look up the difference between a human and a chimp. Believe it's less than 1%. Us and neanderthals is a 0,004% diff... and there were more humanoids very similar.
The only thing which can support creationism is the missing link, yet, such a link would've evolved as well. As a matter of fact, we are evolving as we speak. Well, some at least, some are degenerates and will simply be extinct.
You can't find answers for like questions like this. You can make cases for both sides; in the end of the day, it's an opinion and not a fact.
While it's true that our DNA is 90% close to apes; however, there is no evidence of the fossil of of the ''common ancestor'', we humans and apes supposedly share. If you take a look at religion, it talks about a deity who created the universe. The universe's creation is unimaginably complex. The way time flows, living creatures function and constructed, the mysteries behind space, and so on makes believe there is indeed a designer behind all this. Do you expect to believe the universe just popped out nowhere by a chance? Hell no. Also, if you take look at some of the stuff in religion, and try to mix them with science, you will see that god does exist. For example:
The holy black stone that resides in Muslim country, is stated to be the stone that fell from heaven to the earth to Adam and Eve. According to scientists, the stone is actually small pieces of asteroid.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
So if you indeed mix religion evidences with scientific evidences, the chances of god existing is over 50%.
The chimpanzee genome was sequenced for the first time in 2005. It was found to differ from the human genome with which it was compared, nucleotide-for-nucleotide, by about 1.23 percent. This amounts to about 40 million differences in our DNA, half of which likely resulted from mutations in the human ancestral line and half in the chimp line since the two species diverged
The chimpanzee genome was sequenced for the first time in 2005. It was found to differ from the human genome with which it was compared, nucleotide-for-nucleotide, by about 1.23 percent. This amounts to about 40 million differences in our DNA, half of which likely resulted from mutations in the human ancestral line and half in the chimp line since the two species diverged
lol pls stop, you know every type of dog on the planet ancestor is a grey wolf and there still are grey wolves today. polar bears ancestors are grizzly bear but they're still are grizzly bears today.
apes evolving into humans doesn't mean all apes should have evolved too.
You can't find answers for like questions like this. You can make cases for both sides; in the end of the day, it's an opinion and not a fact.
While it's true that our DNA is 90% close to apes; however, there is no evidence of the fossil of of the ''common ancestor'', we humans and apes supposedly share. If you take a look at religion, it talks about a deity who created the universe. The universe's creation is unimaginably complex. The way time flows, living creatures function and constructed, the mysteries behind space, and so on makes believe there is indeed a designer behind all this. Do you expect to believe the universe just popped out nowhere by a chance? Hell no. Also, if you take look at some of the stuff in religion, and try to mix them with science, you will see that god does exist. For example:
The holy black stone that resides in Muslim country, is stated to be the stone that fell from heaven to the earth to Adam and Eve. According to scientists, the stone is actually small pieces of asteroid.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
So if you indeed mix religion evidences with scientific evidences, the chances of god existing is over 50%.
Actually, that can also be explained by the theory that people labelled what they couldn't understand at the time as "god."
When people saw lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, wildfires, they realized that there are elements to the world greater than them. They could not control these things, nor could they understand it. They saw that these things could cause great death and destruction. So what did they do? They created the idea of "god." "God" could explain where these things came from.
They created multiple "gods" for the multiple aspects of nature. They gave these "gods" human-like characteristics, from anatomy to emotion. That way, the humans could feel comfort in knowing that beings like themselves were in control of these things. After all, it was these things being vastly different from what they knew that caused them fear in the first place, by likening those that controlled these elements to themselves, they bred comfort through familiarity.
They made them more than one "god" because, at the time, one being controlling all these forces were probably as frightening as not having an explanation for them. What if they pissed off this one god, or what if this one god decided he wanted to trash the Earth about, and unleashed all these furies? The humans couldn't possibly stop it. So, by creating more than one of these "Gods" for each element and aspect, they had the comfort of knowing that no one being was there and could take them out, there were other beings capable of stopping it if did decided to ravage the Earth. This once again ties into them giving them the human characteristics of reasoning and emotions like compassion, it increased the comfort. Basically, if they said these gods could feel compassion, then they must feel other emotions like sadness, fury and vengeance. So, they needed an explanation as to how they could survive those that got furious.
