foundation in the US which co-funded the research, said the study shows us 'important evolutionary transitions in the history of life, providing a new window into the sequence of evolutionary changes during early vertebrate evolution.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1xl9rZKNf

dailymail is a tabloid! stop quoting stuff from it as though it is fact!

[MG Man]

god made us all different, right?
everyone has different perceptions, brain functions, learning capabilities etc, agreed?
Then by the virtue of god's great diversity, some of us are destined to be atheists, no?
Surely god knows the inner workings of my mind, because he made it, no?
Surely he knew the path I took to get to this point, because he knew from the very beginning
Ok so I had choices along the way, but he KNEW which choices I would make when given multiple directions to follow
So...........god knowingly made me an atheist
Yet you guys think I'm going to hell for my attitude towards him.......
but HE made me this way..........he knew from even before he created the universe, that he would make me and I would get to this point..........
God knowingly makes atheists
You guys can't condemn us based on your religious beliefs

[maj. tom]

Duane: REALLY???????????????

Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago

By Eddie Wrenn

PUBLISHED: 17:15 GMT, 13 June 2012 | UPDATED: 18:44 GMT, 13 June 2012


Humans evolved from a prehistoric shark that roamed the seas more than 300 million years ago, say scientists.

The primitive fish named Acanthodes bronni was the common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth - including us, according to new research.

A re-analysis of a braincase dating back 290 million years shows it was an early member of the modern gnathostomes - meaning 'jaw-mouths' that include tens of thousands of living vertebrates ranging from fish to birds, reptiles, mammals and humans.

Acanthodes, a Greek word for 'spiny', existed before the split between the earliest sharks and the first bony fishes - the lineage that would eventually include human beings. Fossils have been found in Europe, North America and Australia.

Compared with other spiny sharks it was relatively large, measuring a foot long. It had gills instead of teeth, large eyes and lived on plankton.

Professor Michael Coates, a biologist at the University of Chicago, said: 'Unexpectedly, Acanthodes turns out to be the best view we have of conditions in the last common ancestor of bony fishes and sharks.

'Our work is telling us the earliest bony fishes looked pretty much like sharks, and not vice versa. What we might think of as shark space is, in fact, general modern jawed vertebrate space.'

Cartilaginous fish, which today include sharks, rays, and ratfish, diverged from the bony fishes more than 420 million years ago. But little is known about what the last common ancestor of humans, manta rays and great white sharks looked like.

The acanthodians died out about 250 million years ago and generally left behind only tiny scales and elaborate suits of fin spines.

But armed with new data on what the earliest sharks and bony fishes looked like, the researchers re-examined fossils of Acanthodes bronni, the best-preserved species.

Prof Coates said: 'We want to explore braincases if possible, because they are exceptionally rich sources of anatomical information.

'They are much better than scales, teeth or fin spines, which, on their own, tend to deliver a confusing signal of evolutionary relationships.'

The analysis of the sample combined with recent scans of skulls from early sharks and bony fishes led the researchers to a surprising reassessment of what Acanthodes bronni tells us about the history of jawed vertebrates.

Prof Coates said: 'For the first time, we could look inside the head of Acanthodes, and describe it within this whole new context. The more we looked at it, the more similarities we found with sharks.'

The study, published in Nature, found acanthodians as a whole, including the earliest members of humans' own deep evolutionary past, appear to cluster with ancient sharks.

This new revision of the lineage of early jawed vertebrates will allow paleontologists to dig into deeper mysteries, including how the body plan of these ancient species transformed over the transition from jawless to jawed fishes.

Added Prof Coates: 'It helps to answer the basic question of what is primitive about a shark. And, at last, we are getting a better handle on primitive conditions for jawed vertebrates as a whole.'

Environmental biologist Dr Maureen Kearney, of the National Science Foundation in the US which co-funded the research, said the study shows us 'important evolutionary transitions in the history of life, providing a new window into the sequence of evolutionary changes during early vertebrate evolution.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1xl9rZKNf

dailymail is a tabloid! stop quoting stuff from it as though it is fact!

Ok I shall quote it from [1] Nature, a scientific peer reviewed journal AND [2] the University of Chicago Medical Center.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11080
[2] http://www.newswise.com/articles/where-we-split-from-sharks-common-ancestor-comes-into-focus2

It never said humans evolved from sharks, but suggests that the sharks was the last common ancestor before the split between the sharks and the first bony fishes - the lineage that would eventually include human beings.. This is from fossil evidence of the Acanthodes bronni, a fish from the Paleozoic era.

