Me, being a chistian, that also beleives that evolution is a perfectly valid theory,finds genisis the hardest part of the bible to be taken as fact, but there are ways of thinking about the initial creation as both evolution and a god made planet, the world is described to be made in 6 days , but is dosnt say how long this time period is, how long is a day before the sun is created, the way that the animal plants and people are made also follow vaguely the same order of evolution. I am not saying that this is a way of proving anything. it is just my belief.
War itself is real, but the motives and execution behind it are not, if you get what I mean. That's why I used the words 'physical' reality.
Meaning, when you pray, what exactly are you doing? In your mind, you are communicating with god, by holding your hands a funny way and saying the word 'amen' at the end of your prayer.
But in physical terms, and in hard, true, reality, you are doing nothing more than talking to yourself.
Is the bible the 'word' of god? If you're following what I'm saying so far, it means that there is in reality nothing 'holy' about anything-- if you had not been taught to speak English as a child, you would have no idea or have any understanding of religion. You would live a completely physical life. It's confusing, I know, but try to think about it.
Meaning, when you pray, what exactly are you doing? In your mind, you are communicating with god, by holding your hands a funny way and saying the word 'amen' at the end of your prayer.
But in physical terms, and in hard, true, reality, you are doing nothing more than talking to yourself.
Is the bible the 'word' of god? If you're following what I'm saying so far, it means that there is in reality nothing 'holy' about anything-- if you had not been taught to speak English as a child, you would have no idea or have any understanding of religion. You would live a completely physical life. It's confusing, I know, but try to think about it.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-05-05 14:19:10)
how old are u? you just finding out your brain thinks?
I see you've run out of arguments - so you've resorted to ad hominem personal attacks and de-karmaing every post you see.JaMDuDe wrote:
how old are u? you just finding out your brain thinks?
This is a very interesting topic (one that I find interesting at least). There are several theories about this - some ranging from the most crackpot to the viable (the two are interlinked).I believe that no one/nothing designed the designer (who I believe to be God). He's always existed. But I can also turn that argument around. Who designed the material which caused the "Big Bang" in the first place? Where did it come from? Did it always exist? If so, how is that different then believe a designer always existed?
My preferred theory is the 'black hole spawn' theory (as I call it). Everybody talks about the start of the universe being a 'singularity' - but the only singularities we know of are black holes. A singularity is the 'bottom' of the black hole - where time, space, matter etc. cease to exist as we know it. Somehow, just, maybe, that singularity could 'spawn' a new universe - in a completely different dimension to the old one.
Or you could have the multiverse theory - that would explain why all the laws of physics work out so beautifully so far. Its like being in a large clothes-shop - you wouldn't be surprised to find a shirt that fits well.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. There is no way in hell the scientific establishment would ever accept Genesis - it violates almost every law in physics, chemistry and geology (maybe an exaggeration). Similarly, the creationist establishment would never accept evolution/plate tectonics/big bang. It violates everything in a literal interpretation of Genesis.Obviously there is no "proof" that we were created, just as there is no "proof" that we evolved. There is only evidence. If either one argument could be proven, this debate wouldn't still be going on.
Note how I use the words CREATIONIST - not religious, and LITERAL interpretation, not just interpretation. I know for a fact that there are many overlappings - the simple truth is that a massive portion of the church now accepts evolution - and many clergy are TRAINED SCIENTISTS. The most successful supernova hunter in the world is an (Australian) minister in the Uniting Church. On the other hand, there are many scientists who believe in a NON-LITERAL interpretation of Genesis - and finding that the two systems can be compatible IN PARTS.
Who wrote Genesis, anyway?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I think the question that this whole thread is winding down to involves the origin of energy and matter, which neither religion nor modern science can answer for sure.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-05 17:56:50)
I think moses wrote genesis. Spark can you give me the best evidence that you believe proves evolution? I wont try to prove u wrong and start a debate over that proof i just want to know. I dont need a whole page, just what u think is the best evidence.
Draw what you will from that.Wikipedia wrote:
Genesis as a completed book makes no claims about its authorship; it is an article of Orthodox Jewish faith that the book was dictated, in its entirety, by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by many biblical scholars, and liberal Protestants. Instead, they accept a theory whose roots are based on cultural evolution and philosophical naturalism which teaches that the text of Genesis as we see it today was redacted together around 440 BC from earlier sources, namely the Sumerians. See the Documentary hypothesis entry for more information.
