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

[Freewill]

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.

Your whole pretense is wrong. Religion and Science are not polar opposites as you not only imply but said.

Take the one mystery that science may never be able to answer, the beginning of the Universe. We know an event happened, and we know that goal of science is to understand the causality of events. So we have an event there must be a cause. Science can't explain the origin of the universe, other than the big bang but religion does. BTW the Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Catholic Priest.

Did those of religion do things that seemingly held back science? Well I would think yes at times the Catholic church persecuted those who went against doctrine but that only makes the RCC wrong in what the DID.

Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest mind in history was not only a scientist he was a theologian. He got it right.

What we do know is there is a God/god. And everyone believes in a God/god. It is just a matter of whom we chose to be God/god, God or ourselves.

EDIT: AN egg had to have come before the TRUE chicken. TWO non-Chickens would have to mate lay an egg then the DNA formed in that egg produced the first true chicken. The only way to pass on genetic differences is through the egg. So I change my answer to the egg.

Never said they were opposites. I am comparing the 2 versions of creation of life. I am not comparing the whole bible with science. All I'm saying is I don't believe the scientific Theory of Evolution that we involved from a single cell organism, and that theory isn't any more possible then God creating man from soil.
Also my pretense is wrong? Pretense is a false claim, so you're saying my false claim is wrong? So you're saying that my attempt of trying to make a falsehood appear true? So me expressing my opinion and creative thinking and curiosity about how human life was first created, even when I stated that nobody will never know, is me attempting to make a falsehood appear true? I'm just making this stuff up? The bible never said God created Adam from soil? Science never said we evolved from a single cell organism? If you haven't noticed I asked a lot of questions in this thread? I was sharing my opinion on the 2 versions on how human life was created, but I'm wrong? Yet no one was ever able to prove any theory on how life was created?
It makes sense that the egg had to come first I get that. What I'm saying is, how can the single cell organism create two different sexes so that the species could continue to reproduce on their own? Sperm emerging with an egg transform into a zygote which is a eukaryotic cell which is a SINGLE CELL with a complex structure. So this single cell organism had to be a zygote or something very similar? Supposedly this single cell organism no longer exists?
So this single cell organism just slowly transformed into an egg in the wild? There was nothing to act as a womb?
How come this Single cell organism that created life no longer exist but life does?
Did every life form start as an egg? That could be believable but what nourished and regulated the egg? There were just eggs everywhere slowly forming out in the open, with yet again with nothing acting as a womb?
To me God created man from earth sounds no more impossible then evolving from a single cell.

I am sorry, some times I read thing wrongly. I didn't mean to say you were presenting false pretense, just that the pretense you gave, in my opinion, was incorrect.

I do agree with you, I see no reason for a single cell animal to become a more complex creature, unless an outside force acted on it. God made the elements and with the elements God made man.

As for the chicken and the egg, it doesn't prove Macro evolution no matter which one you pick. Obviously for their to be an egg there had to be an egg layer. This egg layer was a bird, just like a chicken is a bird. So non-chickens became chickens, micro evolution. Just like my Bichon Frize is supposedly related to a wolf, still both dogs. Although I think he really is a mix of cat and rabbit, that would make more sense of how he acts.

 

[Kosh]

There is much evidence to believe a more powerful being exists in the cosmos. To think that we humans are the intellectual powers in the cosmos is insane.

You can call it a higher power, you can call it god, but there could very well be an intelligence much high than humans out there. Something that the human brain not can not comprehend. To dismiss this possibility is ignorance on the part of those claiming to be open minded.

Many events and places have been proven that exist in the bible. That is not to say that the bible is factual in every aspect, but it does have some validity to the time period of many events.

Science still can not accurately explain the big bang. Much of the math at that tiny point in that one second shows up the math to explain the human consciences. So there is a correlation and as we have learned through the cult of the AGW, coloration equals fact.

 

[Slyhunter]

A being at the end of time traveled to the beginning of time to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Mac1958]

I wish there had been a third option, something like "not enough information yet".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I believe both. One does not negate the other.