[bluefete]

Duane: My using the DM does not change the fact that scientists are now suggesting that we originated from sharks.

So is it that we came from sharks, the sharks walked onto land and then evolved into monkeys?????

Wow!! Scientific theories can really be something. And some people still refuse to believe that God created each species separate and distinct from each other.

[Humes]

Duane: My using the DM does not change the fact that scientists are now suggesting that we originated from sharks.

So is it that we came from sharks, the sharks walked onto land and then evolved into monkeys?????

Wow!! Scientific theories can really be something. And some people still refuse to believe that God created each species separate and distinct from each other.

But that's always been the case. Scientists aren't suggesting anything new. All they've done is identified the water-swelling ancestors of primates as a species very similar to sharks.

Evolution has always been explained as simple water-swelling organisms evolving into more advanced water-swelling species, some of which then evolved into land-dwelling species, and again some of which evolved into various specific land-dwelling species such as reptiles, primates etc. And from the primate branch, humans evolved.

Even someone with the most basic understanding of evolution knows this. Have you ever once tried to sit down, read and understand how evolution works from a reliable scientific source?

[bluefete]

@Humes: Yes. Even though some may not believe that. As a matter of fact I have read Darwin's On The Origin of Species and it still does not make a case for evolution of the human race, in my opinion.

[maj. tom]

^^ @bluefete LOL sharks walked on land and then evolved into monkeys!! LULZZZZ Haven't had a lulz like that since "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"

If you don't understand, pick up a book and read a bit first nah before spewing forth your hearsay I can't believe it's not butter opinions that you firmly believe are correct.

And the post above your makes it clear that's not what the research concluded. Sharks were the last common ancestor before branching off into bony fishes, and humans are now part of that lineage.

[bluefete]

^^ @bluefete LOL sharks walked on land and then evolved into monkeys!! LULZZZZ Haven't had a lulz like that since "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"

If you don't understand, pick up a book and read a bit first nah before spewing forth your hearsay I can't believe it's not butter opinions that you firmly believe are correct.

And the post above your makes it clear that's not what the research concluded. Sharks were the last common ancestor before branching off into bony fishes, the lineage of which humans are now a part of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lineage

lin·e·age
1    [lin-ee-ij]
noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

Origin:
1275–1325; line(al) + -age; replacing Middle English linage < Anglo-French; Old French lignage < Vulgar Latin *līneāticum. See line1 , -age

Synonyms
1. pedigree, parentage, derivation, genealogy. 2. tribe, clan.


You were saying???????????????????

[sMASH]

god made us all different, right?
everyone has different perceptions, brain functions, learning capabilities etc, agreed?
Then by the virtue of god's great diversity, some of us are destined to be atheists, no?
Surely god knows the inner workings of my mind, because he made it, no?
Surely he knew the path I took to get to this point, because he knew from the very beginning
Ok so I had choices along the way, but he KNEW which choices I would make when given multiple directions to follow
So...........god knowingly made me an atheist
Yet you guys think I'm going to hell for my attitude towards him.......
but HE made me this way..........he knew from even before he created the universe, that he would make me and I would get to this point..........
God knowingly makes atheists
You guys can't condemn us based on your religious beliefs

i think we have a winner here.....

[bluefete]

god made us all different, right?
everyone has different perceptions, brain functions, learning capabilities etc, agreed?
Then by the virtue of god's great diversity, some of us are destined to be atheists, no?
Surely god knows the inner workings of my mind, because he made it, no?
Surely he knew the path I took to get to this point, because he knew from the very beginning
Ok so I had choices along the way, but he KNEW which choices I would make when given multiple directions to follow
So...........god knowingly made me an atheist
Yet you guys think I'm going to hell for my attitude towards him.......
but HE made me this way..........he knew from even before he created the universe, that he would make me and I would get to this point..........
God knowingly makes atheists
You guys can't condemn us based on your religious beliefs

i think we have a winner here.....

MGMan: That is your choice to believe or not believe in God. The same argument can be made for the creation of Lucifer. God knew before he created Lucifer that he could lead a rebellion in heaven. But that did not stop him from creating Lucifer.

God has a plan. A very good one at that. However, us mortals with an average life span of 70 or so years cannot begin to understand that plan because we are not the Creator but the created.

Consider something you have made. Let's say you took a piece of paper and made a card. You then gave that card life and a set of directions for its life. You also told the card that there are consequences for certain actions it may choose to take.

You let the card go to choose what it would do. Would you give the card all your knowledge or power? Why or why not?