Other scholars note that when Genesis was compiled, it was made up of earlier documents which were so little changed that even their literary tradition, which put the author's name at the end of each document, was preserved, thus preserving also the authors' true identities. This retains the concept of Moses being the author of Genesis, though making his role more that of an editor who chose the earlier works to include than as an author who wrote every word.
I think the best evidence is bacteria evolving in the lab. Observation beats any vestiges, traces or evidences left long ago.
Another nice piece of proof as to how similar we all are genetically is that the organs of pigs have been cloned, grown, and transplanted into humans - without rejection.
And I think I just need to define science so we don't get mixed up, and we're all VERY clear on this:
Science, simply put, is evidence through observation..
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Not every church believes that.herrr_smity wrote:
in the eyes of the Church we are borne sinners...
I agree with unnamednewbie - and not everyone in those the churches [who believe that we are born sinners] believe that. Don't generalize.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't know about the black hole theory, but the multiverse theory doesn't actually answer the question of where we came from, it just pushes it back. What made the many universes? If they just spawned by themselves, what do they spawn out of? In other words, using your example, who built the clothing store? Who supplied the clothing?Spark wrote:
Or you could have the multiverse theory - that would explain why all the laws of physics work out so beautifully so far. Its like being in a large clothes-shop - you wouldn't be surprised to find a shirt that fits well.
Again, this similarity can be looked at (as in your case and any many others) as common design due to common ancestor, or (as in my case and many others) as common design due to a common designer.Spark wrote:
Another nice piece of proof as to how similar we all are genetically is that the organs of pigs have been cloned, grown, and transplanted into humans - without rejection.
Afewje-
There is no debating religion or politics, its a no win all the way around.
Do you honestly think by starting this thread you will convert religious people to pagans?
Or is your intention to troll for flames...
There is no debating religion or politics, its a no win all the way around.
Do you honestly think by starting this thread you will convert religious people to pagans?
Or is your intention to troll for flames...
hes been banned along time ago...this thread needs to die.TrollmeaT wrote:
Afewje-
There is no debating religion or politics, its a no win all the way around.
Do you honestly think by starting this thread you will convert religious people to pagans?
Or is your intention to troll for flames...
Did God start running out of ideas? A pig is nothing like a human on the outside, except for the basic characteristics of mammals. In this case the genetic similarities are direct evidence of common ancestry, and the common design theory is just a cop out to avoid debating the real issue: that evolution can explain these similiarities perfectly. If God really did design us, why does the degree of genetic similarity increase the closer a species is related to humans? Why do chimpanzees share over 95% of our genes, while a fruit fly is more like 60%? Why do large segments of DNA not code anything, essentially 'junk' DNA? Evolutionary theory accounts for all of these things, while the proponents of ID can do nothing but attribute them to God. It's all well and good if you want to believe that its caused by a common designer, but you have to understand that that belief has nothing to do with science.rawkfist22 wrote:
Again, this similarity can be looked at (as in your case and any many others) as common design due to common ancestor, or (as in my case and many others) as common design due to a common designer.
You have to realize that my belief that we are created is supported by scientific evidence. As for the common design = common designer argument, it makes very good sense logically. Take a Ford F-150, a Ford Ranger, a Ford Festiva, and a Mustang Mach 1. Essentially they use the same mechanisms for prupulsion. They all have tires, doors, windows, engines, transmissions, etc. Yet they are still very different. Some of them are very close to being the same, some are only somewhat the same. But logically, you can infer that these vehicles are designed similarly, because they had a common designer.
Genesis also says we both were made from the same material. (Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19)
You could apply that argument to every vehicle using an internal combustion engine. A Katana DA-20c1 aircraft uses an engine very similar to the car that you drive, but were they designed by the same people? Definitely not. They have a common ancestry and a common heritage when it comes to the design of their engines, but thats it. Besides which, using human inventions is somewhat meaningless in a discussion like this, despite the fact that I used one earlier (my computer analogy). An example from physics might be more illuminating. If we look at any atom in existence that we know of, they all share similar properties, they all contain protons, neutrons, and electrons (with a few exceptions, but they are irrelevant in this situation). Are we to infer that they have a common designer? Or simply that there are inescapable properties of the universe that are reflected in the composition of all matter? Of course, if one starts out with the assumption that God created everything, than making these common design inferences is pretty easy, but if you start with no assumptions and look at only that which the evidence shows you, the common design 'evidence' is much less apparent.rawkfist22 wrote:
You have to realize that my belief that we are created is supported by scientific evidence. As for the common design = common designer argument, it makes very good sense logically. Take a Ford F-150, a Ford Ranger, a Ford Festiva, and a Mustang Mach 1. Essentially they use the same mechanisms for prupulsion. They all have tires, doors, windows, engines, transmissions, etc. Yet they are still very different. Some of them are very close to being the same, some are only somewhat the same. But logically, you can infer that these vehicles are designed similarly, because they had a common designer.