 

[Asclepias]

I feel like this conversation got heavily derailed at some point : S

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see between the Hebrews and the Egyptians was in their attire. There is a reason the Pharaoh couldn't spot the Hebrew child he wanted to kill living in his own house. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

 

[irosie91]

I feel like this conversation got heavily derailed at some point : S

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

 

[irosie91]

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

 

[Asclepias]

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

You asked me to cite a story about someone being turned white as punishment. I cited it and now youre claiming I didnt make a point?

 

[irosie91]

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

You asked me to cite a story about someone being turned white as punishment. I cited it and now youre claiming I didnt make a point?

Oh!!! you understand that the issue had NOTHING to do with race. You have been JOKING all along

 

[Asclepias]

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see was in their attire. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

You asked me to cite a story about someone being turned white as punishment. I cited it and now youre claiming I didnt make a point?

Oh!!! you understand that the issue had NOTHING to do with race. You have been JOKING all along

Who said it had anything to do with race? I said the bible has stories in it where people are turned white as punishment. I didnt say they were turned into white people. Cant you read?

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

You need to study philosophy first, before you play with science or religion.

 

[irosie91]

Please cite the stories about people turning white in the Talmud as a heavenly punishment--------I will help you----
GOOD NEWS-----there is a treatment for the illness in the form of an antibiotic. Nubia was southern Egypt.

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

You asked me to cite a story about someone being turned white as punishment. I cited it and now youre claiming I didnt make a point?

Oh!!! you understand that the issue had NOTHING to do with race. You have been JOKING all along

Who said it had anything to do with race? I said the bible has stories in it where people are turned white as punishment. I didnt say they were turned into white people. Cant you read?

right-----leprosy ----which is far more complex a disease than
"turning people white" -----was considered a heavenly punishment. It all it did was turn people "white"----it would hardly be a problem

 

[Asclepias]

Numbers 12:10
When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam's skin was leprous --it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,

Yes I understand Nubians were the first people to use the antibiotic tetracycline but what does Nubia have to do with my point?

what point do you imagine you made? Leprosy is a contagious disease-------caused by a MYCOBACTERIUM----
(an organism similar to that which cases tuberculosis).
Logically---tetracycline MAY have some effectiveness in
Leprosy----but I have never heard of it. The mycobacterium
that causes Leprosy creates progressive vitiligo------"white skin" You made no point

You asked me to cite a story about someone being turned white as punishment. I cited it and now youre claiming I didnt make a point?

Oh!!! you understand that the issue had NOTHING to do with race. You have been JOKING all along

Who said it had anything to do with race? I said the bible has stories in it where people are turned white as punishment. I didnt say they were turned into white people. Cant you read?

right-----leprosy ----which is far more complex a disease than
"turning people white" -----was considered a heavenly punishment. It all it did was turn people "white"----it would hardly be a problem

Obviously it was a problem. People got really upset over being turned white.

It wasnt actually leprosy. Leprosy doesnt turn white. White people just translated it to leprosy. It was actually Tzara'at.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Science does not say there is no God. The most it says is that there is no quantifiable evidence of God.

It is you that demands that one choose. I am not a Christian, but I do not say that there is absolutely no God. Why could God not have guided evolution? Why? Maybe because you want YOUR book to be perfectly factual?

My book? I believe in god but I don't believe every story in the bible. So your assumption of me wanting my book to be completely factual is just out of anger and no actual content. He could of guided evolution. But you really believe that we evolved from an microscopic organism? How would we of survived? Were we developing in an egg like incubation chamber acting as a womb feeding us nutrition and protecting us from scavengers? Or eventually just turn into a new born and learned to fend and feed for ourselves?

WinterBorn is one of the most reasonable and well informed posters here. I don't see any evidence of anger in his post and I almost agree with him on this.

While its true that, to my knowledge, "there is no quantifiable evidence of God", I cannot find a way to believe a god exists.

Besides which, the question of which god? There are a lot to choose from and christianity was lifted, almost 100%, from other religions.

I believe completely and absolutely in evolution in that there is simply no other way the earth/known universe could be as it is. Given the givens - the makeup of the atmosphere, the relationship of dark and light, the ingredients that became our planet, and so much more - there is no other way it could have happened.

"How would we of [sic] survived?"

An example: I lived in the desert southwest for more than 25 years and would often hear people observe that its just amazing that the enormous saguaro "survived" in such harsh and inhospitable conditions.

In reality, the opposite is true. It could not survive any place else and neither could/can we.

