What came first, The chicken or The egg? Science vs Religion

[ThatDude30]

Personally, I believe somewhat in a higher power. But I also believe in science's ability to explain HOW life was set into motion.

Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?

Evolution is perfectly compatible with creationism if you believe that a god guided it/began it. There's really no point of difference unless you believe Genesis is the almighty truth. And seeing as Genesis was written based on a non-falsifiable untestable story, rather than experimentally-backed theory, I tend to believe science.

I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.

Humans have very long generational times compared to say, bacteria. Thus the rate at which they evolve is considerably slow. We do have skeletal records that show we have had numerous ancestors that can be traced to us, however, which show some of our evolutionary path to where we are now.

If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.

I'm sure an athiest or a nihilist would contradict you there. But as I've mentioned, spirituality can be factored into science. There is much that science cannot explain, and the idea of God, the afterlife, etc, fits very neatly into that expanse of unknown knowledge. Though concerning the subjective nature of religion, I will say that life is very much what you make it. YOU, and what you BELIEVE IN, gives your life meaning.

It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.

Let me play devil's advocate and challenge you on this. Why is it one creator? Why not multiple? Maybe perhaps it was one creator among a pantheon of gods? Fuck, maybe it's aliens if you watch the History channel too much lmao.

Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.

I appreciate your ability to be insightful; you understand why people can disagree with you here, and understanding is something I wish people had a lot more of nowadays.

I didn't answer to every paragraph here, but if there's something you'd specifically like to ask me about, please let me know.

I do understand why some people wouldn't agree with me. Some people believe in god more then others and some don't believe in god at all. And maybe our creator or creators are aliens and we are just a sick experiment for their entertainment. I'm just saying that science contradicts the bibles version on how we are created. Not entirely about everything. I never said god couldn't influence evolution. For me it is easier to believe the bible then science when it comes to the creation of the first human life

 

[Indeependent]

Thats easy. The egg.

That's what I'm saying.

No youre saying there is no god. God created the first proto-chickens and they evolved into whatever they were before their genes combined and created the first chicken. Long before europeans got involved, science and god were one and the same.

How am I saying there is no god? I'm saying I don't believe that we evolved from a single cell organism. The bible said god created us from the soil science says single cell organism. Just simply saying the 2 contradict each other. Not on every aspect of life but the creatin of life

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

 

[Asclepias]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Please show me where the creation account contradicts science.
Use the verse(s) and no ad hominems.

Genesis says God made Adam from the soil. Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism

One is a book written from stories told by nomadic tribes and passed down orally for hundreds of years. Tribes who thought the heavens were a shell above a flat earth. And this book was translated over and over and heavily edited by other people.

The other is the result of scientific experimentation and theory.

And what about the origin theories from other religions? Are they dismissed out of hand?

All those theories mimic in one way or another the Egyptian story of creation. They all have a common theme. Another interesting theory is the one from the Dogons of west Africa.

 

[Indeependent]

Personally, I believe somewhat in a higher power. But I also believe in science's ability to explain HOW life was set into motion.

Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?

Evolution is perfectly compatible with creationism if you believe that a god guided it/began it. There's really no point of difference unless you believe Genesis is the almighty truth. And seeing as Genesis was written based on a non-falsifiable untestable story, rather than experimentally-backed theory, I tend to believe science.

I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.

Humans have very long generational times compared to say, bacteria. Thus the rate at which they evolve is considerably slow. We do have skeletal records that show we have had numerous ancestors that can be traced to us, however, which show some of our evolutionary path to where we are now.

If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.

I'm sure an athiest or a nihilist would contradict you there. But as I've mentioned, spirituality can be factored into science. There is much that science cannot explain, and the idea of God, the afterlife, etc, fits very neatly into that expanse of unknown knowledge. Though concerning the subjective nature of religion, I will say that life is very much what you make it. YOU, and what you BELIEVE IN, gives your life meaning.

It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.

Let me play devil's advocate and challenge you on this. Why is it one creator? Why not multiple? Maybe perhaps it was one creator among a pantheon of gods? Fuck, maybe it's aliens if you watch the History channel too much lmao.

Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.

I appreciate your ability to be insightful; you understand why people can disagree with you here, and understanding is something I wish people had a lot more of nowadays.

I didn't answer to every paragraph here, but if there's something you'd specifically like to ask me about, please let me know.

I do understand why some people wouldn't agree with me. Some people believe in god more then others and some don't believe in god at all. And maybe our creator or creators are aliens and we are just a sick experiment for their entertainment. I'm just saying that science contradicts the bibles version on how we are created. Not entirely about everything. I never said god couldn't influence evolution. For me it is easier to believe the bible then science when it comes to the creation of the first human life

Then correct your OP.
You are assuming the Bible contradicts science.
I asked for verses from the Bible to prove that contention.
In other words, I didn't jump the gun and insult you.
I responses directly to your assertion.

If you are now going to back up into a corner and be dishonest concerning your opening post, I suggest you simply edit it to change your assertion.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats easy. The egg.