Like I said, the similiarities in genetic code between humans and other animals points to a common ancestor, and if you want to believe otherwise then you will be leaving the realm of established science. And what about non-coding DNA? What intelligent purpose does it serve?
As for the evidence supporting your beliefs, could you elaborate?
#1. The Evidence of Cosmology
The 'kalam' cosmological argurment is gaining ground due to scientific discoveries of the past 50 years. In simple terms, the argurment is:
"First, whatever begins to exist has a cause, second, the universe had a beginning therefore, the universe has a cause"
To believe we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing seems crazy. Virtually all cosmologists
believe the universe started at some point in the past.
#2 Evidence of Physics
The laws and constants of physics work together remarkebly to allow life in the universe. Gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (according to physicist/philosopher Robin Collins). The cosmological constant is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls eye a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on earth. There are simply too many variables (more than 30) that must be exact for the universe to exist by chance.
#3 Evidence of Astronomy
The Earth's position in the universe is just right to allow for a "safe haven". Our sun is not so common as it was once thought. Its mass, light, age, distance, orbit and the type of galaxy we are in (spiral rather then elliptical or irregular), and our location in the galaxy all conspire to make earth livable. It is unlikely that any other place in the universe (and I recognize the universe is beyond huge) has the conditions this perfect for life. For example, our sun is unusually large, we are in the least common type of universe. Our orbit around the sun is close to a perfect circle, etc.
#4 Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin said "If it could be denonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possible have been formed by numerous, seccessive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutly break down". Biochemist Michael Behe demonstrated that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines. Things such as cilia and bacterial flagella are exteremly unlike to have been peiced together through Darwinian process because they had to be fully present to function.
#5 Evidence of Biological Information
We have 6 feet of DNA coiled inside of each of our bodies 100 trillion cells. This DNA contains a 4 letter chemical alphabet about precise assembly instructions for all the protiens from which our body is made. According to Stephen Meyer, no hypthesis has come close to explaining how information got in to biological mater by a natrualistic means. He also said that whenever we see sequencial arrangment that is complex and corresponds to an independant pattern or function (such as DNA), it is always the product of intelligence (ie. Books, computer code, etc.)
#6 Evidence of Consiousness
Many scientists are concluding that laws of chemistry can not explain our experience of consiousness. You can't get something from nothing. If we started out as dead matter having no consiousness, how did we become concious, thinking, feeling, believing creatures?
Obviously this is just a brief overview of some of the evidences that support a Creator.
The 'kalam' cosmological argurment is gaining ground due to scientific discoveries of the past 50 years. In simple terms, the argurment is:
"First, whatever begins to exist has a cause, second, the universe had a beginning therefore, the universe has a cause"
To believe we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing seems crazy. Virtually all cosmologists
believe the universe started at some point in the past.
#2 Evidence of Physics
The laws and constants of physics work together remarkebly to allow life in the universe. Gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (according to physicist/philosopher Robin Collins). The cosmological constant is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls eye a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on earth. There are simply too many variables (more than 30) that must be exact for the universe to exist by chance.
#3 Evidence of Astronomy
The Earth's position in the universe is just right to allow for a "safe haven". Our sun is not so common as it was once thought. Its mass, light, age, distance, orbit and the type of galaxy we are in (spiral rather then elliptical or irregular), and our location in the galaxy all conspire to make earth livable. It is unlikely that any other place in the universe (and I recognize the universe is beyond huge) has the conditions this perfect for life. For example, our sun is unusually large, we are in the least common type of universe. Our orbit around the sun is close to a perfect circle, etc.
#4 Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin said "If it could be denonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possible have been formed by numerous, seccessive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutly break down". Biochemist Michael Behe demonstrated that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines. Things such as cilia and bacterial flagella are exteremly unlike to have been peiced together through Darwinian process because they had to be fully present to function.
#5 Evidence of Biological Information
We have 6 feet of DNA coiled inside of each of our bodies 100 trillion cells. This DNA contains a 4 letter chemical alphabet about precise assembly instructions for all the protiens from which our body is made. According to Stephen Meyer, no hypthesis has come close to explaining how information got in to biological mater by a natrualistic means. He also said that whenever we see sequencial arrangment that is complex and corresponds to an independant pattern or function (such as DNA), it is always the product of intelligence (ie. Books, computer code, etc.)
