Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[Enzo]

Clearly something's different here...

Based on the stories told by all three of their holy texts, you could make whatever assumptions you want about the big guy in the sky those stories talk about. People often attribute the God in the old testament as "angry" for example, while other people justify him differently. There are so many ways to interpret the god of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran that it ultimately comes down to the individual to decide what god should be like.

Certainly, texts from all religions do not favor non believers and dissenters. Just because Islam puts more emphasis on that idea does not mean it is a different god they believe in.

[wraith89]

Based on the stories told by all three of their holy texts, you could make whatever assumptions you want about the big guy in the sky those stories talk about. People often attribute the God in the old testament as "angry" for example, while other people justify him differently. There are so many ways to interpret the god of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran that it ultimately comes down to the individual to decide what god should be like.

Certainly, texts from all religions do not favor non believers and dissenters. Just because Islam puts more emphasis on that idea does not mean it is a different god they believe in.

Then you clearly don't seem to know what Christianity really is about.The last time I checked, Christianity is about love. I don't view God as the "angry" smiteful God... the Mosaic Laws of the Old testament was in effect to differentiate Israel from the other nations. There are many ways to interpret God, yes, but does that mean that all are correct?

Even if He were the "angry" God, I'd think we all deserve to be punished anyhow. What goes around comes around...

[Turtlekid2]

The excerpt from the Qu'ran didn't say that their god "doesn't favor" unbelievers, it said he "doesn't love" unbelievers. So yeah, that's a huge difference.

But you're avoiding the main and most important difference between Islam and Christianity, and that's the deity of Christ. In Islam, Christ is a prophet of god, just another messenger; in Christianity, he is God, more specifically the "Son" part of the Trinity (speaking of the Trinity, no such doctrine exists in Islamic teachings; this is yet another difference). So please don't say they're effectively the same religion, because they're not.

[Enzo]

So please don't say they're effectively the same religion, because they're not.

I am not saying that they are effectively the same religion, I am saying that because so many stories are similar that all three religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) worship the same deity. All of them have different takes on him, but he is still the god of Abraham to all three of them. He's still the God that told a man to build the arc, he's still the god that created the earth in a week's time.

Then you clearly don't seem to know what Christianity really is about.The last time I checked, Christianity is about love. I don't view God as the "angry" smiteful God... the Mosaic Laws of the Old testament was in effect to differentiate Israel from the other nations. There are many ways to interpret God, yes, but does that mean that all are correct?

Even if He were the "angry" God, I'd think we all deserve to be punished anyhow. What goes around comes around...

Christianity is the worst example you could possibly give as having a unified opinion on what kind of character the abrahamic god is. Every division has an entirely different approach to him. In fact, there are sects of Christianity that I'm sure you are aware of that teach that god hates us all.

What I am getting at here, Wraith and Turtle, is that it's not the god they worship or the scripture they read that makes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam different, it is the group's general interpretation of those scriptures and the actions of their god within it. I am CERTAIN that I could make a case for Islam's God being a loving one that accepts all people just as I am certain that I could make a case for Christianity's God being angry and unforgiving.

[randomspot555]

The correct answer is that theologians (outer perspective) say they worship the same God. The inner perspective differs greatly, but MOST Jews, Christians, and Muslims will agree that they worship the same God.

Some Orthodox Jews will say they don't worship the same God as Catholics because Catholicisim is a polytheistic religion. Their view is that the way Catholics treat the saints as Gods.

Many make the same case about Hinduism.

Both of these aforementioned views are, however, from the inner perspective of the aforementioned religion(s). Which is different than viewing it from a cultural, outter perspective.

Not exactly... although the Muslims claim their belief is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian beliefs (it is), there are many differences to account for between the Judeo-Christian Yeshua and the Islamic Isa. Allah and Yahweh seem similar but they have many differences.

The God of Christianity loves all apparently:

We can play "dig up the quotes" all day long. While I'm not making the case that the God of Christianity and Judaism is vengeful, I am saying that your claim is just cherry picking verses:

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;

the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.

The LORD takes vengeance on his foes

and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

One could make the case that the original meaning of the Greek language was greatly lost and the words "jealous", "avenge" and "vengence" refer to a strong passion rather than the negative, immoral conotation they have today.

