Scan through this slide show at this link, and you can't help but believe we were created.

Slide Show (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm)

ok, the follies of science, sure, anyone will admit that science screws up just like the rest of us, but what are you basing your proof of being created on? You are nowhere from disproving evolution. But you wanna know the funny thing? Science is correcting itself, religion just sits there and is wrong the entire time and just bends REASON to explain its faults. The bible is literal, screw you people who have problems with it, no wait, that story is a parable meaning something completely different but check out the prophecies, oh see that word right there doesnt mean what it usually means, it means this, but god is all powerful, ok god is all these things and can be understood by me, but not you because god is outside logic. I am sorry for that unbelievable run on sentence.
Your site is trying to poke fun at evolution, good job, its a theory, the basis of it makes sense, now people try and find proof. Thats a theory, not proven. You sit back and say see you screwed up mine must be right, OFFERING NO PROOF. Come on now.

A little parallel, maybe it will help explain the concept of evolution to you. Christianity started with the Church, which went to Roman catholic church, which evolved into lutherans, anabaptists, and judaists. All of which evolving from their predecessor, changing in the slightest sense but still close to the original. nowadays you got baptists, catholics, protestants, johovah witnesses, non denominationals, and COUNTLESS OTHERS, all spawning from one. see how it can happen, in real life? make sense?

What made you decide to attack Christians, the site just disproves evolution. People won't let go of that faith in evolution because it doesn't judge sin and they don't have anything to replace it with.

Originally posted by Gomer
the site just disproves evolution.

No it doesn't.

You mean like The Big Bang was "disproven"?

Please please tell me what you consider "proof".

You DO know there is a difference between "proof" and "opinion of someone who agrees with you".
Don't you?

There is not one shred of proof against evolution on the site.
Please try and be at least somewhat honest and unbiased.

The site is someone offering his (or her) biased opinion that creationism is a more likely scenario than evolution.

The person cites some examples and extrapolates them to absurd extremes to try and make a point.
(and fails miserably, in my opinon)

There is not a single bit of PROOF FOR creationism at all on the site.
Simply biased attacks against the validity of the claims of SOME scientists that regard evoution as the most likely scenario.

The only reason i attacked the bible in my first post is that is personal experience of what people have said to me, or what i have learned from history class. You want me to tailor it to Allah and the Koran, or Odin and the Norse Gods, or the master spirit and Native American religions give me time to find the people and see what they say.

Second, the site doesnt disprove evolution, it pokes fun at the mistakes it has made over the years. Good job, on a side note, if religion only had 4 times as many mistakes as science over the course of history it may still look respectable. Too bad it has many more than that.

Third, if soemthing is disproven, throw it out the window, who cares if there is something to replace it or not. Why do they care?

Did you not see the example of the giraffe, how on earth would giraffes still be around if they had not been created.

Did you not read Darwin's quote.

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin

Well, I'm sure Charles would be humble and say, I guess I was wrong, no wonder he went through traumatic stress before putting out a book that contradicted the truth. CREATION

Yes, i went to the zoo and saw the giraffes. Let me try and illistrate soemthing for you. you go through a wierd day. Now looking from before that day what is the probability that that 'wierd' day is going to happen how it did? one in a million, one in a billion? probably even more remote than that. no look at it from the POV of the day after. No matter how remote it was from the POV of the day before it still happened. One of those billion HAD to happen, and that wierd one just happened to happen. Now we look at the giraffe, and you can just easily say that it was one of those 'wierd days'


On to the quote:
I am sure he didnt count on anyone finding them, and when people get confident they make mistakes. and negating the theory of natural selection doesnt nullify evolution in my opinion

It takes alot more faith for me to believe the probability of evolution opposed to creation.

To avoid any conflicting arguments let's assume for one second that we were created....

Ok, so we finally agree...

Now tell me what bearing that has on God, christianity, heaven and hell, a 2000 year old shepherd novel or anything else you subscribe to...

For arguments sake let's take any old scenario:

Aliens created us... They designed all life on the planet.

The next question is: who created them? Who's to say? Maybe a god- all powerful and all knowing.... If that's the case there's nothing to suggest he has anything to do with jesus or is even aware what christianity is. Our planet, and all on it, are so young in the universe. We are but a baby planet that has seen much less than whatever else might be out there. Would you state that if we were in fact designed there is absolutely nothing to suggest the creator/s didn't design life elsewhere aswell? There could be billions of planets with billions of inhabitants all pointing to some other creator. What makes you think you're right?

Or do you believe the all powerful being/s just put life on earth and ignored the rest of the cosmos?

The fact is you, me, nobody can answer these questions.

What you have done is gone to a site with a guy who believes in something specifically. You have labelled that as proof to an unanswerable question. That is giving up the search you claim is an important part of life.

It is intriguing- the guy on that website has barely touched the surface of incredible things on this planet. At no stage in the game can you state for certainty that we were designed. At no stage can you state for certainty we weren't. The only fact is we do not know. To make claim that you know the absolute facts, the absolute truth is to descend into a world of stupidity.