#6 Evidence of Consiousness
Many scientists are concluding that laws of chemistry can not explain our experience of consiousness. You can't get something from nothing. If we started out as dead matter having no consiousness, how did we become concious, thinking, feeling, believing creatures?
Obviously this is just a brief overview of some of the evidences that support a Creator.
#1: Using that same logic God cannot exist. After all, he is all powerful, where did He come from? Must He have a cause as well? High level physics has some theories as to the creation of the universe, but they are so far beyond my understanding that I won't try and repeat them here.
#2: Has been covered extensively in this thread. How many variables must come together for this forum to exist? There are over 700 responses in this thread alone, from over 30 individuals (I'm guessing here, I didn't bother to count). 30 individuals, out of 6.5 billion. I don't need to tell you that the odds against these 30 specific people coming together out of everyone on Earth are astronomical, yet I don't think you would imply that God caused it.
Also, as mentioned earlier, whose to say that life wouldnt still exist in some different form if the universe was different?
#3: Again, unlikely does not mean impossible.
#4: They have to be fully present to function... in their present form. Is it absolutely impossible that some previous bacteria had less advanced forms of cilia and flagella that aided in their survival? Is it absolutely impossible that a random copying error at some point in the distant past did not give rise to an appendage on the side of bacteria that allowed them movement, and thus helped the survival and propagation of that appendage? Proponents of ID are very fond of taking examples of fully formed modern creatures and saying they cannot exist, but would they still hold that opinion if they could see the biological predecessor of that creature from 50 million years ago? Or 2 billion years ago?
#5: Books and computer code do not benefit from the information stored inside them. By this I mean that a book full of random gibberish is no more likely to survive than a book full of complex information, whereas natural selection favors the survival of ordered, complex information in biological organisms. This argument is essentially the same as #5.
#6: Again, natural selection would favor the survival of the brain if it helped survival (I am going to use brain instead of consciousness since that is a somewhat loaded term in a religious setting). This is again pretty much the same argument as #s 4 and 5, in that it assumes there is no possible natural explanation, despite the lack of information regarding the time period and conditions in which the formation of these things happened. This has been the trademark of religion since the beginning of recorded history: If something cannot be explained it must be the work of God.
#2: Has been covered extensively in this thread. How many variables must come together for this forum to exist? There are over 700 responses in this thread alone, from over 30 individuals (I'm guessing here, I didn't bother to count). 30 individuals, out of 6.5 billion. I don't need to tell you that the odds against these 30 specific people coming together out of everyone on Earth are astronomical, yet I don't think you would imply that God caused it.
Also, as mentioned earlier, whose to say that life wouldnt still exist in some different form if the universe was different?
#3: Again, unlikely does not mean impossible.
#4: They have to be fully present to function... in their present form. Is it absolutely impossible that some previous bacteria had less advanced forms of cilia and flagella that aided in their survival? Is it absolutely impossible that a random copying error at some point in the distant past did not give rise to an appendage on the side of bacteria that allowed them movement, and thus helped the survival and propagation of that appendage? Proponents of ID are very fond of taking examples of fully formed modern creatures and saying they cannot exist, but would they still hold that opinion if they could see the biological predecessor of that creature from 50 million years ago? Or 2 billion years ago?
#5: Books and computer code do not benefit from the information stored inside them. By this I mean that a book full of random gibberish is no more likely to survive than a book full of complex information, whereas natural selection favors the survival of ordered, complex information in biological organisms. This argument is essentially the same as #5.
#6: Again, natural selection would favor the survival of the brain if it helped survival (I am going to use brain instead of consciousness since that is a somewhat loaded term in a religious setting). This is again pretty much the same argument as #s 4 and 5, in that it assumes there is no possible natural explanation, despite the lack of information regarding the time period and conditions in which the formation of these things happened. This has been the trademark of religion since the beginning of recorded history: If something cannot be explained it must be the work of God.
An explosion out of nothing, for no reason, then IMPOSSIBLE(litterally) odds and theories made because they have no real answers always sounds like the most reasonable thing to believe.
We THINK it was an explosion.... everything is theory, dude. We don't know for sure.JaMDuDe wrote:
An explosion out of nothing, for no reason, then IMPOSSIBLE(litterally) odds and theories made because they have no real answers always sounds like the most reasonable thing to believe.