But gosh darn golly gee whiz, that just means that it IS true that the Bible lost quite a bit in numerous interperations.

So here's something else:

The boastful shall not stand in your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.

In fact, Pslams is an excellent place to read of what God hates. He hates ("abhors" is the word used) the people driven out of Cannan, and bloodthirsty and deceitful men.

And in Leviticus, "and My soul will abhor you" (Leviticus 26: 27-30).

This doesn't mean the God of Christianity and Judaism hates humanity, but it clearly demonstrates that He can and does hate.

Similarly, Allah follows much the same system of the often paraphrased "hate the sin, love the sinner." He doesn't live those who reject him, or trangressors, and similar phrases (points above) can be found in the Bible.

The Qu'ran's name for Allah (one of) is "the Forigiving and Loving" (Qur'an 85:14)

To make out Allah has some unforgiving vengeful God and give the Chrisitan God a complete pass is just cherry picking.

I think I could argue that John 3:16 indicates God's level of hate for humanity. If God so loved the world that he sacrificed His only son, what does the reverse mean? That humanity was doomed without Jesus?

Based on the stories told by all three of their holy texts, you could make whatever assumptions you want about the big guy in the sky those stories talk about. People often attribute the God in the old testament as "angry" for example, while other people justify him differently. There are so many ways to interpret the god of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran that it ultimately comes down to the individual to decide what god should be like.

Certainly, texts from all religions do not favor non believers and dissenters. Just because Islam puts more emphasis on that idea does not mean it is a different god they believe in.

Agreed. Also, it seems that wraith and Turtlekid2 missed the original point, that the Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran share many similarities including specific stories and characters and general themes.

Then you clearly don't seem to know what Christianity really is about.The last time I checked, Christianity is about love.

No one said it wasn't. but that doesn't inherently mean Judaism and Islam aren't also.

the Mosaic Laws of the Old testament was in effect to differentiate Israel from the other nations.

The Old Testament isn't just laws.

And it doesn't actually say that in the Bible.

What it does say is that the laws are there because you can't just repent on the final day and be fine. Contrast that with Christian teachings, where the argument of "grace and grace alone" vs "grace and good works" broke the Catholic Church in two. And both sides have more than enough evidence from the New Testament to show that both are equally viable arguments.

Even if He were the "angry" God, I'd think we all deserve to be punished anyhow. What goes around comes around...

I don't see how the concept of original sin (inherently carrying sin because your ancestors sinned) is compatible with a loving God.

But you're avoiding the main and most important difference between Islam and Christianity, and that's the deity of Christ. In Islam, Christ is a prophet of god, just another messenger; in Christianity, he is God, more specifically the "Son" part of the Trinity (speaking of the Trinity, no such doctrine exists in Islamic teachings; this is yet another difference).

Again, the point wasn't "they're the same." It's that "they have many similarities."

And the Trinity is hardly a universal belief in Christianity. Churches differ on specifics of the Trinity or even the entire concept of it.

[Turtlekid2]

What I am getting at here, Wraith and Turtle, is that it's not the god they worship or the scripture they read that makes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam different, it is the group's general interpretation of those scriptures and the actions of their god within it. I am CERTAIN that I could make a case for Islam's God being a loving one that accepts all people just as I am certain that I could make a case for Christianity's God being angry and unforgiving.

True, but interpretations can only differentiate (sp?) Christianity and Islam to a certain extent and degree. If their scriptures said the same things, wouldn't it stand to reason that people would interpret them the same way? Therefore, the respective scriptures must be somewhat different, and, by extension, so must God and Allah.

[randomspot555]

True, but interpretations can only differentiate (sp?) Christianity and Islam to a certain extent and degree.

What's your point?

If their scriptures said the same things, wouldn't it stand to reason that people would interpret them the same way?

People can interpert the exact same thing in thousands of different ways. Did you really not know that?

See: The thousands of different sects of Christianity (all use the Bible, and the differences between versions of the Bible are overall minor), Judaism (all use the Torah), and Islam (all use Qu'ran).

And even though they all descended from Abraham, they became 3 distinct religions. Even though Christians were originally just a Judaistic sect (in some cases, still are), they interperted the OT differently.