The card can choose to ignore you and your existence (like some children do their parents). It does not change the fact that you knew what the card was going to do. You still gave it a choice.

Thus it is with God. At the end of the day, you and you alone will face the reality of the God whose existence you choose to deny.

[maj. tom]

^^ @bluefete LOL sharks walked on land and then evolved into monkeys!! LULZZZZ Haven't had a lulz like that since "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"

If you don't understand, pick up a book and read a bit first nah before spewing forth your hearsay I can't believe it's not butter opinions that you firmly believe are correct.

And the post above your makes it clear that's not what the research concluded. Sharks were the last common ancestor before branching off into bony fishes, the lineage of which humans are now a part of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lineage

lin·e·age
1    [lin-ee-ij]
noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

Origin:
1275–1325; line(al) + -age; replacing Middle English linage < Anglo-French; Old French lignage < Vulgar Latin *līneāticum. See line1 , -age

Synonyms
1. pedigree, parentage, derivation, genealogy. 2. tribe, clan.


You were saying???????????????????

The common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth resembled a shark according to the Acanthodes bronni fossil.

It was the last common ancestor before the split between early sharks and bony fish.

Humans evolved from bony fishes, as did all mammals.

Evolutions is not as simple and it's not what you are thinking "A goes to B and B turns into a C and then C turns into a monkey and then monkey turns into man." Think of evolution as a huge very branched tree, and at the very end of each branch is a different type of fruit.

A experiences different environments and changes very slowly into different branches of C D E F G H I J, and all of them are dead-ends and only H remain because it's so successful. Then H is subjected to different environments and changes slowly genetically by natural selection again into a number of branches again. Nobody chooses this, it's nature. It selects which species can live in the environment and passes on those traits. For millions of years!

The beginning of each branch is a family. And each family has many genus which in turn have many species. Homo is a genus of the order Primate of the class Mammalia. Homo sapien is a species. Gorilla belongs to the Hominidae family just like humans, but a different sub-family. Chimps, same family, different genus. Homo erectus belongs to the same family, same tribe and same genus as modern humans, but were a different species. They have died out, but were considered humans also.

There is a reason behind scientific taxonomy and genetic phylogeny. Please, I implore you, read first before thinking you know everything about everything.

[jayt]

Evolution is a False Science:

Evolution is cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory.

Certain aspects of evolution may be confusing and difficult to understand. Do not be surprised! The rationale invented to support evolution is bewildering and complicated. It is tiresome and boring. Certain facts are conveniently left behind, and tedious scholarly language is used to stop most people from examining the subject in detail. Left frustrated, most assume evolution to be fact.

Can anyone say anything they know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

What are the facts about the theory of evolution? What do we actually know? What is the basis for its near universal acceptance?

You will be amazed at what the scientific evidence reveals!

Inescapable Law

There is an overarching law governing the entire universe. It is so intrinsic to everyday life that most apply it without knowing. It is inescapable. Everyone is impacted by it.

It is the law of cause and effect.

Drop a rock and it falls to the ground. The effect is the rock hitting the ground; the cause is gravity. Jump into a swimming pool on a hot day and you are refreshed. The effect is feeling refreshed; the cause is jumping into the water.

Cause and effect is so universal and proven, it carries the status of being a scientific law: causation, which states that every effect can be traced to a cause that happened before (or simultaneous to) the effect.

All effects must have causes. It is that simple.

Linking cause and effect with another set of scientific laws—thermodynamics—makes the picture sharper. The word “thermodynamics” comes from the Greek words therme, meaning “heat or energy,” and dunamis, meaning “power.” It is the study of how energy is transferred, and is usually defined by three fundamental laws, on which all disciplines of science are based.

Let's Focus on the second law in this example. The second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In laymen’s terms, it can be summarized by saying that when left alone, everything “burns” its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.

Consider: Water is heated on a burner to the boiling point. If the stove is turned off, the water’s temperature will drop instead of rise. Water will dissipate heat until it reaches room temperature.

Here’s another example: Connect a light bulb to a battery, and it will produce light. Over time, the battery will fully drain, and you will be left with no light and a dead battery. Instead of having two usable items, both will eventually reach a state of complete entropy—no usable energy.

Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws are immutable and complement one another.

Combining cause and effect with the second law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. Said another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its cause.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

So evolution… is FALSE.

[maj. tom]

^ and if you want the link to that piece of literature copied exactly: http://realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html. Scroll down to "Inescapable Law"

A theory in science is not what you think is a theory in everyday terms. And those statements above are so disjointed and incoherent and do not combine to make sense. On one hand the author is trying to carelessly explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics very over simply, and then in the end links evolution to it very wrongly.