If you knew anything about physics you'd know there is NOTHING that is impossible - and there are some there tangible answers out there.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Most people agree about the big bang, even evolutionists. They will just come up with another theory that there was the vaccum that has always been and started it all or sumthing. Spark, you can always say"Its not impossible so u cant say it couldnt have happened". Your computer exploding into a million pieces and then puting itself back together isnt "impossible". That doesnt mean its gona happen.
And people like you will always attribute everything they don't understand to God. God cannot be allowed into science. Why? Nothing would ever get done. Why do things fall to the ground? God does it. Why does the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening? Because God wants it to. Why is there a universe? Because God made it. Where did we come from? God. Why don't I understand something? Because God doesn't want me to. God is at once the solution to everything and the answer for nothing.JaMDuDe wrote:
Spark, you can always say"Its not impossible so u cant say it couldnt have happened". Your computer exploding into a million pieces and then puting itself back together isnt "impossible". That doesnt mean its gona happen.
God had no beginning, He is eternal, therefore he doesn't fall under the argument because he did not "begin to exist"Skruples wrote:
#1: Using that same logic God cannot exist. After all, he is all powerful, where did He come from? Must He have a cause as well? High level physics has some theories as to the creation of the universe, but they are so far beyond my understanding that I won't try and repeat them here.
This forum was created. The code for the site didn't just all fall into place, It was designed for people who play BF2. It isn't random chance that we are here posting, it is because we have similar interests (although many different opinions obviously).#2: Has been covered extensively in this thread. How many variables must come together for this forum to exist? There are over 700 responses in this thread alone, from over 30 individuals (I'm guessing here, I didn't bother to count). 30 individuals, out of 6.5 billion. I don't need to tell you that the odds against these 30 specific people coming together out of everyone on Earth are astronomical, yet I don't think you would imply that God caused it.
Also, as mentioned earlier, whose to say that life wouldnt still exist in some different form if the universe was different?
Granted, but still, unlikely means unlikely. A tornado could rip through a junk yard and assemple a fully functional 747 airliner, it could happen, but it isn't likely.#3: Again, unlikely does not mean impossible.
Kinda of grasping at straws? Is it "absolutly impossible..."? Of course not, but I could just as easly respond to your evidence by saying, "is it absolutly impossible that it wasn't designed?"#4: They have to be fully present to function... in their present form. Is it absolutely impossible that some previous bacteria had less advanced forms of cilia and flagella that aided in their survival? Is it absolutely impossible that a random copying error at some point in the distant past did not give rise to an appendage on the side of bacteria that allowed them movement, and thus helped the survival and propagation of that appendage? Proponents of ID are very fond of taking examples of fully formed modern creatures and saying they cannot exist, but would they still hold that opinion if they could see the biological predecessor of that creature from 50 million years ago? Or 2 billion years ago?
Of course books and computer code benefit from their information. A book won't last long if no one reads it. A computer program will not be used if it doesn't work. If someone prints a book full of gibberish, chances are it will end up in the garbage (die). It will also not be reprinted (not reproduce).#5: Books and computer code do not benefit from the information stored inside them. By this I mean that a book full of random gibberish is no more likely to survive than a book full of complex information, whereas natural selection favors the survival of ordered, complex information in biological organisms. This argument is essentially the same as #5.
Research has shown that conciousness can continue after the brain has stopped functioning. Current scientific research supports the view that the "mind", or "consiousness" or "soul", whatever you want to call it, is seperate from the brain. So the brain isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about our thoughts, beliefs, emotion, desires, etc. If the universe began with dead matter having no conciousness, how do we have it now through natrualistic means? But it makes sense how we have it if we were created by God.#6: Again, natural selection would favor the survival of the brain if it helped survival (I am going to use brain instead of consciousness since that is a somewhat loaded term in a religious setting). This is again pretty much the same argument as #s 4 and 5, in that it assumes there is no possible natural explanation, despite the lack of information regarding the time period and conditions in which the formation of these things happened. This has been the trademark of religion since the beginning of recorded history: If something cannot be explained it must be the work of God.
I can't speak for JaMDuDe, but there are many Christians out there (me being one of them) who enjoy trying to understand how the universe works. In my experience, the more you understand of the complexities of the universe, the more awesome you realize the Creator is. I understand that others view things differently and I respect that. But I think people need to stop lump-summing Christians together and labeling them as ignorant.Skruples wrote:
And people like you will always attribute everything they don't understand to God. God cannot be allowed into science. Why? Nothing would ever get done. Why do things fall to the ground? God does it. Why does the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening? Because God wants it to. Why is there a universe? Because God made it. Where did we come from? God. Why don't I understand something? Because God doesn't want me to. God is at once the solution to everything and the answer for nothing.