This is where Zeus, Hades, Odin, Thor, Heracles and all the gods came from, this same kind of thinking.
Eventually, the ideas as they were passed around changed. 30 gods became 20, 20 become 5, 5 became 1. Characteristics changed to fit new needed explanations.
Even today, it's the same. People say their gods will grant them salvation. Looking around at the world with all the poverty, disasters, all the grief, people need comfort. People need to think that there's something better that will save them, that can save them, that wants to save them. And that's God. That's Allah. That's Jehovah. That's Vishnu. That's Jesus. It's all comfort that will eventually be grown out of and seen as poppycock, the same way Zeus and Hercules were made into Disney characters, you're gonna eventually see "Jesus Goes To High School! Coming Fall: 5015."
Basically, creationism was the explanation for the world based on comforting and superstitious ideals. Science is the analyzing and proper definition for these things.
Let's use your example: A black fell from heaven.
Science determined that isn't some special rock from God, but actually a meteorite, pretty ordinary and common. Science doesn't boost the chances of god existing, because science counteracts what brought god up in the first place.
Let's use your example: A black fell from heaven.
Science determined that isn't some special rock from God, but actually a meteorite, pretty ordinary and common. Science doesn't boost the chances of god existing, because science counteracts what brought god up in the first place.
In religion, the black stone is something god made it fall, so that Abraham would put it there where he build the Kaaba. Obviously, scientists don't believe in god, but their research evidencing that black stone is piece of meteor, and in conjunction with religion beliefs leads to the possibilities of a deity existing. Like I said, the universe's creation is complex, and our knowledge is limited. Scientists can only hypothesis few things. Go to where space is, and you will see what definition of complex is. Something better to believe in the design of a god, rather than believing a popped chances.
In religion, the black stone is something god made it fall, so that Abraham would put it there where he build the Kaaba. Obviously, scientists don't believe in god, but their research evidencing that black stone is piece of meteor, and in conjunction with religion beliefs leads to the possibilities of a deity existing. Like I said, the universe's creation is complex, and our knowledge is limited. Scientists can only hypothesis few things. Go to where space is, and you will see what definition of complex is.
"The black stone was just a meteorite that, like millions of other meteorites that were likewise not special in any way, fell to the Earth and was encountered by a human being. Not knowing what meteorites were or that the regularly fell from space onto other planets all over the universe, the human attributed the meteorite to being from God because that was the only explanation his understanding of the world could allow him. "-Science
"God" started out as someone seeing lightning or a tsunami and not knowing what the hell it was, came up with a supernatural explanation.
Really? I find it is often the other way around. At least on NB. Where if someone says something religious or just remotely sounding religious they are attacked and hated. Rather than just having people disagree, and discuss things. Im not saying there are not religious people who do not do that, but that on nb at least I dont see them.
Narutobase.net is made up of many different cultures, ages, and personality types. This thread for for intellectual debate on the topic Creationism vs Evolution. I want to gauge the amount of people who believe if we have been created or evolved. Also, there is a third variable of people who don't know, and there will be a voting option for that. Posting "I don't care" is asinine considering you opened the thread when no one forced you to, when the title clearly dictates the purpose of this thread. Please keep it clean and have healthy conversations in an attempt to understand another's point of view.
I will start:
I stand on the "unknown" part of this debate, however I "believe" that we (the human race) came from evolution. If you go back to the start of time then you could say we "may" have been "created" but I will try and remain scientific due to the unknown origin of mass and matter. Because this debate mostly dictates modern religion vs modern science, I will fall under the scientific side of the topic.
Now that being said lets start my belief:
Most people view evolution like this-
You must be registered for see images
Many people in debates against Evolution say things like "we didn't come from monkeys" and well, the truth is we didn't. We come from monkeys like spiders come from scorpions, we simply didn't. What we did evolve from was a common ape ancestor.
If the universe was created by a deity or not, what we do have proof of is that humans haven't always been here and there is plenty of evidence that evolution is the most likely cause of our current existence. I have not picked a side, you could call me agnostic on the topic but I believe a mixture of science and possible creationism. However, there is little to no proof following creationism of humans, so tell me your opinion below!