To have your own beliefs and to look into them is all good. To claim yourself as undeniably right is pathetic and ignorant.

Do we agree that our understanding of the cosmos and the entire history of it is pretty vague at best? As such who are we to assume we're right when we don't really know anything about it?

I agree with the snake. How can one make themselves believe in something so complex, and think they are completely certain? That is EXTREMELY ignorant. We dont even have a grasp on understanding the planet we inhabit, how can we be so gullible. look at the universe and imagine what is still needed to be discovered.......The search is not over, dont stop now

I find it quite distrubing that even today people try to discredit evolution, if anything try to incorporate it into your beliefs, otherwise you tend to look like a complete moron.

There is a moth somewhere out there that digs a hole while in its early stages of development, goes to sleep in this hole for Thirteen [13] years, comes out of the hole, climbs up a tree, changes into a moth, has sex and dies.

Surely that points against a creator? Or at least points to a creator with some fucking funny sense of humour?

Man think of it.... 13 years sleep, some quick nookie and death- sounds like true perfection to me :D Well.... include a quick beer and ciggie and that would be the perfect life.

So.... given my story what does that contribute to our knowledge of the history of our planet, the universe and everything else?

Quick answer= fuck all.

It doesn't mean anything simply because we don't know the answer.

This isn't a game of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. it's not as simple as saying there's an A or B answer. There could be a million and one different reasons we can't even begin to comprehend with our limited knowledge. We sit here and say: It's either creation or evolution- just because we can't think of any other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. Can any of us really understand and comprehend the idea of infinity, to name but one example?

The easy solution is to say: "god did it. george the goat farmer said so, so that's true."

The only solution that has merit is to say: "We do not know. We do not have the facts. We can assume and summise all we like but at the end of the day there is no ultimate truth." To do anything other is to show pure self righteousness and ignorance.

Instead you close your eyes to possibility, you close your mind to study. instead you claim absolute knowledge thanks to a book, thanks to Bob the sheep shearer.

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin (PS : Cleaner Fishes etc)

Don't know whether the above were the quotes of C.Darwin when he was not praying.

Gomer, for a change, u just let loose a cat among the chickens..!
could hear incoherent blabbering from the atheistic kids. their emotional agony is understandable. in the face one devastating evidence against natural selection they went off balance & started firing indescriminately God, Creation, Scripture, theists, religion etc.

More mature, logical atheists could speak out in support of Darwin. I personally feel Darwin should not be let down embarassingly..! as snakelord said God must be ****ingly funny guy..! (if u don't take alien crap):D

Through my experience with theists (mainly Christains) that reject Evolution out of the box, it seems to be arrogance that causes ignorance in viewing evolution from a backwards standpoint.

Let me explain:

Christians believe that the earth was created FOR them, therefore it seems impossible that all these trillions upon trillions of variables over the billions of years that the universe existed BEFORE man happened just right by coincidence for this planet. not only to exist, but to be so perfectly suited to our form of life.

If the earth were created for us, if we were destined to exist, then I would whole-heartedly agree with them.

The odds for all those variables to fall into place exactly as required to suit this planet to our need the chances of it happening without an cognizant intelligent designer would be unfathomable at best, and in all likelihood impossible.

Problem IS they are putting effect before cause.
They are viewing the equation backwards.

The earth did not evolve according to a plan to suit our needs prior to out existence.

WE adapted to OUR environment here on earth.
It follows a natural, intuitive and logical cause and effect relationship.

They can't get over the arrogant notion that we HAD to exist, therefore in order for us to exist, all these factors had to come into play.

They think that if any one of the countless of crucial variables which determine our fitness to survive on this planet did not occur as it had, then we would not exist, therefore it MUST be all planned out.

Well they are HALF right.
We would NOT exist.
(or at the very least we would not exist in the form which we now do.)
We would have evolved differently.

Maybe we wouldn't be the dominant species on the planet.
Maybe we wouldn't have different races of people.
Maybe we wouldn't be here at all to defile this planet, and this world would still be a paradise.
Maybe the dinosaurs would not have become extinct, and we would be as inconsequential to the ecosystem and the well being of the planet as the housefly.

It is not coincidence that things worked out in this "master design".
There IS NO "master design" and EVERYTHING is cause and effect mixed with chaos, therfore EVERTYHING is coincidence.

I do not have the answers to the dawn of creation.
I do not pretend to (unlike SOME).
But I do firmly believe that no "God" is necessary for US to be here.

Even IF there IS a God required for "the beginning" (which I do NOT conceed), ALL this being would be required to do is create basic element, and basic energy.
It is a variation of what many Vedic scholars refer to as "The Absolute" (postulated MANY years before the "Big Bang" theory).
Simply stated:
Everything can be broken down to two core things; matter and energy.
IF a "God" entity created a single basic material (the smallest ("quantum" if you prefer) part of any atom) from which all compound elements can be made.
And "God" created basic energy (gravity) ALL other things - planats, stars, asteroids, black holes, life, rainbows, etc.- can ALL come to be without ANY further intervention.