Evolution in fact creates organisms and systems that use less energy or use energy more efficiently, and more complex every step further. For example man walks upright compared to our ancestors and other primates because it saves energy in keeping the spine upright. Man can run long distances, up to 4 hours non-stop because we sweat, and other primates and mammals cannot do that.

A step up in evolution and an increase in efficiency, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds up very well. Energy may become less useable over time, entropy increases overall in the universe, but energy is always converted from one form to another. The loss of energy is mainly as heat in this universe, and is useless in that form. But that heat is transferred to the environment and change into chemical energy and other forms. It is then recycled as food to living system. Energy cannot be lost from a closed system.

Your first post and that is what you had to say jayt? No actual opinions and thoughts of your own? No actual understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and how they trump all laws of physics and their links to fitting in evolution very nicely and neatly?

weary of this thread again. Believe what you want by reading from websites created by people who don't actually understand science and try to use to to inaccurately justify null hypotheses. It will make sense to others who don't understand science too.

[brams112]

Last sentence says it all maj.tom.

[sweetiepaper]

Why is it that whenever folks quibble about the possibility of an afterlife, someone always drags up some examples of a guy who "visited" heaven or hell. Why are these folks always considered worthy witnesses?

Aren't there people who are convinced that they are Napoleon Bonaparte? Why are these good people never invited to deliver a discourse on French history?
The fellow who used to walk all over Port-of-Spain, firmly convinced that he was driving a car, was never used as resource material by driving schools or garages - but didn't he have plenty driving experience?
The other fellow who used run up certain streets in the capital in order to bowl his cricket ball... why has no cricket club ever used him to train their bowlers?

Always use logic to argue... otherwise the argument becomes open to illogical input, and we will start that nonsense all over again.
There are better arguments to support the premise of an afterlife. While one might be tempted to spurn them because they might seem faith-based rather than factual, bear in mind that the very concept of an afterlife is based on faith.

I don't understand why is it illogical to reference those with near-death experiences (NDE) in a discussion about the afterlife. NDE show that consciousness can survive outside the physical body, contrary to what scientists believe.
Is it illogical to speak about God because we cannot prove His existence to others? Should i not tell others of my experiences because they may not be able to understand or relate to them?

Why are they are worthy?
By our medical standards, these people who have NDEs should be dead, it should not be possible for them to have such experiences since they should no longer be conscious. There is no brain activity, no heart beat, and no breathing. Some scientists believe that once your physical body dies, you die as well. They see the body and the mind/person as one.
Patients should not be able to float around or be able to observe everything in the operation room yet they do. What they recall after they have been dead prove that they (the self/ mind/ soul) never really lost consciousness while dead and therefore, the person has to be a separate and distinct entity from the body.

One story is about a lady with a NDE where she recalled how she moved away from her body outside her hospital room where she could see everything happening to her body. She recalled the conversation in the room between the doctors, where they stood, what tools they used (which were brought in after she had already been dead) and also, she told them about a blue tennis shoe on third floor window ledge. When the doctor who carried out the operation went up to the third floor, she found it exactly as the patient had described same location, same colour. Now i don't see how some chemical in your brain (which is not functioning) can know and remember things like that. How could she know all that while she was supposed to be dead?

Pim Van Lommel, a cardiologist, wrote a book on near death experiences titled "Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience.''
He began to study NDEs when he realized the frequency at which they were occurring in his patients who survived cardiac arrest. His research was the first scientifically rigorous study of this phenomenon. He provides scientific evidence that the NDEs are authentic and cannot be attributed to imagination, psychosis, or oxygen deprivation. He further reveals that after such a profound experience, most patients' personalities undergo a permanent change. In van Lommel's opinion, the current views on the relationship between the brain and consciousness held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists are too narrow for a proper understanding of the phenomenon. He shows that consciousness does not always coincide with brain functions and that, remarkably and significantly, consciousness can even be experienced separate from the body.
Van Lommel states "patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness. And because of the occasional and verifiable out-of-body experiences, like the one involving the dentures in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last seconds of cardiac arrest. So we have to come to the surprising conclusion that during cardiac arrest NDE is experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem."
I have provided a link to his research findings :
http://www.pimvanlommel.nl/files/public ... 0Brain.pdf

BBC made a documentary on Near Death Experiences. It was very interesting, you all should check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

[jayt]

Evolution creates organisms and systems? Are you meaning to say that Evolution is a Source to cause a creation? Tell me your facts.