That's what I'm saying.

No youre saying there is no god. God created the first proto-chickens and they evolved into whatever they were before their genes combined and created the first chicken. Long before europeans got involved, science and god were one and the same.

How am I saying there is no god? I'm saying I don't believe that we evolved from a single cell organism. The bible said god created us from the soil science says single cell organism. Just simply saying the 2 contradict each other. Not on every aspect of life but the creatin of life

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

 

[Indeependent]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question seems to divide the believers of a higher power from the nonbelievers. Science or Religion, was human life created by science or a Higher Power?
Science contradicts the bible, and pretty much says that there is no god. That everything was just here and after billions of years of nothing a rock hit another rock in which created a big bang and billions of years later conditions were just right to create life. But what created the rock?
Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism just as every other life form. Where did this single cell organism come from? It couldn't of been here when the dinosaurs where here There were no human life with the dinosaurs. Then they became extinct, by some say, an asteroid hitting Earth. Did the single cell organism come from that? Was it on the asteroid that was destined to hit this planet which had perfect conditions for it to create life?
So this microscopic single cell organism that created humans and creatures was just slithering around until it started to evolve and go through the whole process of becoming a living creature that breathes, drinks, eats, sees, hears, tastes, touches, walks, talk, thinks and feels. So.this microscopic single cell organism just happened to undergo the process to develop into a zygote, which needs to single cell organisms to create it, and then turned into and embryo and then into a fetus then eventually into a newborn baby, with no placenta allowing nutrient uptake, no thermos regulation, no waste elimination, and no gas exchange via the mothers blood supply, also providing oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus and removes waste products from the fetus's blood. Then it turns into a new born baby, how did it survive just laying there not able to care for its self and what protected it from infection, predators, and other natural elements? Any living creature for that matter? Seriously how did it survive the early stages of evolving?
Its just hard to believe that this microscopic organism turned into creatures. What caused the single cell organism to evolve? Something had to trigger the process? Did it emerge with something? Or was it the result of another reaction and started to evolve immediately? Evolving from a microscopic organism, at the beginning, is hard to see it surviving the process of it going from something so small to the first human being.
If we were really evolved from a single cell organism why isn't it still happening? Where is this single cell organism today?
Was there an event or something that caused these single cells to begin evolving? I'm sure there wasn't just one evolving at a time? There had to be an event that occurred, that these single cell organisms were produced as the outcome of the event, and then had to eventually died off after they had a chance to survive and evolve. That's the only possible theory I can come up with for why these single cell organisms aren't producing life today. Is there this secret place on earth that no body knows about, where human life is popping up and there are these people who raise and protect them? Then they just join society like it was nothing?
I can see how some other things evolved through time. But Humans I just don't see it? Since beginning of human life there wasn't that much evolving with human beings. Well maybe mentally but not to much physically?. We evolved with using technology.
I believe science provides answers and proves things that happened after the first life was created. Science suggesting we evolved from single cell organisms does not prove anything to me. What created that single cell organism, then what created the thing that created the single cell organism, then what created that, and then what created that? It all has to lead to 1 creator, and I believe it is God.
Science is the need for humans to know and understand, and to some trying to prove that we were created some other way makes more sense then believing in an immortal God that we cant see having great powers and created everything. To some, proven answers to questions of life figured out through science is easier to believe then believing in something you cant see, something you cant witness first hand. Even though science hasn't 100% proven their theory of the creation of life, but the facts and evidence they have and the progress of answering more questions then what religion can provide, is good enough for some people.
If science was right then there would be no meaning to life. We just live then die and everything that happened in between just happened. Just creatures wondering around a planet for no logical reason, just a freak accident that occurred in nature, that resulted in life forms that have no real purpose in the universe that are going to inevitably die out.
I find it hard to believe that such a beautiful and complex creation such as life has no meaning. There has to be more, There cant be no reason for our existence. Someone or something had to put time into our creation. Life is to complex for it to just happen.
In life there are always 2 ways, 2 versions, an action and reaction, positive or negative, right or wrong, left or right, man or woman, living or nonliving, open or closed, free or confined, day or night, land or water, and science or religion.
No body really knows how everything came about, just think what it felt like to be the first human life. What do you think was going through their mind?
There has to be a creator that directed the first human life the right way. I believe in God and all that science crap is just crap. To believe that we came from a microscopic organism to what we are today, and that the process isn't still occurring to this day, doesn't make any sense to me.

Please show me where the creation account contradicts science.
Use the verse(s) and no ad hominems.

Genesis says God made Adam from the soil. Science suggests we evolved from a single cell organism

One is a book written from stories told by nomadic tribes and passed down orally for hundreds of years. Tribes who thought the heavens were a shell above a flat earth. And this book was translated over and over and heavily edited by other people.

The other is the result of scientific experimentation and theory.

And what about the origin theories from other religions? Are they dismissed out of hand?