Think about it...

This core material evenly dispersed throughout space in these tiny independent sub-atomic "specks" the size of a photon.
No light.
No heat (everything is at absolute zero).
No life.
Nothing but these quants of matter and gravity in the infinity of space.
Gravity begins to draw these quants together (that's what gravity does).
They attach to each other gathering more and more matter, getting bigger and bigger.
As this big ball-o-matter (The Singularity) gets bigger and bigger the quants in the center are under greater and greater pressure.
The core begins to heat due to the pressure.
The pressure and heat intensifies as the size of the singularity increases.
The center gets hotter, the heat spreads, the hot core gets larger, the cold wall around it get thicker, the cycles continues for billions of years.
the intense heat and pressure at the core causes chemical and thermonuclear reactions, which causes these quants to fuse and join together in different formations to cause different elements.
Eventually this singularity reaches a point where it runs out of quants to collect to retain the critical balance of the cold wall being thick enough to contain the immense pressure in the core.
The heated core grows and spreads outward, and the cold wall is getting thinner as a result.
When the wall becomes too thin to contain the heated growing heated core (filled with all types of elements, energies, heat, light, all the building blocks of our universe)... BOOM.
The great cosmic piñata throws all of its candy and trinkets outward.
"Let there be light."

The cycle has begun.
Eventually, all the stars will go out.
The universe will stop expanding (inertia from the "Big Bang" will die out).
Gravity will bring it all back together again.
There will be a HUGE black hole (The Singularity) at the center of the universe.
The pressure will begin building at the core...
You get the picture.

Maybe there are more universes beyond our borders that have gone through the same cycle.
Mybe there wasn't A Singularity.
maybe the force of gravity collected in a bunch of big balls all over very very far away from each other, and we are the result of this particular big ball.
Maybe the singularity started it, and the universe has gone through this cycle many times.
Maybe each time the universe(s) "go out" and beging to collect into a black hole, there will be another littler bang to follow and a new universe will be created.
Maybe we are on teh 27th cycle of little bangs.
Who knows?
Not me.
Not YOU either.

But the point is, all this is possible under the observable laws of our universe without "God's" plan or intervention in any way.

Any thoughts?

Also...
Even if evolution were proven to be flawed in some way (which I am sure it is) or even (as unlikely as it is) proven to be complete BUNK, that doesn't mean it is a shoe-in for creationism.

If the flaws are pointed out, the model can be reconsidered.
Something else can be discovered to point to another option's validity (like the whole alien master-race thingy :rolleyes: ).

Rather than spending your energy looking for the holes (of which you will find some because Darwin was a person not an infallible God) why don;t you try and find evidence or PROOF of creationism?

Even if evoltuion was flushed down the toilet, that doesn't mean that everyone will say, "Ohhhhh, God MUST be the answer then" like some people who are unwilling to even consider alternatives do.

If evolution IS wrong (as you seem so sure it is) then you don't have to worry about tearing it down. That will happen in time with new discoveries.

You should use your time wisely and have solid evidence supporting YOUR theory so you can present people with a rational viable alternative when they are looking for something to replace it.

Cuz, I have to tell you...
If what you ahve NOW is still all you have THEN, you aren't going to win many converts in science. Or any critical thinking, rational, intelligent people at all, for that matter.

Originally posted by Gomer
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin

Well, I'm sure Charles would be humble and say, I guess I was wrong, no wonder he went through traumatic stress before putting out a book that contradicted the truth. CREATION

It doesn't matter in the least what Darwin WOULD say if he were alive now.

Once you put an idea out for absorption and scrutiny by the masses you no longer own that idea.
It has a life of its own.
You can't just say, "I take it back. I was wrong." and expect the idea to die.
As I said above Darwin was human.
All humans are fallible.

Nobody replied to my last three posts here.

Are they that good that the creationists can't refute them and the others feel I have succeeded?
Or are they that bad that the creationists don't feel they need to bother to acknowledge them and the others are too ashamed of me to?

I agree entirely that the whole evolutionary process is being reversed by those who favour creation.

"A giraffe can't exist without being created because it's head would explode when it bent down."

That's really the wrong way of looking at it...

Giraffes didn't just 'appear' as tall animals. They are the evolutionary cycle of an animal from times long past. They started off as small creatures and gradually 'evolved' as time went by.

You see.... it's perfectly possible to have both- On your side of the argument God created everything- and yes it's possible he did create the very basics of life... the single cell protozoa and stuff. Gradually through natural evolution that which god created started to grow and change- develop alone.

Genesis would have you believe life started off with all animals/plant life already developed when science can show otherwise. The bible would date the beginnings of this world way way after the dinosaurs, or the primordial soup this planet once was. The belief that god created everything then and there is but a mere lack of scientific knowledge and evidence on the authors side. 2000 years ago=not much knowledge. An answer was found- call these guys the worlds first scientists. As such they claim everything created 'as is', instead of realising the millions upon millions of years of development and evolution that had come before.