Well I am kinda tired and I made many posts about this topic on another thread. Let me start by explaining my background then I will say what I think.
I am a Christian. I came to that conclusion on my own after years of intense questioning.
I am young and do not have a very extensive knowledge of the bible. A bad combination for being knowledgable on this topic.
Bad because I dont have a clear understanding of all the bible says on the things on the earth(creation included), and because I have not had many years to observe and continue thinking on this topic.
My opinion. I have been searching for a while to try to find a definative stance. But I have yet to come to any conclusion other than I believe God made the universe and can control everything in it.
I do not have a strong opinion on either creationalism nor evolution.
So I will share my thoughts with both sides.
Creationalism. Well there are many different creation stories for different religions. I assume this thread is talking more about Christian/judaism style creationalism.
The problem with proving creationalism is that there is no way to prove that God created it. Even if God himself came down to earth and began doing all sorts of super natural stuff, and created animals right in front of people, there would be plenty of people who would try to come up with a scientific explanation using physics and stuff.
So it doesnt matter if creationalism happened or not, because even if it did and God left his fingerprints everywhere, if you are focused and determined that something different happened, then you will go out of your way to prove something that is false.
Think sort of like the movie "my cousin vinny". How the brothers were blamed and evidence was found. Yet though all the evidence, and even through their speech that further strengthened the evidence(such as "I murdered that person?"(asking it in a questioning manner) being interpretted as "I murdered that person."
Anyways to finish I will point out a often overlooked part of creationalism.
In Christian creationalism there are 2 versions of earth. There is earth before the fall of man, and earth after the fall of man.
Though they are similar, they have a vast many differences which the extent is impossible to properly understand, and there is nothing like a checklist of compare and contrast.
So it is possible that after the fall, it devolved into evolution and stuff.
To the theory of evolution. My problem with the current theory is that it relies on chance happening again and again trillions of times in a row to work. I can understand a species changing into another. The problem I have with it, is how it always seems to work out.
My issue is with transpecies changes. Like a reptile becoming a bird over time. For a large majority of the evolution process the characteristics for wings would be useless or a disadvantage. Having hollow bones that snap easily, and having arms progress into wings is the sort of thing that is useless until it becomes functional. When you have creatures just develop organs and things that never existed before out of nowhere, is the sort of thing I have trouble with.
A example would be like over time out of nowhere humans begin developing a series of electrical nerve connections to a newly forming hole in their head. Over time this would form a usb port in the side of a persons head. Then humans would not need computers for all their data, and could directly share data.
A better example would be over time humans develop a huge bump on the top of their heads that eventually forms a transmitter that allows humans to send out bluetooth waves, and recieve them.
Other than just not having a good explanation for how things always seem to take a correct evolutionary path, even when sometimes the mutations are disadvantagous, to eventually form a fully adapted thing is what I find the flaw in evolution to be. Other than that the science is mostly sound.
So it is the driving force behind the change, not the change itself that I have many questions about.(that I have not gotten a good answer for)
Im sorry if parts of this are incoherent. I am tired and going to bed now.
Really? I find it is often the other way around. At least on NB. Where if someone says something religious or just remotely sounding religious they are attacked and hated. Rather than just having people disagree.
(people can disagree while liking each other.)
Well I am kinda tired and I made many posts about this topic on another thread. Let me start by explaining my background then I will say what I think.
I am a Christian. I came to that conclusion on my own after years of intense questioning.
I am young and do not have a very extensive knowledge of the bible. A bad combination for being knowledgable on this topic.
Bad because I dont have a clear understanding of all the bible says on the things on the earth(creation included), and because I have not had many years to observe and continue thinking on this topic.
My opinion. I have been searching for a while to try to find a definative stance. But I have yet to come to any conclusion other than I believe God made the universe and can control everything in it.
I do not have a strong opinion on either creationalism nor evolution.
So I will share my thoughts with both sides.
Creationalism. Well there are many different creation stories for different religions. I assume this thread is talking more about Christian/judaism style creationalism.