But again, you missed the point entirely. Enzo never said their respective books are the same, or exact same, or the religions are the same. It is that they contain many similiarities, even to the point of origin.

Similarly, my point was disproving your notion that an Islamic country is on some anti-Christian crusade and would deny the existence of an Ark. Which makes no sense at all because the story of the Ark is present in the Qu'Ran. Thus if evidence of the Ark ever was found, it would simultaneously function as prove for all Abrahamic religions.

And that from a perspective of a theologian and not a religious insider, that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same God.

[ASuch]

I'm going with Darwin here. You should probably change the title because Darwin believed in evolution, not who created the universe. I do believe that some special being created the universe, but not God. All of the different oddities lead me to believe that God isn't real. I won't rant on that though. I'm still going with Darwin. It all makes sense. Explain how monkeys and humans have almost the same characteristics.

[wraith89]

I'm going with Darwin here. You should probably change the title because Darwin believed in evolution, not who created the universe. I do believe that some special being created the universe, but not God. All of the different oddities lead me to believe that God isn't real. I won't rant on that though. I'm still going with Darwin. It all makes sense. Explain how monkeys and humans have almost the same characteristics.

It is also a case for a common Creator. Explain what really convinces you about Darwinism.

[Tbird]

Ok well I only read the OP, not gone through 18 pages to read everyone else's answers, because well I don't wanna challenge someone else's beliefs. Though I welcome anyone to challenge mine. I've put it in spoilers because ... it's late and I've got nothing better to do than write a stupid amount lol.

I am an agnostic person, the pussy-footed hell bound among us who can't decide between creationism and science. Not naïve enough to believe science can prove everything, and similarly not wishful enough to say that something with little to no proof of existence holds all the answers.

There's loads of theories as to how the universe came to be and how we are here, and most of them hold some strong footing. I could rant all day about the pros and cons to each theory but I'll spare you of that boring stream of nonsensical babble .

When it comes to how we are here I got to score it 1:0 no to evolution. Simply being because of how rapidly things like viruses, fungi and bacterium 'change.' With every new year there's something like 144 new different strains of cold. Now without going into their purpose and saying things like God created these to test us and keep us on our toes, lets look at that on a basic level. In most cases a smaller organism is prone to a shorter life span, and within that life span every organism fulfils the same amount as every other organism (in most cases ), lest species of the world would be dying out day by day. The things that organisms need to fulfill are procreation and a way to live (might that be the answer to the big 'Why are we here' question? Simply to live and give life).

So let's start with something as small as a bug, moths in particular. With every new year and changing seasons a lot of moths change their appearance to better fend for them selves and help camouflage themselves into their surroundings. This is adaptation, which is a form of evolution in itself - and provides a good reason as to why evolution happens.

In saying that lets take it back to micro-organism, viruses and such. Bacterium and fungi all love warm places to live and multiply, to, in essence, carry on their population. A human body provides such an environment of which bacterium can multiply and leach off of our existence - until lymphocytes, B and T Cells come a swinging and kill them. When this happens our body forms an immunity to that specific strain of bacterium/fungi/virus - again another solid argument for evolution. Not only does this happen but in a micro-organism's desire to 'live' and populate.. and in general be a parasite it too has to change to allow for this to happen - more evolution. If this wasn't to be true then no one would ever get sick again, or we'd all have died long ago.

More on human evolution. let's just, for funsies, say we were all ape-people before we came to be in this state. Humans started life back in the latter ages of the ice age, as the ice age dwindled so too did the need for us to have fur. Similarly hunting, walking, eating and mating methods all changed and as such so too did our posture and general physical biology to complement this (this could explain why we no longer need our appendix, and why we have no use for the eye lids behind our eye ids [i can't remember the scientific name for them .. optic appendages ? ... cats have them too lol]). Also take into account the lack of religion and social etiquette right back in those times, with a lack of religion, and considering this still happens to this date in some places, incest fuelled a lot of genetic shifts and make ups. This could have been the catalyst to us loosing fur, some children created by way of incest have all sorts of abnormalities - some people lack a clotting agent in their blood and develop haemophilia, who's to say we lost a hormone gland that promotes hair growth? Possibly what the tonsils were before they lost their use? (When you take into account the amount of glands that surround that area as is, it wouldn't be a total surprise if they turned out to be part of the endo/exocrinal system.)