When you look at it from that point of view it certainly does seem remarkable. Giraffes dont explode, bees unwittingly reproduce flowers- flowers unwittingly feed bees while getting reproduced- it seems in all likelihood that this is the most perfect state a planet can be in. Of course we only compare this with the fact this is the only planet we have. Perhaps it's far from perfect. Look at the diseases we and all animal/plant life succumb to, look at the frailties that are inherrent in all life. This is far from a perfect system but it does develop, it does evolve.

There is a certain stick insect that no longer has a male counterpart. The female has adapted and is now able to reproduce alone. As such the guys all died out.....

This is a recent evolutionary change. I doubt God was sitting down sometime 30 years ago and thought: "Hmmm im gonna kill of all male stick insects." So you see.... life evolves and moves on by itself. By that what is to suggest even the very beginnings were created? All it was was atoms, single cell ameobas and stuff like that. Now the creation doesn't seem quite as glorious? Well in my eyes even the existence of single cell protozoa seems fascinating but that does at the very least show that guys website as worthless. He's taking the assumption the animals were 'just there' in their current state and is obviously way off the mark.

He's arguing creation against evolution yet doesn't know what evolution means.

Read up on the Coleacanth for fun- a fish that became extinct 65 million years ago but has been found alive and well in recent years. Life finds a way..... it doesn't require godly intervention.... animals know how to survive and evolve.

You see.... it's perfectly possible to have both- On your side of the argument God created everything- and yes it's possible he did create the very basics of life... the single cell protozoa and stuff. Gradually through natural evolution that which god created started to grow and change- develop alone.

Genesis would have you believe life started off with all animals/plant life already developed when science can show otherwise.

{{{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}}}


Exactly, God created life, and may have used evolution to assist Him.

Genesis is interpreted by some to be impossible, But I say the truth is in there....absolutely.

It's hidden in Shadows and Types, spoken as parables such as Jesus always used with the masses.

It takes His supernatural revelation to reveal what He meant by it....

That's why He chose the foolishness of preaching for the perfecting of His saints.

So........ when exactly did god create adam/eve and all other life?

Let's not take into account the older Sumerian text, the original genesis, where the name Adam was taken from, (meaning= earth/dust).

In your version of the story when did this happen? (try to be specific please- dont say "at the beginning of time"). If possible a year/era/time period would be more helpful.

The reason to refute Bible or Koran or any other religious scriptures can't be the defacto reason to refuse the existence of God.

Evolution - natural selection theory did lead to so many materialistic / atheist idealogies. If ur atheism based on the above theory or/and big bang theory, etc u might be committing a mistake. Theories too evolve.

If u don't agree with the concept of God as depicted by religions u still could find out the truth, if u r interested, without outright rejection of God's existence. Cuz either God is oversimplified or made aweful & fearful by religions - intentionally or lack of words to describe.

Search the God with heart not with gathered knowledge alone. God does not seem to care about our intelligence , our defintions of Him. Faith & knowledge have their own reasons and limitations.

The reason to refute Bible or Koran or any other religious scriptures can't be the defacto reason to refuse the existence of God.

Evolution - natural selection theory did lead to so many materialistic / atheist idealogies. If ur atheism based on the above theory or/and big bang theory, etc u might be committing a mistake. Theories too evolve.

If u don't agree with the concept of God as depicted by religions u still could find out the truth, if u r interested, without outright rejection of God's existence. Cuz either God is oversimplified or made aweful & fearful by religions - intentionally or lack of words to describe.

Search the God with heart not with gathered knowledge alone. God does not seem to care about our intelligence , our defintions of Him. Faith & knowledge have their own reasons and limitations.


Firstly.... who said i was an atheist? That's a wild assumption to make. I think you draw that assumption on the basis i ask questions and search for answers instead of just accepting whatever i can think of. It's amazing how many people confuse me as being an atheist.

However your last paragraph seems to be more 'trust in god' speech which is hardly an answer to anything. Search with my heart? Well, regardless of what my heart finds does that make something absolute fact? No, it does not.

If you want to subscribe me to something, or brand me a 'type of person' you can label me as a 'Non-Knowerist'. I, just like everyone else do not know the absolute truth to everything. As such i do not subscribe to any one thing like the majority seem to do. I ask questions and look for answers wherever they may be, and whatever outcome might arise. I do not put all my eggs in one basket so to speak.

As a simpletons analogy: We are all wandering in a woodland area. Most people grab every egg in sight and throw it all in one basket and go home. I like to leave the eggs scattered so i can analyse and find out what they actually are instead of just assuming my own righteousness.

As another thought.... Many people, like the Visitor, think they can wrap up 300 million years of the evolutionary process by reading a badly translated story. I'm sorry but because some guy said: Adam and Eve ate an apple doesn't make it fact. From historical findings we can accurately show that genesis and so much of the bible comes from earlier sumerian writings. Adam comes from the 'created from earth and dust...' Earth/dust in Sumerian is Adama. But all that aside there are still no answers. We can't just wrap it all up and say it was created because a book says so, because darwin says so or because it 'feels' right. It may seem immensely awesome with our little understanding but why must it be creation? The only fact is we do not know. Thus you are all welcome to join me as a 'Non-Knowerist'. We like to search for truth, not just assume we have it after the first step.

