TED Conversations

S. Ahmadi

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Islam beliefs & Christianity beliefs. fiction? deviation? true?

this topic is not related to existing or proving God and assumed God exist.
existing God is discussed in other topics like:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2142/why_our_universe_has_laws_of_p.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/1599/who_is_god.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3023/is_more_than_one_god_possible.html
http://www.ted.com/conversations/923/proving_god.html

is there any connection between two beliefs?
Christians worship Jesus Christ as God our creator.
Quran validate the Bible to some extent
does the Bible validate the Quran?
are the Muslim God & the Christian God are the same?
Islams says extinction of human existed before Adam&Eve.
does Some Christians also believe this?
is there any deviation in original Bible? (the Bible at time of prophet)
is there any deviation in original Koran?(the Koran at time of prophet)
such beliefs are true or deviation?:
God cannot look on sin, neither can there be sin in heaven.
Sin causes death.
Death entered the world because of Adam & Eve, who exercised their right to chose, & chose to sin.
Mankind has chosen to sin ever since.
There is only one way that sin could be neutralized; if a sinless eternal being gave himself up to death. So God came to earth in the person of Jesus & paid the price, so that all who believe are free from sin & death.
Islam believes there is no savior unless the person's good deeds and prophets only can have some help to God forgive some shortcoming of true believers.
Islam believes God is not human nor material and created all materials.
does Christians believe God is a human?

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • May 29 2011: Hi Iqbal, brilliant, I agree with every word.
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Hi Iqbal
      Hopefully any BIOLOGISTS out there will keep me right.
      As I understand it the cells in our bodies are being constantly renewed; at the rate of about 10,000/sec. The result of this is that our whole body gets replaced within 10yrs or so. This means that in material terms we are all less than 11yrs old. This looks like a system that was originally designed to continue for ever, but of course we grow old. Why ? I presume there is a fault in the mechanism. Is this right guys ?

      :-)
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Not that I am a biologist, but I am pretty sure I now the answer one would give; No there is no fault in the mechanism, many enough will live long enough to produce offspring, that is why our species not dies and life is propagated down the generations. Life is a continuing process, an individual is a link in the chain, or a branch in the tree. Once an individual has lived long enough to ensure the survival of its offspring, there is no need for it to continue a life of its own.

        I have to say that to fully embrace evolution theory is a quite humbling experience, not so much the egoistic rejection of a creator as it often is portrayed as.
        • May 29 2011: Hello Kristofer. I agree, evolution is not the same recipient of egoistic rejection as a divine creator. Having said that; the way evolution progresses gives me some thought along those lines. The only way our species can evolve is by using information stored in the subconscious, (memory.) In the absence of divine help, the species (us) must feed all the information to allow evolution to proceed. Because of the vast time scale involved in evolution, that information must be retained until its use is needed. If this is so; when we die , our memory or some would call emotions, would have to live on. Evolution= ability and ability where ever it exists must have some control, or it would spiral out of control.
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: I am not sure I understand what you are saying? Do you say that evolution takes place in the mind? It's the DNA that is passed on from generation to generation and gradualy evolves. And why would evolution spiral out of control? Isn't survival of the fitest the mechanism that provides the control?
        • May 29 2011: Hi Kristofer, in the absence of a divine help, that just leaves the species. A species when it mutates, has to benefit all species, not just its own. The food chain is one example. DNA cannot do this alone there must be another unknown source that as yet to be found. Somehow the prokaryotic cells, jump into the eukaryotic ones, in doing this the dna seems to adjust to the task ahead,which suggests there is a pattern to how life evolves. This is the ability to which I refer. Survival of the fittest is still prominant, but survival of the most intelligent is the most important. Intelligence and ability go hand in glove.
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Most mutations are quite minor ones, can't see how it drastically would affect any other species. Do you have any sources that explains such a concept?
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222/evolution_vs_functional_proteins_where_did_the_information_come_from_doug_axe_stephen_meyer/