Anyway that's how I explain as to how we are here.

Now if I haven't lost you already, this next part sure will.

The universe. Now let's go back to how I said smaller things evolve faster. Let's also now say that universe is actually tiny. And let's also look closer to home - our solar system. Now if any of you have done SAT or the equivalent in physics you will all know what an Atom looks like and how it is made up. An atom is electrons spinning around a nucleus full of protons and neutrons. Now again look at our solar system. You'll be hard pressed to say that our solar sytem and an atom doesn't share similar traits. The sun would be our nucleus - it's too hot to actually have a look inside of it so we can never be too sure as to what it contains, so this might all be moot - and the planets would be the electrons.

The above picture is a picture of flourine - it has one neucleus and nine elctrons. I don't know about you but I think it looks pretty damn close to our solar system . So what am I getting at here?

The universe is ever expanding - and as such it's ever evolving to accommodate for all the nothingness that we're yet to discover. The stars are actually suns, big bulls of gas high in the sky, 7 - 100 years in the past (that doesn't go to say they are 7 years away - more like 7 - 100 x the speed of light away), all of which could well have their very own solar systems, and indeed their own entities and life forms. (Going off on a a tangeant >

The reason we haven't seen these lief forms is because aliens and other living things are probably only about as evolved as we are - and even if they weren't there would be no way for them to be able to survive a trip from their home galaxy/ solar system to be able to find us. I'm not trying to discredit the folk that believe in aliens, but think logically, if we can't do it, what makes you think they would be able to.

) What I'm trying to say here is that maybe the universe is like a sea, or a gaseous planet (that's right the universe being part of a different bigger planet .. odd concept right, if you're smoking something you shouldn't be I'd throw that bad boy away now before this gives you a stroke). The chemical make up of any liquid or gas is their corresponding atoms set about in a sparse fashion with a lot of space in between them. Now I think there is a lot of space between us and the next ∞ solar systems. So to me that idea makes a lot of sense. And then this carries on a lot like a mirror facing another mirror does ... each planet is a part of an atom which is a part of a bigger sea of atoms which is part of a planet. Similarly we could all be part of a table or some other object. ~On the same point here, with scientist trying to split an atom and everything - let me put this to you, anti matter is a substtance that lives without any external source of energy, it is in itself pure energy. Humans have a life force that keeps us alive ... an electric current that makes our heart pump, our bowels move in tune to peristalsis and thoughts occur in our head. Could we merely be the antimatter that scientists are looking for?

As to why all of this exists - look up the theory/laws of chance. I'm not saying there isn't a creator, I'm just saying there might not be ... and if it wasn't for holy books and all the flaws, contradictions that they hold, I may have a little bit more faith in the idea of creator.

And wouldn't you know it, I just gave you a stream of nonsensical babble

[MACandCHEEZWIZ1]

Ok well I only read the OP, not gone through 18 pages to read everyone else's answers, because well I don't wanna challenge someone else's beliefs. Though I welcome anyone to challenge mine. I've put it in spoilers because ... it's late and I've got nothing better to do than write a stupid amount lol.

I am an agnostic person, the pussy-footed hell bound among us who can't decide between creationism and science. Not naïve enough to believe science can prove everything, and similarly not wishful enough to say that something with little to no proof of existence holds all the answers.

There's loads of theories as to how the universe came to be and how we are here, and most of them hold some strong footing. I could rant all day about the pros and cons to each theory but I'll spare you of that boring stream of nonsensical babble .

When it comes to how we are here I got to score it 1:0 no to evolution. Simply being because of how rapidly things like viruses, fungi and bacterium 'change.' With every new year there's something like 144 new different strains of cold. Now without going into their purpose and saying things like God created these to test us and keep us on our toes, lets look at that on a basic level. In most cases a smaller organism is prone to a shorter life span, and within that life span every organism fulfils the same amount as every other organism (in most cases ), lest species of the world would be dying out day by day. The things that organisms need to fulfill are procreation and a way to live (might that be the answer to the big 'Why are we here' question? Simply to live and give life).