Some guy said: Adam and Eve ate an apple doesn't make it fact.


I never meant "evolution" in the scientific term, was used by God in creation. He created all life one species at a time, each a complete one of it's own, and said for each to bring forth of it's kind.It's not natural for species to interbreed, even though they can.

But He created each one just a little higher in a progressive work, until one was created to reflect God.
I believe the serpent was the one just under man, and was thereby capable of interbreeding, this is what happened in the garden. (fruit, to make one wise) you are the fruit of your mother
(you'll be like gods) the power to create life- through sex.
Cain was of his father the wicked one.
Jesus said; ye serpents, generation of vipers, how can you being evil ect...
I said the truth is in there, only hidden in parables, shadows and types......and I do stand by that statement.
Nowhere does it say anyone ate an "apple"

SO TheVisitor,

Do serpents have any free will, and if they do, are some of them going to heaven and some going to hell based on their performance? Do serpants include all types of snakes, or a special venemous one?

Now it's news to me that we have the power to create life through sex over other animals. Actually, we are pretty lousy at it, I hear ants can drop a thousand egg at one pop. cats can give 5 or 7, ect.

The serpent in Genesis was "more subtile than any of the beasts of the field"
He was the missing link, between man and ape....
He was changed into a snake....after impregnating Eve with Cain.
Now you heflores should not be so quick to deny this, for in arabic to this day, one translation of the word serpent still means "ape".

I'm actually going to be the first to deny it. My Quran tells me that Satan is not a serpant but a star that is rejected, which means maybe a shooting star or something. There is no mention of a Serpant in the Genesis story. It was always Satan importing bad ideas into man's mind or trying to play with human mind with his powers and without needing to be close, Satan never had physical character in Islam.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but thats the reason Cain killed Abel.
God accepted Abel's sacrifice of blood, the blood of an innocent Lamb, He knew it was blood it the garden, contaminated by the serpent (an animal) not Satan, it was possesed of Satan.

Cain didn't believe it, he thought they ate an apple or something.
His offering reflected his revelation just as his brother Abel's offering reflected Abel's revelation.

He offered the grains of the field, with all kinds of fruits and flowers, a big pretty sight.
Just like in the big, pretty churches his children offer their scarifice of praise in today.
His offering was refused, and he became very wroth.
Even though he had no revelation, God offered him a second chance,and said "just do as your brother, and all will be well"
Instead he murdered his brother, and lied to God's face about it.

That's the same thing his children do today, murder the influence of the rightous in their heart, denying God's truth, just as they once murdered the true christians in the flesh...and will soon again. There's your mark.

The beast in the begining, is the beast at the end. Follow the "Trail of the Serpent".

That site was absolutely asinine. I recommend you read a little more widely if you think that this informed, quality material.

The cleaner fish/shark "problem" is based on the premise that the shark will try to eat any fish in its vicinity. This is not the case at all , a shark will only eat a fish that is worth its while, nutritionally speaking. If the energy debt of catching and consuming the fish is greater than the benefits of eating it, then it won't bother. This is why the shark will not consume small fish or surfers. Even if we did not know this, we could still hypothesise how this evolutionary problem might be solved. eg. The fish evolved from a very small one that the shark could not kill. The fish used to be poisonous or spiky, hence unconsumable. After the symbiotic relationship developed the poison or spikes became vestigal and gradually disappeared. The rest of the site(I ran out of patience about 4 slides into it) seems to be a collection of strawmen and arguments from incredulity. The whole thing is rather sad.

Thanks for the laugh, here's a quick reply:

Cleaner Fish
Nice misrepresentation there. But as you can see here, http://www.dvfootage.com/oceans/search/search/Cleaner+Fish+Fish/
cleaner fish are rather too small for a shark (or a grouper) to bother with. Just as Lions don't bother with the insects and small birds that join in on their kills, sharks don't bother to eat cleaner fish because they are not worth the bother.

Giraffe
Another nice misrepresentation; The creationist assembles a impossible mixture of parts of different animals and then claims that such a composite creature couldn't function. Of course, no one claims this assemblage ever existed but the point is missed.

An infant's heart cannot support the needs of an adult body, if a child's body grew to adult size but the heart remained the same the creature would die, it's tiny heart unable to pump the blood quickly enough through the body. How do you suppose children become adults? Answer: The organism evolves gradually; the heart changing along with the rest of the body.

Evolutionary changes are very similar; the neck didn't just get 4' longer between one generation and the next, giraffes evolved gradually, the neck getting just a bit longer and the heart getting a bit larger along with other minor changes that compensated for these changes over many generations.

Creationism, on the other hand, fails to answer certain odd questions we come up with. Such as the fact that the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe travels from the brain all the way down to the heart and then all the way back up to the larynx. Why would God make such a wasteful design? Did he, perhaps, have some extra nerve tissue laying around that he wanted to use up or did he just make a mistake, forget about hooking up the larynx, then have to run a jumper back up from the heart? Of course, this odd arrangement makes perfect sense when we realize that the giraffe evolved from a creature in which this circuit makes more sense.