          @ Derek
          "It is these cell changes that allow this to happen, my question is; how do these cells get their information, the information about when and what to mutate into?"
          That's the million dollar question. Many think it just doesn't happen, others put their faith in random mutation + natural selection.
        • May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer, check out the Galapagos Cormorants, there are some big changes going on there. The minor changes you refer to are there, but you must take in the amount of time it takes for evolution to evolve. If it went to quick, the mistakes would pile up with chaos everwhere. The speed with which evolution progresses allows for mistakes to be rectified before they can spiral out of control. It is these cell changes that allow this to happen, my question is; how do these cells get their information, the information about when and what to mutate into?
        • May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer, I would just like to add that all life is dependent on each other in some way. The food chain is the main one, it establishes the need for dependence on one another for survival; we don't all eat the same thing. Survival allows life to evolve; saying it this way sounds like I am describing a design in nature. I am not rerring to some divine help, but a natural design. When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Depending what you believe, without divine intervention; that means the species are passing on the information for evolution to evolve. It also means that all life is connected in some way. Science dictates that all life started from one source, so isn't it possible that in some way, we are still one.
      • May 30 2011: Hi Peter. Random mutation over billions of years would have spiralled out of control without some way to govern it. Ask any gambler what chance would have done? That leaves you with two choices, was the control coming from God or from the species? If it was coming from God then the bible is a load of rubbish, because it goes against the workings of evolution. We all know that the evidence is firmly with evolution and I must go along with the evidence. We have gone so far down the wrong path it's hard to get back to the truth, but we are gradually getting there.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek
          " .......the bible is a load of rubbish, because it goes against the workings of evolution."
          I totally agree, I wish some of my Christian friends could get this right

          "We all know that the evidence is firmly with evolution"
          Not really, I don't see the evidence for random mutation/natural selection evolving anything. Maybe you could enlighten me ?

          :-)
      • May 31 2011: Hi Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. Random mutation and natural selection only work up to a point, that is , unless there is some kind of guidance. Where you and me differ, is the source of that guidance. Logic and science dictate that the first life-form was most likely a dormant one. If this is so then traits of that first ancestor must have been handed down. Where do we look for this dormancy? Without memory no life could exist, how would it know what to eat and where to find it? This is just the simplest of examples, but it will suffice. To have a memory all life must have a subconscious. When we dream most of what we dream can be explained by our everyday knowledge; however there are some dreams that happen now and again where there is no explanation. It is alienated from our own experiences. This dormancy that all life possesses, because all life has a subconscious, is just as important now as it was all those billions of years ago when life first started.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek

          Well I'm guessing you know my (biblical) hypothesis. (Folks on this site like to use the correct words). All 'types' of creatures were created at once fully functional. A type would be originally creatures that could mate & produce fertile offspring. Within each type was the coding for lots of variation to help the creature adapt to it's environment. So we have natural selection, which over millennia have produced tremendous variety. However we have to operate within the code that was originally written into the dna, as mutations have yet to show the ability to write new code.
          When it comes right down to it, the actual empirical science backs biogenesis; ie life only comes from life. There is zero evidence that non-living matter can produce life. Even Dawkins concedes this & calls on panspermia, which of course leaves us with the same problem, but on another planet.
          I'm not sure that I understand your hypothesis, but I understand it requires a mind. How on earth do we get a mind by natural processes ? I guess you accept evolution in general, but see the problem with mutation/selection, and are trying to address this with a theory of mind. That's commendable, but to build on evolution I would suggest, is shaky ground.

          :-)
      • May 31 2011: Hello Peter, try looking up Graig Venture, in 2010 he managed to bring forth life from non-life. For the other part of your question I can only repeat myself. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left however improbable, must be the truth. It depends on what you eliminate as to what decision you will come to. I myself have eliminated God; based on the evidence, that was the only decision I could come to. It's a bold statement to make, but I have almost reached the point where , the reality explains the whole. I can't be to far wrong if this is the case. Keeping it simple does not weaken a debate, it only adds more strength.
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek

          "Venter took the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides and transplanted it into the bacterium Mycoplasma capricolum. After multiple rounds of selection, the M. carpricolum lost its own genome and now contained only the genome of M. mycoides. Further testing confirmed that the M. carpricolum had become the donor strain of M. mycoides. This was heralded as the “creation of a synthetic lifeform” or “first new form of artificial life” giving the impression that Venter had created life in the lab." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/semi-homemade-life
          To me it seems he took genome of one bacteria, put it in another bacteria, & produced a third type of bacteria. So he starts with living material; no doubt useful & very clever, but hardly life from non-life. Let's assume he made bacteria from dirt, what does that show. That intelligence can produce life; right.

          I think where we differ is on what is impossible. To me empirical science proves evolution is impossible, to you it proves god is impossible.