So let's start with something as small as a bug, moths in particular. With every new year and changing seasons a lot of moths change their appearance to better fend for them selves and help camouflage themselves into their surroundings. This is adaptation, which is a form of evolution in itself - and provides a good reason as to why evolution happens.

In saying that lets take it back to micro-organism, viruses and such. Bacterium and fungi all love warm places to live and multiply, to, in essence, carry on their population. A human body provides such an environment of which bacterium can multiply and leach off of our existence - until lymphocytes, B and T Cells come a swinging and kill them. When this happens our body forms an immunity to that specific strain of bacterium/fungi/virus - again another solid argument for evolution. Not only does this happen but in a micro-organism's desire to 'live' and populate.. and in general be a parasite it too has to change to allow for this to happen - more evolution. If this wasn't to be true then no one would ever get sick again, or we'd all have died long ago.

More on human evolution. let's just, for funsies, say we were all ape-people before we came to be in this state. Humans started life back in the latter ages of the ice age, as the ice age dwindled so too did the need for us to have fur. Similarly hunting, walking, eating and mating methods all changed and as such so too did our posture and general physical biology to complement this (this could explain why we no longer need our appendix, and why we have no use for the eye lids behind our eye ids [i can't remember the scientific name for them .. optic appendages ? ... cats have them too lol]). Also take into account the lack of religion and social etiquette right back in those times, with a lack of religion, and considering this still happens to this date in some places, incest fuelled a lot of genetic shifts and make ups. This could have been the catalyst to us loosing fur, some children created by way of incest have all sorts of abnormalities - some people lack a clotting agent in their blood and develop haemophilia, who's to say we lost a hormone gland that promotes hair growth? Possibly what the tonsils were before they lost their use? (When you take into account the amount of glands that surround that area as is, it wouldn't be a total surprise if they turned out to be part of the endo/exocrinal system.)

Anyway that's how I explain as to how we are here.

Now if I haven't lost you already, this next part sure will.

The universe. Now let's go back to how I said smaller things evolve faster. Let's also now say that universe is actually tiny. And let's also look closer to home - our solar system. Now if any of you have done SAT or the equivalent in physics you will all know what an Atom looks like and how it is made up. An atom is electrons spinning around a nucleus full of protons and neutrons. Now again look at our solar system. You'll be hard pressed to say that our solar sytem and an atom doesn't share similar traits. The sun would be our nucleus - it's too hot to actually have a look inside of it so we can never be too sure as to what it contains, so this might all be moot - and the planets would be the electrons.

The above picture is a picture of flourine - it has one neucleus and nine elctrons. I don't know about you but I think it looks pretty damn close to our solar system . So what am I getting at here?

The universe is ever expanding - and as such it's ever evolving to accommodate for all the nothingness that we're yet to discover. The stars are actually suns, big bulls of gas high in the sky, 7 - 100 years in the past (that doesn't go to say they are 7 years away - more like 7 - 100 x the speed of light away), all of which could well have their very own solar systems, and indeed their own entities and life forms. (Going off on a a tangeant >

The reason we haven't seen these lief forms is because aliens and other living things are probably only about as evolved as we are - and even if they weren't there would be no way for them to be able to survive a trip from their home galaxy/ solar system to be able to find us. I'm not trying to discredit the folk that believe in aliens, but think logically, if we can't do it, what makes you think they would be able to.

) What I'm trying to say here is that maybe the universe is like a sea, or a gaseous planet (that's right the universe being part of a different bigger planet .. odd concept right, if you're smoking something you shouldn't be I'd throw that bad boy away now before this gives you a stroke). The chemical make up of any liquid or gas is their corresponding atoms set about in a sparse fashion with a lot of space in between them. Now I think there is a lot of space between us and the next ∞ solar systems. So to me that idea makes a lot of sense. And then this carries on a lot like a mirror facing another mirror does ... each planet is a part of an atom which is a part of a bigger sea of atoms which is part of a planet. Similarly we could all be part of a table or some other object. ~On the same point here, with scientist trying to split an atom and everything - let me put this to you, anti matter is a substtance that lives without any external source of energy, it is in itself pure energy. Humans have a life force that keeps us alive ... an electric current that makes our heart pump, our bowels move in tune to peristalsis and thoughts occur in our head. Could we merely be the antimatter that scientists are looking for?