The problem with proving creationalism is that there is no way to prove that God created it. Even if God himself came down to earth and began doing all sorts of super natural stuff, and created animals right in front of people, there would be plenty of people who would try to come up with a scientific explanation using physics and stuff.
So it doesnt matter if creationalism happened or not, because even if it did and God left his fingerprints everywhere, if you are focused and determined that something different happened, then you will go out of your way to prove something that is false.
Think sort of like the movie "my cousin vinny". How the brothers were blamed and evidence was found. Yet though all the evidence, and even through their speech that further strengthened the evidence(such as "I murdered that person?"(asking it in a questioning manner) being interpretted as "I murdered that person."
Anyways to finish I will point out a often overlooked part of creationalism.
In Christian creationalism there are 2 versions of earth. There is earth before the fall of man, and earth after the fall of man.
Though they are similar, they have a vast many differences which the extent is impossible to properly understand, and there is nothing like a checklist of compare and contrast.
So it is possible that after the fall, it devolved into evolution and stuff.
To the theory of evolution. My problem with the current theory is that it relies on chance happening again and again trillions of times in a row to work. I can understand a species changing into another. The problem I have with it, is how it always seems to work out.
My issue is with transpecies changes. Like a reptile becoming a bird over time. For a large majority of the evolution process the characteristics for wings would be useless or a disadvantage. Having hollow bones that snap easily, and having arms progress into wings is the sort of thing that is useless until it becomes functional. When you have creatures just develop organs and things that never existed before out of nowhere, is the sort of thing I have trouble with.
A example would be like over time out of nowhere humans begin developing a series of electrical nerve connections to a newly forming hole in their head. Over time this would form a usb port in the side of a persons head. Then humans would not need computers for all their data, and could directly share data.
A better example would be over time humans develop a huge bump on the top of their heads that eventually forms a transmitter that allows humans to send out bluetooth waves, and recieve them.
Other than just not having a good explanation for how things always seem to take a correct evolutionary path, even when sometimes the mutations are disadvantagous, to eventually form a fully adapted thing is what I find the flaw in evolution to be. Other than that the science is mostly sound.
So it is the driving force behind the change, not the change itself that I have many questions about.(that I have not gotten a good answer for)
Im sorry if parts of this are incoherent. I am a tired and going to bed now.
Actually, with the theory of evolution, it doesn't always work out. Sometimes, changes aren't good enough and the adaptions result in death. There are times when there are no adaptations at all and they die. Evolution is success=life, failure=death. There are a lot of failures, but the reason it seems like it always works out is because those that do work survive and live, but the failures die and become extinct. Not to mention things like mutations.
It's pretty hypocritical and convenient, IMO, to have a mindset like "organs developing out of nowhere doesn't sit well", but then be fine with "God just exists and has always existed and will always exist, and he created things out of nothing, and all of this is because he wanted it to be like that and don't question it because you'll never truly understand."
In religion, the black stone is something god made it fall, so that Abraham would put it there where he build the Kaaba. Obviously, scientists don't believe in god, but their research evidencing that black stone is piece of meteor, and in conjunction with religion beliefs leads to the possibilities of a deity existing. Like I said, the universe's creation is complex, and our knowledge is limited. Scientists can only hypothesis few things. Go to where space is, and you will see what definition of complex is. Something better to believe in the design of a god, rather than believing a popped chances.
I myself would prefer being popped by chance. As following something that I was not their for so I have have to blindly follow and how can people know which "God" is the right one. Their have been many gods before Judaism and Christians god. They are not the oldest religions. So who's to say that this one god made the world. Like I said I won't blindly fallow something.
"The black stone was just a meteorite that, like millions of other meteorites that were likewise not special in any way, fell to the Earth and was encountered by a human being. Not knowing what meteorites were or that the regularly fell from space onto other planets all over the universe, the human attributed the meteorite to being from God because that was the only explanation his understanding of the world could allow him. "-Science
"God" started out as someone seeing lightning or a tsunami and not knowing what the hell it was, came up with a supernatural explanation.