          :-)
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: Don't take that literally guys.For me, I think sin causes death spiritually.I agree with Iqbal when he says that no matter what we do , we'll die anyway.But he takes it literally.Hope you guys do articulate on this matter more.Do correct me if I am wrong.Have a nice day
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Spiritual death is to be separated from our creator. This life is merely the departure lounge where we get to chose our destination; 1. To live with our creator, or; 2. To live apart from Him.
        When history has run it's course, then there will be a new universe where we will be given perfect bodies & live forever with God; if we go for option 1.
        That seems to be the bible message. Sounds good to me, but I seem to be in the minority here.

        :-)
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: I used to hope so too. But part by part the foundation I built my hopes upon seemed to fall apart.
          If you are interested in an explanation of atheism from the point of view from someone who really wanted to be a christian, watch this documentary http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/ .

          It's not at all important to me that anyone loses their own faith. I only hope to communicate that all atheists not are so because they have a problem with the idea of gods authority.

          Regarding Muhammads note about sin causing death spiritually, I think there is much wisdom in these words. But I would rather like to frame it in more concrete words such as; egoism, greed, hate, ..., leads to unsatisfaction, frustration, anger, ... .
        • Jun 1 2011: Hello Peter. Isn't it strange how our species will pick out that which goes along with what they believe and not what is. Why do we have to prove that life came from non-life, we are here after all? Why don't we have to prove what came before God; how was God created? We can only go forward with the facts that we know, to speculate is the way to chaos. Just out of interest, when I decided to eliminate God from my research; the reason was, that with religion I could go no further than what religion tells me. With evolution came a multitude of new ideas, ideas I could never have imagined. The point I am making is; religion stops you from thinking and I find this rather tragic because most of the believers don't realise this. If we hadn't come up with new ideas, the world would still be flat and the moon made of cheese.
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
          "how was God created?"
          any creature has a creator.
          even Big Bang has a creator.
          possibly a creator itself has other creator.
          so we have a chain of creators.
          so there is two possible situation:
          1- there exist an unlimited chain of causes (creators)
          2- finally there is a creator with no creator.

          which you pick?

          philosophers say the 1 is impossible rationally and makes paradox for example paradox with concept of time.

          if you pick 1 can you prove it is possible rationally?
          if you pick 2 then what is the name that final cause?

          also sprite can have growth or decline in levels of nearing (not physical, but knowing and obeying) or even sprite of human can die.
          when human is born his heart (sprite, think, soul, beliefs) is white. each sin makes a black point on heart.
          step by step heart becomes totally black. that heart is dead heart.
          dead heart can not hear (understand and accept) truth like a deaf human does not hear sound.
          one drug of dead heart is reading holy books like Koran.
          it makes heart white again.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 29 2011: Do you suggest that Buddhism stands out from the crowd just because I draw my conclusions using reason and experience. Hey, you make me feel very speciall! =)

          (Sorry, I'm just kidding. I get your point. Maybe I'm a Buddhist then =D)

          And hey, maybe you should spread Buddhism here. Everyone is spreading every other religion, so why not Buddhism too! :D

          I think the religious dialouges can get even more interesting if more faith systems are compared with each other. I started a thread[1] to find out what opinions and values we all have in common in this diverse set of people. It would be very interesting if you and everyone else would make a contribution there.

          [1] http://www.ted.com/conversations/3058/finding_common_ground_what_do.html
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer
        "But part by part the foundation I built my hopes upon seemed to fall apart."
        Watched most of the vid. skipped over some of the more predictable stuff.
        I think this is why Jesus preferred fishermen to intellectuals, He needs a degree of childlike trust. I didn't get 'saved' until I was 35, by which time I had learned that the intellectuals didn't really have all the answers. So much of our beliefs hinge on the last good book we read.
        Sorry you lost your faith; maybe the wrong foundation ?

        :-)
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: How can you know which parts are predictable before you have watched them?

          The foundation I built it upon was that I realy liked the concepts such as honesty, surrendering the ego to gods will, compassion, and so forth, which I tightly connected with my faith. But I think the value I placed in many of these concepts also was what undermined my faith. I fully agree with you that "intellectuals" not has all the answers, but I think it is a common missconception that scientists, philosophers, and so forth claims to have all the answers. The difference I see between an "intellectual" approach to understanding the world and a fatih based approach is with what honesty questions are tackled. With faith, things that contradicts ones presuppositions about how things works tends to be neglected, while with an intellectualy honest approach one allways have to be willing to be proven wrong.