Whale
Try to understand the concept of intermediate steps.

Flight
(sigh) Same argument as above; intermediate steps. The squirrel depicted could have, in fact, made the leap provided it had just a bit more skin than the one presented. Such creatures actually exist; we call them (gasp) flying squirrels.

Nebraska Man
This makes me chuckle; if you use hoaxes and mistakes as disproof you'd better toss out religion too.

I enjoyed the site though, terribly funny. However, perhaps the author should have spent some of their time actually learning what evolution is and what it states rather than drawing silly, and somewhat demented, pictures.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Gomer
Scan through this slide show at this link, and you can't help but believe we were created.

heck I KNOW for sure I was created,
by a man and a woman,that is ;)no supernatural skydady needed!
you should read here me thinks
www.talkorigins.org

If you want to believe you came from monkeys, go ahead....
You might not be far from the truth.

Genesis means "Two seeds" and in the book of Genesis it talks about two races - monkey man, and God man.

The Serpent that seduced Eve was the "missing link" half way between man and ape.

The fact is some didn't come from God, and some did.

Which do you think you are?...think about that.

Genesis means "Two seeds" and in the book of Genesis it talks about two races - monkey man, and God man.

Gensis is just a translation of much older texts. It really doesn't matter what it says in Genesis.

All of the creation stories could be nothing more than fairytale in which case your comment is irrelevant.

If there is any truth it's gonna come from the original, not the badly translated copy.

The Serpent that seduced Eve was the "missing link" half way between man and ape.

I always wondered why i had a long dangly snake in between my legs :D

The fact is some didn't come from God, and some did.

Oh that's a fact? You have proof of this claim? If not it can't be regarded as fact. And no, Genesis isn't 'proof' of anything.

Which do you think you are?...think about that.

My birth had absolutely nothing to do with gods, nothing to do with serpents, nothing to do with monkeys. It was down to 2 humans. It's amazing how some people are unwilling to even accept they're of the human race.

TheVisitor: "Genesis" has nothing to do with "two seeds". You never really responded to my posts in Unanswered questions (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18790&perpage=20&highlight=Genesis&pagenumber=10). What you are teaching is apocryphal and extra-biblical at best. From where do you get information regarding 'the serpent' or a race of 'serpents' that no-one else could find?

Snakelord: you read a few Sumerian epics and now suddenly Genesis is a translation of them? On one side, you disqualify Genesis based on its age, and on the other side you refute it using "much older" texts!

My birth had absolutely nothing to do with gods, nothing to do with serpents, nothing to do with monkeys. It was down to 2 humans. It's amazing how some people are unwilling to even accept they're of the human race.
Genesis wasn't included in the Bible for "background information", it was meant to teach you something. If you don't learn anything from it, its useless even to argue about it. Genesis is the story of how those first two humans came about. What is the Sumerian story? Does it say anything about a Creator?

Like TheVisitor, you seem quite willing to accept less substantiated ideas in stead of more authoritative versions. The point of Genesis is that we where created by God. You either accept or reject that.

Snakelord: you read a few Sumerian epics and now suddenly Genesis is a translation of them? On one side, you disqualify Genesis based on its age, and on the other side you refute it using "much older" texts!

I read whatever i can in order to learn and grow. We can delve into the actual meaning of texts to find answers of we can just accept the first we come across as true and ignore everything else.

The Enuma-Elish is a good example. It would appear to explain the beginnings of everything, (down to atoms, protons etc). It explains how the cosmos formed. The translation of 'god' actually means 'material'. Of course it's as open to interpretation as any other creation story is.

Other texts explain how a man was created by a being and told not to eat fruit etc and so on...

These are all ideas and stories to justify our being here. As religions and races go through the ages stories and ideas/beliefs are handed down generation to generation.

By looking at older influences and writing we can see how and why stories ended up as they are not only to fit new beliefs but as a result of multiple translations and vocal hand downs.

If i wrote a story which someone translated several times and 'copied' from word of mouth etc would you expect that story to remain exactly the same as the original? Even after a millennium? In order to ever come closer to an answer we must read and look at them all. The older works are extremely significant, but i guess you can't understand why.

As for refuting.. That's not my goal- i like to look at alternatives based on any evidence that can be found. I will not instantly accept something as fact because i can't be assed reading anything else. Have you read the Enuma-Elish? I have read Genesis, i have read the Enuma Elish and many other 'creation' stories. If you haven't how can you comment on the validity of Genesis or otherwise? Without comparison it's no surprise people just 'accept'.

It's like that website Gomer posted showing obvious creation because giraffes dont explode. I am under no obligation to agree with them. If we dont questions, seek, and attempt to find answers we can never claim to already having the truth because we know no other possibility.

Genesis wasn't included in the Bible for "background information", it was meant to teach you something.

Yeah i've read it. I've also read many of the other creation stories also there to teach something. Have you? If not.....