The stone's shape differs from normal stones that fall from space. And also, I said take both of them in conjunction. To reply to your god concept of how people brought it up:
First, those ages were humans were ignorant at the time. You can see they worship statues, animals and even kings of lands. Their god has always been anything they decided to worship. Holy books like the bible and quran were ''written'' by god, and given to his prophets, so that they can use those books to have people worship the real god. The bible has supposedly been altered, but the quran hasn't. Again, I will use another scientific evidence in conjunction with religion:
The moon has a giant crack on its surface. According to religion, prophet Muhammad wanted to demonstrate to people that exists, and pointed his finger where the moon was cracked (not completely). According to scientists, they don't know the cause behind it.
Apollo mission photographs of the Rima Ariadaeus revealed a rift line across the surface of the moon. A 2004 book by Zaghloul El-Naggar reproduces one of these photographs and says that British Muslim David Musa Pidcock told him he had seen a 1978 "program" (sic) in which he claimed that unnamed US space scientists had said that "the moon had been split a long time ago and rejoined, and there is a lot of concrete evidence on the surface of the moon to prove this".[16] This was reported as proof of splitting by news services such as Jafariya News[17][18] and on Internet Web sites. On being asked in 2010, NASA scientist Brad Bailey said, "My recommendation is to not believe everything you read on the internet. Peer-reviewed papers are the only scientifically valid sources of information out there. No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."[7]
I myself would prefer being popped by chance. As following something that I was not their for so I have have to blindly follow and how can people know which "God" is the right one. Their have been many gods before Judaism and Christians god. They are not the oldest religions. So who's to say that this one god made the world. Like I said I won't blindly fallow something.
I myself would prefer being popped by chance. As following something that I was not their for so I have have to blindly follow and how can people know which "God" is the right one. Their have been many gods before Judaism and Christians god. They are not the oldest religions. So who's to say that this one god made the world. Like I said I won't blindly fallow something.
Judaism is one of the oldest religions and the oldest monotheistic religion in the world, roughly 3000-4000 thousand years.
Christains, Jews, and Muslims basically follow the same God but have different texts(one doesn't believe in Jesus being the son of God while the other doesn't believe in Muhammad being a prophet, etc.)
But regardless, the belief in this common God has survived for thousands of years while Norse, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, etc. have become nothing more than myth and no longer accepted as a religion.
Civilizations have risen and fallen, yet the belief in this God remained. Take it as you will, but something like that is quite extraordinary.
For something to survive that long, there must be some truth to the faith.
The stone's shape differs from normal stones that fall from space. And also, I said take both of them in conjunction. To reply to your god concept of how people brought it up:
First, those ages were humans were ignorant at the time. You can see they worship statues, animals and even kings of lands. Their god has always been anything they decided to worship. Holy books like the bible and quran were ''written'' by god, and given to his prophets, so that they can use those books to have people worship the real god. The bible has supposedly been altered, but the quran hasn't. Again, I will use another scientific evidence in conjunction with religion:
The moon has a giant crack on its surface. According to religion, prophet Muhammad wanted to demonstrate to people that exists, and pointed his finger where the moon was cracked (not completely). According to scientists, they don't know the cause behind it.
So no. Science at most cases doesn't debunk religion. It supports it.
That's your point of view. You're free to believe that.
I am saying that science can also hurt religion, I'm saying they don't have to be taken in conjunction.
How do we know that man didn't write the Bible/Quran and simply say God gave them what to write? Because the Bible/Quran says so? That's no more credible than me saying "I, Riker Slade, am right because I, Riker Slade, say I am."
All the predictions that happened in the Bible could have simply been added after the events, or using simple reasoning. Things stated in the holy books that tie in with science could have merely been faulty and primitive explanations to observations before science gave deeper and more precise explanations.
I am saying that science can also hurt religion, I'm saying they don't have to be taken in conjunction.
How do we know that man didn't write the Bible/Quran and simply say God gave them what to write? Because the Bible/Quran says so? That's no more credible than me saying "I, Riker Slade, am right because I, Riker Slade, say I am."
All the predictions that happened in the Bible could have simply been added after the events, or using simple reasoning. Things stated in the holy books that tie in with science could have merely been faulty and primitive explanations to observations before science gave deeper and more precise explanations.