As to why all of this exists - look up the theory/laws of chance. I'm not saying there isn't a creator, I'm just saying there might not be ... and if it wasn't for holy books and all the flaws, contradictions that they hold, I may have a little bit more faith in the idea of creator.

And wouldn't you know it, I just gave you a stream of nonsensical babble

MIND = BLOWN

I could not help but imagine the Dilbert cartoon theme playing as I read this.

Anyway, I believe in Creationism, although I always do have a couple of nagging doubts in the back of my head. It's the concept of the soul, death, mind, and origins that get me thinking. It's just so fascinating how the universe works, how can I not believe that there is a God? But, science does make a good point. It's ultimately up to the person to decide what they believe in, and why they believe in it.

[Mewtwo Ex]

Darwin

I do not believe i god as Wraith can tell you.

There is no way that man can be created by sand/clay. I am reading the bible to find an answer i won't accept.

[wraith89]

Darwin

I do not believe i god as Wraith can tell you.

There is no way that man can be created by sand/clay. I am reading the bible to find an answer i won't accept.

Likewise I do not think man can be created by sporadic chance of a single cell, however much time you give it, much as how a frog will not turn to a prince if you kiss it, even if it is a million years. And about the clay part...

November 1982, Reader's Digest had an article titled How Life on Earth Began. It stated that according to scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found IN CLAY. The article said, "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be NOT FAR OFF THE MARK."(Reader's Digest, November, 1982 p.116)

Even scientists are beginning to accept that too.

[Mewtwo Ex]

Even scientists are beginning to accept that too.

Isn't that date somewhat old. Science has advance now for better or worse despite new machines and such i am against that fact. However, a single cell should be enough to create life. That said, what that cell will be developed is another matter. Cloning and such. I think that scientists have the info needed to isolate the theory about the clay.

[wraith89]

Isn't that date somewhat old. Science has advance now for better or worse despite new machines and such i am against that fact. However, a single cell should be enough to create life. That said, what that cell will be developed is another matter. Cloning and such. I think that scientists have the info needed to isolate the theory about the clay.

To this day no man has ever created life (nor will they ever). Old or not 1982 isn't that far off from "modern times" and should not be discredited. Just because Copernicus from the 15th century thought up of the correct heliocentric model as opposed to the incorrect geocentric model the Church hung unto for years (idea from Aristotle or something) should we discredit that too?

[Mewtwo Ex]

,,To this day no man has ever created life (nor will they ever)'' you need to rephrase this. I don't mean farming chicken. man has created life via cloning sheep for example. if you don't know about that you probably need to look into that. It is really interesting. And with man creating A.I. robots in Japan... Life can be re-deferred once they become individually existing from humans.

[wraith89]

Robots =/= life. Artificial life, sure... but not life in the sense of humans and animals (and to a certain extent, plants). Robots do not even have free will like humans or animals (thank God we are not robots nor did He make us into them). In the blood there is life... and even to this day, science has NEVER defined life. Everytime I go to class and they talk about "what is life", all they say are "functions of life" such as "locomotion" and "respiration" and such... but is that what life is? There is something missing... and I haven't seen anyone to this day define what life is.

I think we need to understand how cloning works. When Dolly was cloned, two sheeps were required, and they merely took the eggs of Dolly and injected into another ewe which bore another identical sheep to Dolly. They did not create life out of nowhere.

[randomspot555]

I think we need to understand how cloning works. When Dolly was cloned, two sheeps were required, and they merely took the eggs of Dolly and injected into another ewe which bore another identical sheep to Dolly. They did not create life out of nowhere.

Which is the point of cloning. The point of cloning isn't to create life out of nowhere, but to create a being identical to another.

[Mewtwo Ex]

Robots =/= life. Artificial life, sure... but not life in the sense of humans and animals (and to a certain extent, plants). Robots do not even have free will like humans or animals (thank God we are not robots nor did He make us into them). In the blood there is life... and even to this day, science has NEVER defined life. Everytime I go to class and they talk about "what is life", all they say are "functions of life" such as "locomotion" and "respiration" and such... but is that what life is? There is something missing... and I haven't seen anyone to this day define what life is.