I have already explained the opening to Genesis 10 several times.
I presume you never read it.
You're a pretty smart and even handed guy.
Read about the dispersion of Noach's children and explain to us why everybody has their own take on what happened in history.
Or better yet, turn on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News and tell me why they all have different stories to tell about what happened today.

 

[Camp]

Thats easy. The egg.

No way. The chicken came first.

 

[Asclepias]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

Buddhism?

Why do they pray to Buddha then if they dont consider him a deity?

 

[Indeependent]

That's what I'm saying.

No youre saying there is no god. God created the first proto-chickens and they evolved into whatever they were before their genes combined and created the first chicken. Long before europeans got involved, science and god were one and the same.

How am I saying there is no god? I'm saying I don't believe that we evolved from a single cell organism. The bible said god created us from the soil science says single cell organism. Just simply saying the 2 contradict each other. Not on every aspect of life but the creatin of life

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats easy. The egg.

No way. The chicken came first.

Not possible either way you look at it.

 

[Asclepias]

No youre saying there is no god. God created the first proto-chickens and they evolved into whatever they were before their genes combined and created the first chicken. Long before europeans got involved, science and god were one and the same.

How am I saying there is no god? I'm saying I don't believe that we evolved from a single cell organism. The bible said god created us from the soil science says single cell organism. Just simply saying the 2 contradict each other. Not on every aspect of life but the creatin of life

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

 

[MindWars]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

 

[Indeependent]

How am I saying there is no god? I'm saying I don't believe that we evolved from a single cell organism. The bible said god created us from the soil science says single cell organism. Just simply saying the 2 contradict each other. Not on every aspect of life but the creatin of life

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

 

[Indeependent]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

Get away from that incandescent light and cool off.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats what happens when europeans try to figure things out that they dont understand. Again science and religion was one and the same. Genesis is a African story to explain the creation of the world, creation of living things. God created Adam (whos name means reddish brown earth) after rhe Hebrew word adamah. Science tells us we are something like 75% water, sea water to be exact. There is nothing that says if god combined those elements to create the first humans.

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

 

[WinterBorn]

Religion is not the same as believing in a higher power.

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

Buddhism?

Why do they pray to Buddha then if they dont consider him a deity?

They admire and emulate him. But he is not a god.

from: Do Buddhist believe in god?

"Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.


The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."

 

[Indeependent]

That's hilarious considering that Avraham traveled South West and wound up North West of Egypt.
It's your turn to do what you always do...use the Bible selectively.

Abraham wasn't the first human. What are you talking about?

You're out of the discussion already?
You're quite fucking dumb when you need to be.
Avraham did not live far from where mankind originated and it sure as hell wasn't near Africa.
If you can prove from your African Bibles, which no one but you seems to ever read, go for it.

Dont get angry. Show me where Abraham lived and then explain why that was considered part of Africa by the Greeks?

I have a better idea...do what I'm doing everyday and study the Bible for yourself!
Nothing on Google substantiates your statement.
I don't have time for your nonsense just as you have no time to ever pick up a Bible except to prove you're a racist.
You have a Link? Post it.

So you have nothing to explain why the Greeks called the area from India all the way to and including present day Africa Ethiopia then?

Trust me I have studied the Bible and there is nothing in the bible that supports your claim.

I Google your claim and nothing.
The account in Genesis up to Noach and his family leaving the ark leave you in the dust.
You're expecting me to type in the entire Bible until Chapter 10.
You're a phony.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

What religion do you know that doesnt believe in a higher power?

Insert the word organized in front of religion, and it should make more sense. religions are power structures. I put it more like: "Organized religion is not the same as spirituality," for clarity.

I do understand why some people wouldn't agree with me. Some people believe in god more then others and some don't believe in god at all. And maybe our creator or creators are aliens and we are just a sick experiment for their entertainment. I'm just saying that science contradicts the bibles version on how we are created. Not entirely about everything. I never said god couldn't influence evolution. For me it is easier to believe the bible then science when it comes to the creation of the first human life

Can you explain what exactly you believe to be factual in genesis, for clarity's sake? I'm not sure exactly what you believe here.

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

Science is inherently falsifiable. That is what makes the laws and theories that come out of it stronger, more specific, and more likely to be truth every time its concepts are refined by a new generation of scientists. We cannot entirely prove something to be true in some cases perhaps, but we can eliminate all unlikely possibilities.

Also our government is very conservative/capitalist. They do provide selective grants I'm sure...but as for scientists themselves, there are plenty of them that are conservative that believe wholeheartedly in science's effectiveness.

 

[WinterBorn]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

The difference between religion and science is that science seeks to prove things and if the theory is proven to be wrong, it is changed, adjusted or tossed out.

 

[Indeependent]

Science is not always right.
Science is often proven to be wrong.
Science proves whatever a leftist scientist wants it to prove especially if the leftist Gov. offers them a grant making sure that's what it says.

The difference between religion and science is that science seeks to prove things and if the theory is proven to be wrong, it is changed, adjusted or tossed out.

That's not always true.
I agree that mechanical and engineering science have to work.
Chemical science can create a "success" that causes more harm than good.