If you don't learn anything from it, its useless even to argue about it.

As such.. How can you even think of saying:

you seem quite willing to accept less substantiated ideas in stead of more authoritative versions.

How would you know what 'more authoritative' is? Go with the flow if that's how you are, fine. I prefer truth over following the herd. As such i question instead of just accepting one as 'more authoritative'. As for less substantiated..... Why dont you read them and then discuss the issue with me?

The point of Genesis is that we where created by God. You either accept or reject that.

it pains me that you feel this way. Nobody should just 'accept', as you have done, and nobody should just 'reject'. That's why i ask questions and debate issues- to find the truth, not just to accept whatever my version of the truth might be.

You have read it, accepted it, and fail to notice there are alternative possibilities. I mention some of these other possibilities and you instantly label them as unsubstantiated. By that basis, they are no less and no more than Genesis- as such we should view them all before 'accepting' anything.

What is the Sumerian story? Does it say anything about a Creator?

Shows you haven't read any of it so why feel you can dismiss it off hand?


When skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu , the First One, Their begetter
And Mummu Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-bed;
When yet no materials were manifested,
nor Names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then the materials were born within them....

The materials of that generation would meet together
And disturb Tiamat, and Their clamour reverberated.
They stirred up Tiamat's belly,
They were annoying Her by playing inside Anduruna, (an-durana, the spherical shape of the nucleus).
Apsu (the emprisoned mater) could not quell Their noise
And Tiamat (the cover) became mute before Them;
However bad Their ways, She would indulge Them... And so on.

This seems to be an understanding of the basic behaviour of particles and matter etc.. It might be, it might not be.. It might have relevance, it might not. As i've said countless times now it's all a case of 'mights or might nots'. As such i feel compelled to ask and search instead of just accepting.

This is further related text:

"... Let me put blood together and bones too, let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name...", "... The work of the gods shall be imposed on him..." "... Nintu mixed clay, with her flesh and blood, they heard the drumbeat forever after, a ghost (soul) came into existence from the god's flesh and she (Nintu) proclaimed it a living sign." Later on "... I myself created (it), my hands have made (it)..."

The 'blood' that is mentioned would be worded as Adom.

Ghost is- etemmu, intelligence is-temu so it's possible the above reads: "An intelligence came into existence from the god's flesh.."

You see..... we're all questions without answers. I cannot, no matter how much easier it would be, just accept the first thing i hear. I continue to search, ask and look for answers. If you resent the fact i ask instead of accepting thats also fine but you cannot condemn a story if you haven't read it.

Wonderful. To me, it's another source confirming that people knew about a Creator, and that they were created and seeked to put it in words.

Isn't it self-evident that the time of actual Creation predates all written material about creation?

Would you say that the Sumerian was the first or oldest religion? Were there any religions inbetween Sumerian and Abrahamic that followed one God? Was the Sumerian religion translated/adapted to briefly describe a single Creator, and then continued to form all the different gods and religions?

You say these are 'alternatives'. Yet these Sumerian gods seem to be totally overtaken en enslaved by their creations.


Apsu , the First One, Their begetter
And Mummu Tiamat, who bore them all...

Apsu (the emprisoned mat[t]er) could not quell Their noise
And Tiamat (the cover) became mute before Them


As a religion, it did not seem to know its god(s) very well. Have you considered that maybe Cain's descendents were looking at Abel's God and didn't know Him?

It's very comforable to be "always looking, never-knowing", and making no decisions - you can never be wrong. But sometimes you have to make up your mind and continue your journey from there. I'm not afraid of being wrong, because the God I belong to is the only One who survived all 'religions' and is still alive in the same form as when He created the earth.

Isn't it self-evident that the time of actual Creation predates all written material about creation?

Ok then, isn't it self evident that the beginnings of time can only be speculated about? Assumption isn't an answer. We all need answers and 'accept' whatever we choose. I cannot 'accept' on the basis of speculation.

Would you say that the Sumerian was the first or oldest religion?

Dunno, might be, might not. I guess it's pretty much the closest we've come to so far.

Were there any religions inbetween Sumerian and Abrahamic that followed one God?

From what people can tell it was a fairly slow transition. The Akkadians and Babylonians kept most of the Sumerian beliefs- handed down those stories etc.. Eventually the 'Gods' were turned into 'God'. I guess there comes a time where people just accept what they want to and regard it as truth. Sounds familiar? The funny thing in translations is the word Elohim. Commonly misunderstood that it is actually a plural. Gods, not God. Some attributed it as being like the word 'sheep', which has no plural but the singular of Elohim is Eloah.

But we can see upon looking many 'hand-downs' from the Sumerian language. Some examples:

Allah- the name of God in Arabic comes from Alla who was a Sumerian God of the netherworld. In Akkadian it was Allatu.

A Hebrew month, (Tammuz), comes from the name for a Sumerian god Damuzi..

Utu, known as Shamash in Akkadian is a god related to the sun. In Hebrew sun is Shemesh.

E-din: E=house din=righteous/pure. In Hebrew Din is law. Moujahadin is an arabic word for a holy or righteous warrior.