I can't say I disagree with that but at the same time I am somewhat at a "agree to disagree" type mood. It's complicated I know.Skruples wrote:
And people like you will always attribute everything they don't understand to God. God cannot be allowed into science. Why? Nothing would ever get done. Why do things fall to the ground? God does it. Why does the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening? Because God wants it to. Why is there a universe? Because God made it. Where did we come from? God. Why don't I understand something? Because God doesn't want me to. God is at once the solution to everything and the answer for nothing.JaMDuDe wrote:
Spark, you can always say"Its not impossible so u cant say it couldnt have happened". Your computer exploding into a million pieces and then puting itself back together isnt "impossible". That doesnt mean its gona happen.
My thoughts...
You say God is the answer to everything in the eyes of Christians and that is a bad thing. But in the eyes of a Chirstian you are saying that God ISN'T the answer to anything, which is a bad thing. When you think about it, Adam and Eve supposedly ate from this tree and hence Sin was brought forth into the world. The tree was called the "Tree of Knowledge". Before the fruit was eaten man had no worries and no reason to question anything, God "walked with man" meaning God had a PERSONAL relationship with human. Any questions that Adam, Eve, or anyone that would have came from them may have had, all they had to do was ask God and he would answer.
There was no pain, no suffering, no DEATH. Humans were made to be immortal but the price of sin is death. Knowledge was the sin (metaphorically), and if you sit and think about it, you would probably say to me that knowledge brings things like medicine and comforts and yada yada this and that, but what has knowledge mostly brought? Technology. What does technology produce mainly? Weapons of war. Most comforts that we enjoy today and really don't think anything about, came from advances and discoveries made during wartime or in the process of making or researching arms. I assure you, more people have been killed in all the wars throughout history than have ever been saved by medicine.
Personally, I think people who sit and ponder about Black Holes and how the universe was formed are FOOLS. Basically you are going to die. What is the point in knowing these things? When you die, your either going to go to Hell and at that point, Black Hole pyhsics are going to be of minimal concern to you, or you will go to Heaven and all will instantly be revealed, and at that point, you wasted all that time in your life for nothing.
As far as "When did God come about" discussions. No point in discussing that either. God is...well GOD. What the hell else do you need to know. The Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, the end, the creator, the Almighty, etc etc. God has no beginning, God is eternal and infinite meaning he has no begininng and no end. He resides in a dimension that no equasion or mathamatical formula can describe or account for. Just to put it this way, when we went into space and people discovered there was no Heaven up there and everyone was shocked and people said there was no God. What makes you think that you are worthy to share the same space as the creator? You cannot take a spaceship to heaven. God resides in a SEPERATE DIMENSION.
God is perfect, therfore he cannot share the same space nor universe with us. Everything around him and in the presence of Him, MUST be perfect in order for him to remain in quote "perfect. Look at it like this, if you have a clean white sheet that is straight out of the dryer, that is as close to perfect as it can possibly get, and you put it in a dusty room, what happens to the sheet? It becomes dirty, even in the slightest bit, making it per say, not as perfect as before. The same with God. But to this you would say, how can God be perfect if he made man and man isn't perfect? Well, man WAS perfect, but MAN messed it up. One thing God granted man that he didn't to anything else was FREE WILL. Even though man was perfect in everyway shape and form, man had free will and had a choice to make between the apple or another fruit. Mans free will chose the apple, and man chose not to be perfect by disobeying God. Hence man could no longer share a domain with God and no longer do you see or hear God walking "personally" with God. The closest thing to this was Jesus Christ, which in a nut shell was God in human form, or a Son of God. Many people disagree over wether or not Jesus WAS God or was the SON of God. Jesus WAS God. Jesus was like a "spacesuit" God used to share a domain with us. If you have ever went to a church for any amount of time you hear the references to the The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit. This is what this terminology refers too.
My fingers hurt. I'd love to type more but I doubt I'll change any minds, so whatever.
Also for all the idiots with the inevitable "Cougar your the most perverted and vulgar person on the forums, who are you to be talking of God?" replies, I say this: I said I was a Christian, but I never said I was a very good one. Also Jesus is my savior and one of these days when I grow up a bit, he may actually forgive me for all the stupid crap I've done. So shove it.