IMO, part of what makes the case for evolution is simply that we did not just arrive here and decide to stay. You ask what came first? The chicken or the egg.

Same question for you: Which came first? The planet or it's inhabitants?

The photo is in case you don't know what a saguaro is. I picked this photos because of the "cristate" crown. Very cool looking, rare and no one is really sure how it happens.

 

[Indeependent]

I feel like this conversation got heavily derailed at some point : S

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see between the Hebrews and the Egyptians was in their attire. There is a reason the Pharaoh couldn't spot the Hebrew child he wanted to kill living in his own house. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Start studying and drop the horseshit.
I didn't spend over 30 years of my life studying my history to stop and listen to a sound byte moron like you.

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah Independent got his feelings hurt when I said Genisis is an African creation story

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see between the Hebrews and the Egyptians was in their attire. There is a reason the Pharaoh couldn't spot the Hebrew child he wanted to kill living in his own house. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Start studying and drop the horseshit.
I didn't spend over 30 years of my life studying my history to stop and listen to a sound byte moron like you.

You didnt spend 30 years studying your history. The Hebrews were Black people and youre not Black. Please show me where they were white people.

 

[Indeependent]

I got hurt because you're a racist?
Hardly.
I don't know who you are and if I put you on Ignore I would forget about your racism in about a day.

So then you must be claiming the Talamud is racist? You can read in Genesis who populated what areas. Why dont you just show us something that supports your claim.

The Talmus is factual.
Regardless of the creation story regarding the people of Cush, the Talmud, as always, has great admiration for the moral character of the Cushites as individuals, if not as a people.
It's obvious the Prophets, via God's message, relate that God is not happy with their overall society.
But I'm sure you have some obscure Google Book fragment that says the Cushites invented the Internet.

So if the Talmud is factual then you can only agree that Genesis is a African creation story. All you have to do is follow the genealogy of the people involved along with the various stories of God turning people white as punishment. Remember Hams children settled Egypt and the only difference people could see between the Hebrews and the Egyptians was in their attire. There is a reason the Pharaoh couldn't spot the Hebrew child he wanted to kill living in his own house. Too many points in the Talamud where Hebrews were mistaken as Egyptians.

Start studying and drop the horseshit.
I didn't spend over 30 years of my life studying my history to stop and listen to a sound byte moron like you.

You didnt spend 30 years studying your history. The Hebrews were Black people and youre not Black. Please show me where they were white people.

And you refuse to read the Bible and discover how wrong you are.
But you are always quick to quote a verse when it aligns with your agenda.
The descendants of Cham not only weren't Jews, some of them ventured to Africa and had no contact with the rest of civilization until the Romans came and found...swamps.

 

[ThatDude30]

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.

You need to study philosophy first, before you play with science or religion.

I will admit my knowledge on Philosophy is limited. Just recently sparked an interest in it. Why do you think I need to study philosophy first, before I play with science and religion? Are you saying you never thought of it yourself? Are you saying my questions are not logical enough? Can you answer or prove any of my logical questions? Are you saying my philosophical method is wrong? Can you present a better one? Are you saying I lack understanding of religion and science, and that I don't know enough about philosophy to be curious and have a better understanding how human life was first created? What is the issue with my thinking???
Isn't philosophy a search for a general understanding by questioning critical discussions and rational argument? Pursuit of wisdom? The study of general and fundamental problems such as EXISTENCE, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language? Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of understanding. Religion is about practices and customs.
So based on my thread, you think I need to study philosophy? My search for understanding how life may have been created, is questionable to you? My method of trying to gain knowledge to help me understand the creation of life, by questioning both religion and science, and my beliefs(which basic beliefs and concepts of an individual is philosophy) that God created the first human from the soil, and that the science Theory that we evolved from a single cell organism sounds illogical and irrational to me.
Tell me what is wrong with my thread? Are you saying I am wrong for what I believe? When neither way was ever scientifically proven? Can you tell me the process that happened after the single cell started to evolve? How were humans birthed? How did the survive through infancy having to find food, water, shelter, and fend of predators?
So your telling me that the philosophy is wrong here? My searching for facts on how life began isn't philosophy? I didn't analyze the grounds of concepts be expressing fundamental beliefs?

I have questions through out the thread if you can answer or prove any of them be my guest.