I never said that Robots have life, now did i? My thoughts were when they gain independance from humans.

My thought is inspired by this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_%28film%29

I think we need to understand how cloning works. When Dolly was cloned, two sheeps were required, and they merely took the eggs of Dolly and injected into another ewe which bore another identical sheep to Dolly. They did not create life out of nowhere.

However it was though their hands that another sheep was created, therefor making life in a certain matter.

[wraith89]

I never said that Robots have life, now did i? My thoughts were when they gain independance from humans.

My thought is inspired by this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_%28film%29

I don't know... there seems to be so many movies like that, but I don't think it'll happen in real life. Could you imagine how scary it would be then?

However it was though their hands that another sheep was created, therefor making life in a certain matter.

But the material is not ours... we did not make the DNA itself, we are merely replicating what was already there... so we are not creating life... rather copying it. DNA has life... and we are not making the DNA, hence we cannot create life.

Still, the prospect of cloning is interesting. I am against human cloning though, but let's not get there, clone of Mew. :]

[Mewtwo Ex]

But the material is not ours... we did not make the DNA itself, we are merely replicating what was already there... so we are not creating life... rather copying it. DNA has life... and we are not making the DNA, hence we cannot create life.

Still, the prospect of cloning is interesting. I am against human cloning though, but let's not get there, clone of Mew. :]

You have the idea of god creating life from nothing, not creating something that exists.

Also, i heard on the news about 2~3 months ago about a Mewtwo creature that might be being developed and experimented.

[Gin]

We have created viruses, though they are not considered alive.

[evandixon]

Evolution has too many holes to be true.

How did single celled organisms start mutating if they clone themselves?

How did fish get mungs?

How did cells start to eat each other etc.

And also everyone has a misconception of God (not to mention forgetting to capitolize "God". God is the almighty creator of the universe. god refers to the deities that the greeks worshiped).

God exists outsider of time and space (which he created). We always try to use our logic to describe it, when our logic isn't advanced enough. God didn't give our brains the capacity to understand, because we don't need it. Darwin's evolution theory requires that space and time already existed, while using our logic that everything has a begining, when it is not nessessarily true.

Another side note, the most acurate method of dating things (giving scientists the idea that the universe is billions of years old) is the radiocarbon method, which is only accurate to 500 years. Radiocarbon dating requires something organic. It measures the amount of carbon14, because carbon14 decays after time (and scientists assume at a steady rate). After 500 years, only carbon12 is left (carbon 12 doesn't decay).

Another side note:

[wraith89]

@ MewtwoEX: Exactly. Creation is by definition ex nihilo... making something out of what is already there is simply rearranging. Say you drew a cat with wings. Is that your own creation... or is it simply taking stuff that was already there but rearranging it? Same concept.

@ evandixon: That is one thing I forgot to mention... the Carbon Dating. There is a huge fundamental flaw in it, in which one must assume that the ratio between the C-12 and C-14 in the atmosphere remained steady ever since the creation of this world... and even then it only has a half life of 5730 years... and it is used to date things that are "over millions of years old"...

[Relyte]

Personally, I don't believe in creationism but I've got some issues with the astrophysical explanation that, essentially, there was nothing and then it exploded. The origin of life seems very unlikely, if not impossible, but I can't say that I know enough to say it is or is not impossible. Life, I thinkt, is so ridonculous that I wouldn't say it couldn't randomly appear and then proliferate.

Another side note, the most acurate method of dating things (giving scientists the idea that the universe is billions of years old) is the radiocarbon method, which is only accurate to 500 years. Radiocarbon dating requires something organic. It measures the amount of carbon14, because carbon14 decays after time (and scientists assume at a steady rate). After 500 years, only carbon12 is left (carbon 12 doesn't decay).

Actually, there are other ways of dating much older inorganic objects, such as Uranium-Lead dating, which is generally quite precise and relies on species of rock rather than organic material. Different methods of radiometric dating are used for different periods of time, depending on the half-life of the isotope. The time period can range from a couple thousand years to several billion years (Rubidium-Strontium dating could be used to date samples older than 50 billion years).