[jayt]

maj.tom... Evolution creates nothing. Evolution transforms, changes mutates from something. What Evolved? Give me some evidence.

[bluefete]

^^ @bluefete LOL sharks walked on land and then evolved into monkeys!! LULZZZZ Haven't had a lulz like that since "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?"

If you don't understand, pick up a book and read a bit first nah before spewing forth your hearsay I can't believe it's not butter opinions that you firmly believe are correct.

And the post above your makes it clear that's not what the research concluded. Sharks were the last common ancestor before branching off into bony fishes, the lineage of which humans are now a part of.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lineage

lin·e·age
1    [lin-ee-ij]
noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

Origin:
1275–1325; line(al) + -age; replacing Middle English linage < Anglo-French; Old French lignage < Vulgar Latin *līneāticum. See line1 , -age

Synonyms
1. pedigree, parentage, derivation, genealogy. 2. tribe, clan.


You were saying???????????????????

The common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates on Earth resembled a shark according to the Acanthodes bronni fossil.

It was the last common ancestor before the split between early sharks and bony fish.

Humans evolved from bony fishes, as did all mammals.

Evolutions is not as simple and it's not what you are thinking "A goes to B and B turns into a C and then C turns into a monkey and then monkey turns into man." Think of evolution as a huge very branched tree, and at the very end of each branch is a different type of fruit. (Can a mango tree evolve into an apple tree? Did all the different fruits and trees in the world evolve from one tree?)

A experiences different environments and changes very slowly into different branches of C D E F G H I J, and all of them are dead-ends and only H remain because it's so successful. Then H is subjected to different environments and changes slowly genetically by natural selection again into a number of branches again. Nobody chooses this, it's nature. It selects which species can live in the environment and passes on those traits. For millions of years!

The beginning of each branch is a family. And each family has many genus which in turn have many species. Homo is a genus of the order Primate of the class Mammalia. Homo sapien is a species. Gorilla belongs to the Hominidae family just like humans, but a different sub-family. Chimps, same family, different genus. Homo erectus belongs to the same family, same tribe and same genus as modern humans, but were a different species. They have died out (Why? Is it that they could not adapt to a changing environment? So when they died out,did evolution choose another species to continue human evolution?) , but were considered humans also.

There is a reason behind scientific taxonomy and genetic phylogeny. Please, I implore you, read first before thinking you know everything about everything.

I am not God. I do not know everything.

[sweetiepaper]

evolution is a science

There are different types of evolution. Micro-evolution is a science and the only type of evolution to be considered a science. It is minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level. This means animals may have a wide variety of offspring but they are always of the same kind of animal. They do not evolve into a different kind of animal (macro-evolution). Macro-evolution is not a science, it is a belief just like religion.

Unlike religion, science works very hard at disproving itself.
The whole concept of science is to constantly and thoroughly test every theory until proven or dis-proven.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. This process has been proven, from the smallest bacteria in the development of anti-biotics to the empirical evidence of vestigial organs in animals such as the hind legs of a whale which have evolved into no more than tiny flaps.

Okay, let's take d whale hind legs example. So d whale used to have tiny hind legs which, over a long period of time, changed into tiny flaps?
What empirical evidence did the scientists provide that convinced you this change was true?

Remember whales are mammals.

What are you implying here? Do u mean to say humans were once whales or whales were once humans?
I mean, I love the Storebay but i ain't no whale man.

Humans also bear what some consider vestigial behaviors and reflexes. The formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex; its function in human ancestors was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators.

This is like saying Chinese people have smaller eyes to protect them from the dust in their region. It's just an assumption, you don't really know the reason it is that way.

[sMASH]

the reasons are not necessary for this context. when they trace back dna they should see that there is a succession

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

sweetiepaper



There is a mountain of scientific evidence in favour of evolution. It is taught in schools up to the highest levels.

The same science that discovered and explain the evidence of evolution is the same science that pioneers stem cell research and modern medicine which we all use.

Science is about facts, not faith.

Universities around the world explore, research and teach evolution. They would not do so if the subject was unfounded or weak.

Evolution does necessarily not disprove God at all - though it definitely would not support the Genesis story etc.

Evolution is NOT an attack on theism. Theists are often offended by the concept of evolution because it does not match their "Genesis" story. I'm sure Aztecs wont agree with evolution either since they believe a dual god created himself and then created man as giants to eat acorns.

[stickman]

Evolution is backed by conclusive evidence unlike your god(s).

What is interesting is that a Muslim friend of mine believes in evolution, with the exception of humans, which according to him was made from dust.