Languages are so interconnected and as you will know with your own spoken language is a compilation and hand-down of many many different languages.

By understanding just how much our languages and system have been built by all different creeds, people, countries, religions etc we can see that everything's not quite as straight forward as we would want to believe.

If you're interested further read Samuel Noah Kramers 'History begins at Sumer'.

It's like superstitions such as throwing salt over your shoulder, not walking under ladders and so forth... To understand them we must find the root cause.

There were stories of old that the devil was allergic to holy water. Many vampire legends sprang from this story... One thing contributes overwhelmingly to other things. It's a hard task to find the source of beliefs, superstitions, words even but every little will do you no harm. It widens our knowledge and understanding- i'm quite sure god would not be dissapointed if we were willing to learn and search for ourselves.

(Btw- superstition derives from Latin meaning to 'stand above'.)

Was the Sumerian religion translated/adapted to briefly describe a single Creator, and then continued to form all the different gods and religions?

As shown above things do adapt and change tremendously. This is not to deny your belief in a creator, but to look at where that originated from. If Sumerian is the oldest we currently know it is worthwhile to study it because of the possible hand-downs. To understand what was handed down and why serves our thirst for knowledge and might just give some answers. It might not, but it might.

You say these are 'alternatives'. Yet these Sumerian gods seem to be totally overtaken en enslaved by their creations

Doesn't make it any less or any more possible. Sitchins belief in basic was the stories of creation by chaos. The twelve planets and the 'war' that raged in the cosmos between planets which eventually settled and created what we see in the sky at night.

The Sumerians explained the cosmos in extreme detail. They explained the orbit patterns of the planets, they explained how some planets had multi-moons, they even explained the Kupier belt.

We didn't 'find' Pluto until 1929? or thereabouts. The discovery of the Kupier belt is a recent historical finding.

This is just basics but surely we must look into this? The Sumerians knew all about the cosmos 5000 years ago... we only found Pluto 80 odd years ago.. Doesn't that leave a bunch of questions that must be answered? We know they explained the cosmos in accurate detail.... we dont know how. I can't rest at night knowing there's questions like this that need answering.

It's like the shroud of turin. It is left as 'an image of jesus'. They don't study it, they just accept it in accordance with their beliefs. Some people have studied it and dated it. The religious establishment denies it even if shown the details. That is the difference: One studies, in a search for truth, whether its what we want to hear or not. The other just accepts and will not hear anything else.

As a religion, it did not seem to know its god(s) very well. Have you considered that maybe Cain's descendents were looking at Abel's God and didn't know Him?

I gave you but a passage or two of old texts. I couldn't debate to your belief based on the bible if i'd only read the index. Agreed?

One problem i do find within the bible is a large lack of detail which causes all sorts os untold problems.

As an example we can question the lack of mention towards women in the bible, especially in Genesis. Cain kills his brother, goes off into the land of nod... (next sentence:) Cain lays with his wife... Ummmm. You see it causes conflicts whereas the Sumerian texts don't really do so...

Look at Noah vs Ziusudra.... In the Noah story everyone got drowned, Noah had all clean animals on the ark... etc etc.

In Ziusudra the lowlands were flooded. People ran to highground but Ziusudra was caught on a barge, (carrying animals to the market). He floated off down the river and ended up in a sea where all around him 'was flooded'. It puts it in realistic perspective. I don't think for one second anyone truly agrees with the drowning of all mankind, and the sudden reappearance of mankind afterwards whereas the Ziusudra story is a lot more valid in its detail.

To me it's a great start in understanding. Study, Search, ask and seek. Acceptance is premature.

It's very comforable to be "always looking, never-knowing", and making no decisions - you can never be wrong

It's far from comfortable- frankly it's painful. I can always be wrong, and might very well be. If i am i might also be doomed to eternity in hell, (at gods command), but i must search for truth.. it's a part of me. Sometimes i consider just sitting down and accepting in order to 'save myself', but it's not in my nature. I can't commit to something unless it is true.

But sometimes you have to make up your mind and continue your journey from there.

I'll make up my mind when i know the truth.

I'm not afraid of being wrong, because the God I belong to is the only One who survived all 'religions' and is still alive in the same form as when He created the earth.

Exactly my problem... You're not afraid of being wrong- because you aren't, (as you perceive it). I don't have the luxury of 'faith' and acceptance at the cost of truth.

(Apologies for the long post)

Originally posted by TheVisitor
If you want to believe you came from monkeys, go ahead....You are the only one here that believes we descended from monkeys.

Genesis means "Two seeds" and in the book of Genesis it talks about two races - monkey man, and God man.A rather loose and questionable translation IMO. Many words are polysemic; Hebrew, in particular, is rife with such words. That is not to say that one can simply retranslate any word in any manner simply to suit one's fancy, one must have an understanding of the language, its grammar and syntactical conventions in particular. Translation occurs within context.

The fact is some didn't come from God, and some did.Fact? What fact? Looks like idle supposition and fantasy to me.

~Raithere