Because the words and texts written there are extremely powerful and logical. Did you read the bible or the quran? I read both of them. I literally felt the how powerful the terms of those holy books. Man cannot write stuff like that. Furthermore, both books are recording some millions years of events, which again, can be proven by scientific evidence. Like the moon example I used. I want you take a look on the moon's example a little bit more, since you want me to use logical reasoning:
The moon's giant cracks are very squeezed and tight. A proof that the moon has shrunk compared to thousands of years. And scientists are trying to determine what caused this, and how long has it happened. First, it's supernatural. Second, I can guess it's between 1000-2000 years. Muhammad has been deceased for around 14000 years according the scripts of the guran, and the moon's event took place at his time.
All I am saying is, we shouldn't be aggressive in our beliefs. Science and religion should work together, if they want to find answers. Anyway, this discussion has been great, but I am going to play Call of Duty: Black Flag.
I am saying that science can also hurt religion, I'm saying they don't have to be taken in conjunction.
How do we know that man didn't write the Bible/Quran and simply say God gave them what to write? Because the Bible/Quran says so? That's no more credible than me saying "I, Riker Slade, am right because I, Riker Slade, say I am."
All the predictions that happened in the Bible could have simply been added after the events, or using simple reasoning. Things stated in the holy books that tie in with science could have merely been faulty and primitive explanations to observations before science gave deeper and more precise explanations.
Because I doubt people would easily believe someone is a son of god. That's a bold claim and he died preaching that claim. People followed him and say to have witnessed his miracles.
When someone claims they are special or have some power, it's usually for personal gain, yet Jesus didn't want to gain anything aside for making a world a better place.
What would it take for you to believe in something like that? People were pretty damn smart back then too, so he must he must have shown something to gain their attention or it might have just been a miracle they fell for it(heh)
Judaism is one of the oldest religions and the oldest monotheistic religion in the world, roughly 3000-4000 thousand years.
Christains, Jews, and Muslims basically follow the same God but have different texts(one doesn't believe in Jesus being the son of God while the other doesn't believe in Muhammad being a prophet, etc.)
But regardless, the belief in this common God has survived for thousands of years while Norse, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, etc. have become nothing more than myth and no longer accepted as a religion.
Civilizations have risen and fallen, yet the belief in this God remained. Take it as you will, but something like that is quite extraordinary.
For something to survive that long, there must be some truth to the faith.
You can't call a dead religion a myth just because it's not worshiped anymore. If it came before Judaism then that proves that their was other religions before it. So what's to say that their is only one true religion the Hinduism predates both of them by over 1000 year. Their are many religions that predate Judaism. Just because they die out doesn't make them less of holding the candle to what god made everything. That's why I said. I would much rather believe that it was chance that we are here. Religion was formed IMO for the people that could not explain things. So they had to try to find away to explain it.
You can't call a dead religion a myth just because it's not worshiped anymore. If it came before Judaism then that proves that their was other religions before it. So what's to say that their is only one true religion the Hinduism predates both of them by over 1000 year. Their are many religions that predate Judaism. Just because they die out doesn't make them less of holding the candle to what god made everything. That's why I said. I would much rather believe that it was chance that we are here. Religion was formed IMO for the people that could not explain things. So they had to try to find away to explain it.
You can't call a dead religion a myth just because it's not worshiped anymore. If it came before Judaism then that proves that their was other religions before it. So what's to say that their is only one true religion the Hinduism predates both of them by over 1000 year. Their are many religions that predate Judaism. Just because they die out doesn't make them less of holding the candle to what god made everything. That's why I said. I would much rather believe that it was chance that we are here. Religion was formed IMO for the people that could not explain things. So they had to try to find away to explain it.
Well I believe all religions have a connection and are true to a degree, that there is a higher power. I know it's going to be a strange claim, but I remember as a child I believed to have seen ghosts. I have a clear memory of what happened because it's something I've never forgotten and thought about constantly. I also have a near-photographic memory. My earliest memory was from when I was 2.
To this day I still can't explain what is was I saw, but science dictates there is no such thing as ghosts. In this instance science has failed me, religion has not.
The universe is large and many things are possible, saying God is not with only knowing 4% of the universe is foolish.
I know this I was saying just because a religion dies. Doesn't make it a myth that's what I was explain. Mythology comes from with in the religion itself.
