Your wrong about so many things here, lets discuss a small percentage of how wrong you are.
One idea that is prevalent through the entire creation account
creation myth. That’s not an insult, we’re literally talking about a myth. By definition, the story of creation in the Bible is classified as myth. Also, it’s not true and you’d have to be stupid to believe it is. That’s an insult.
is the idea of separation. Separating light from darkness, earth from sky, land from sea,
Land and sea aren’t separate.
night from day,
Only separate in so much as its how we’re marking time,
humans from animals,
Not at all separate, that’s like saying you’re separating orange from colors.
and man from woman.
Also not separate. Culturally you may have dreamed up some separation, but since this post is about science, than scientifically speaking, the difference between a man and a woman is about as great as the difference between a male and female salamander. Might matter to the salamander, but you wouldn’t say the male and female salamander are separate. Tell you this much: If men and women were ‘separate,’ we wouldn’t do too well as a species.
It’s the idea of creating order as much as creating in general.
Why would a god need a way to create order? Like, if a god could just create night and day, why couldn’t he just create order? Why would he need to create something that makes order? It’s like saying if i had unlimited powers and I wanted a burrito I could make a cow appear and then milk the cow and process the milk to into sour cream and then kill the cow and grind and cook its meat and refry some beans and wish for some tomato seeds to plant tomatoes to begin the process of making my own salsa, or, I just make a fucking burrito appear fully formed.
This was something the ancients
the ancients!? Ha, what a silly, romanticized phrase for cavemen.
understood as being a necessary part of creation.
You mean, it worked well for their plot? You see, the ancients didn’t have a great expanse of knowledge or access to the kinds of tools for understanding the natural world we have today. They didn’t have very long lifespans. It was like a planet run by the stupidest, most frightened, anxious teenagers ever. Defensive, immature and confused, they made up stories. Stories were interesting, especially fantastic ones, people listen to stories and people who tell stories like to be listened to. So fantastic stories were made up. When people asked ‘why does the sun circle the sky?’ Story tellers made up different stories. Gods in chariots, giant eyes, whatever whatever, one of them happened to be this particularly refined Jewish myth. That’s not understanding. That’s just compelling storytelling.
I think it’s really cool that our modern science has confirmed this.
Well, take your jacket off, son, because it’s about to get a little less cool in here: Modern science hasn’t confirmed jackshit of what you’re talking about.
Some of our biggest questions and unknowns about the start of the universe deal with separations. For our universe to take form matter had to separate from energy.
eh….does not compute….
Matter had to separate from antimatter.
Dude, you don’t know what antimatter is. I don’t know what antimatter is. Like, no one really knows enough about antimatter, you probably should just back off talking about it until you have like a billion degrees in theoretical physics, and if you had those degrees, you’d know not to talk about antimatter like you know what you’re talking about, cause you don’t.
The four fundamental forces
John, Paul, George and Ringo?
all had to be separated. Space and time had to be separated.
Space and time are not exactly “separated.”
How this all happened are the questions at the cutting edge of physics and astronomy, as they well should be. A grand unification theory would launch science into an entirely different place.
But I do think it’s pretty cool that theologians have had the answer below all the physicists answers for 5000 years.
Yeah, too bad it’s a bullshit answer. The theologians answer is just to shrug and say “magic man did it.” That’s not answer, that’s a hypothesis, and a silly one with no justification.
There, did I get your attention? Now, I ask you to pause in writing your response calling me a bible toting, science hating moron and at least hear what I have to say.
ugh, really? The first thing was so stupid though. What are the chances the next thing won’t be equally as stupid?
Now, in order to prove that humans have come into existence by evolution,
NOT what the evolutionary science proposes, of course.
you would first need to explain how the universe came into existence.
That’s a completely invalid premise because it’s a non-sequitur.
The leading explanation now is the so called “Big Bang theory”. This assumption is as utterly simple as its name.
Utterly simple? Let’s all take a minute to laugh at this girl.
Basically, the theory is that the entire universe created itself out of nothing,
No it isn’t, I’d explain it, but it’s a little too complex to explain in a post. I recommend going to a public library and looking up “all of science” and then coming back and talking about this before you end up looking like someone stupid enough to say…
an utterly ludicrous claim.
As Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) said, “If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent. Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”
So, an outside creator is the only logical explanation
That’s the argument from ignorance. You don’t know X, therefor it must have come from Y. (By the way, Y came from Y, DON’T QUESTION IT, THAT’S BLASPHEMY, IT’S MY OPINION HAVE RESPECT! I heard it all before sister.)
To argue for evolution, you also must explain how the first living cell came into existence.
No you don’t. That’s like saying to argue your cat had kittens you must first explain the entire gestation process of cats.
As we know, living things never arise from non living things.
ehhh….that’s a pretty gray area, but you clearly have a very narrow mind, so I’m just gonna laugh at you again because it’s a waste of time to explain to you how complex this assertion is.
Evolution requires non living organisms to be turned into living organisms,
No, it doesn’t, you don’t know what evolution is.
something that has never been observed.
Yeah, it actually kinda has. Like I said, try science, kid.
So, the only logical explanation for how life came into existence in the first place is that of an outside intelligence, or a divine creator.
Go to wikipedia and look up “Argument From Ignorance.”
Now I could go on for hours about the actual theory that humans evolved to the way we are over time,
I strongly doubt that. If you want, we can organize a phone conversation and I’ll tape it and post it online and we’ll see if it actually lasts hours or, more likely, about a minute or two.
but I think I have stated enough evidence that without a divine creator, we would not exist in the first place.
You haven’t posted any evidence, you just made a bunch of ill-informed assertions.
What bothers me is the fact that anyone who is opposed to the theory of evolution is written off as a nut job.
No, some of you are just plain stupid.
Creationism is called a “biblical myth” in our textbooks,
I doubt that.
and the ironic thing is that people who believe in are told “not to force their beliefs on others”, shortly before being denied any rational debate or discussion.
This debate is over. You want to have it? Travel back to the 1930s.
I see evolution as having been forced on people for so long that they accepted it. And repeating something untrue does not make it any more true.
So, all the scientific consensus on evolution is worthless because you can’t understand it? Come off it.
My girlfriend is a beautiful, funny, and intelligent young woman and I’m very lucky to have her in my life. We met in college, we know each other’s families, and are each other’s best friends. I’ve been with her for almost two years and I would like to start a life with her. There’s only one issue—as a Muslim, I feel my future wife has to believe in God. I’m not the strictest of Muslims, I occasionally drink and don’t follow everything written in the Quran, but my girlfriend is an atheist. She says she’s open to believing, but that is a requirement in order for our marriage to be valid within Islam and so that we can marry in a mosque. I want that not only for religious reasons but because it’s a cultural and familial tradition. We’ve talked about her converting but it’s usually ended up with us brushing it aside or with her being hurt because she says I can’t love her for who she is. Of course I love her and want to be with her but I also want my future marriage to be validated by my religion and accepted by God. But I don’t want to pressure her into converting, either. What do I do?
Hang on, Prudie, I got this one.
Dear Feeling Lost,
A diocese in Ohio is under siege — receiving numerous threatening calls as well as heated online criticism — and a veteran teacher is out of a job because of publicly revealing a lesbian relationship in violation of the Catholic school’s morality code.
But the firing has raised a fervent debate over tolerance both online and in the Columbus, Ohio, community where the incident took place.
Physical education teacher Carla Hale, 57, was fired in March after her name appeared in her mother’s obituary, which also noted Hale’s longtime lesbian partner.
Hale was summoned to a meeting with school administrators after she returned from her mother’s funeral.
At the meeting, she received a copy of her mother’s obituary that she and her brother had written. In addition, administrators gave Hale an anonymous letter from a parent calling the presence of a lesbian teacher at the school disgrace.
Search warrants were executed Friday by the Gwinnett County district attorney
One of my favorite Wikipedia pages. What makes people who believe Jesus is/was real based on faith not believe these people?
The parallels between Scientologist dogma and Oblivion’s plot are not exact, but it’s not hard to see how a person drawn to the one could be drawn to the other. Religions, like movies, are based in narratives, and they similarly seek to give structure to the inchoate stuff of life. And, in many ways, Oblivion is simply the most concrete example of a theme that stretches back through Cruise’s entire filmography, in which knowing oneself and being known by others is not only profoundly difficult, but also frequently dangerous.
Slate asks a fascinating question: Do Tom Cruise’s movies reveal something about his personality?