          In my opinion, many religions seems to be a great force for taking people from an egocentric morality, to a compassionate morality. But for further moral development, religion often seems to be a hurdle.

          P.S. I am sometimes sorry for myself having lost it too. It is so much more comforting to be able to believe in someone having a plan with my life.
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek
        "Isn't it strange how our species will pick out that which goes along with what they believe and not what is." Agreed; but we are both of this species.

        "Why do we have to prove that life came from non-life, we are here after all? "
        Agreed; but the scientific conclusion, given the law of biogenesis; should be that we came from life. To conclude otherwise is to move outside science & into faith.

        God claims to be spirit. Time only has effect on material things; ie atoms with mass. God has none of these, so he is eternal. Without beginning or end; as he is not within time. If he has no beginning, then he has always existed. That is as far as modern science can take it.

        The majority of the scientists up until recently believed in a god, & it was no barrier to thought; what's different ?
        Evolution told us that most dna was junk left over; we are now finding that it has purpose. Just as well we looked. Dinosaur bones with blood cells still intact have the scientists wondering how it survived 65 million years. Empirical science would say this is impossible . Because they believe the current extinction story (the most recent of many) they cannot entertain the idea that it may not be that old.

        Christian scientists can consider both the material and the spiritual; mainline modern scientists are restricted to the material. Who has one hand tied behind their back ?

        ps. Flat earth & cheese moon are not part of any religion I have encountered.

        :-)
        • Jun 1 2011: Hi Peter. The flat earth was not referring to religion, but new ideas that stimulate an intelligent species. Without that stimulation we could not exist, only somewhere down the evolutionary scale on the same level as bacteria. Do you see how important it is to possess negative and positive emotions, each compliments the other. God= positive. Devil= negative. How could you know one, without knowing the other? You can't! It's only by understanding a problem will we ever solve it. Here are a few more examples of negative and positive emotions conplimenting each other. Love-hate, achievment- failure. It goes on and on. There is no emotion that does not have a negative and positive side, except in one area of our lives, I will leave you to figure that one out. You say God has always been around, can you prove that? See what I mean about facts? It is only facts that will give us the satisfaction we crave. Evolution is there for the benefit of the species and I do not deny there is a design in nature. A design goes along way to convincing me that there must be a sort of destiny for mankind, a destiny designed for the benefit of mankind, because it is designed by mankind. What could be more satisfying than that?
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2011: Hi Derek
        How does our good & evil emotions substantiate evolution ? Surely this cosmic war is described perfectly in the bible. How would this evolve by natural selection, or any other way ?

        I cannot prove to you that God has always been around; you can't prove the Big Bang; we're square.

        How can the design in nature be designed by mankind, when by your reckoning, man wasn't around ?

        I thought we were being scientific.

        :-)
        • Jun 1 2011: Hi Peter. My mistake, before mankind nature was in charge and always will be. The human species have evolved from nature and now take a major role in that evolving. If this was not so, then we would not have evolved. I did mention that genetic mutations when they occur, are for the benefit of all, not just the species that is changing. Good and evil emotions, I prefer to call them negative and positive. You ask what part they play in evolution? Without negative and positive emotions, how would an intelligent species evolve? There would be nothing to talk about, nothing to write about, nothing to read about and ambition would be non-existent. In other words we would not be here and that is why these emotions are so important. The blood cells found in dinosaur fossils, I did research this a few years ago, the lady concerned (I forget her name) was investigated and is still being investigated. There is still doubt, it is thought that she could have put it there herself, due to her very religious beliefs. This was quite a few years ago; I am sure you will agree with me that it should have been cleared up by now, if there was any truth in it. It must have turned out to be blood from somewhere else. I agree with you Peter, we are both of the same species and possess the same weakness, to this I plead guilty. However I do try to stick to the facts that I am aware of,and not what I am told or what I read.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Derek
        "try to stick to the facts that I am aware of,and not what I am told or what I read." How does one become aware of facts but by hearing & reading ?

        Dino Blood (Mary Schweitzer)

        National Geographic certainly doesn't think the controversy is over. Here is an article from last year.
        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html

        I think this was the original 60-minutes interview.
        http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/fresh-dinosaur-soft-tissues/9RkFtdf6bvYtchX2T6gi9A

        There is no mention of religion anywhere. Mary is totally convinced that her specimens are millions of years old. If she was a creationist of any type she would certainly have cast doubt on the age.
        Isn't the internet wonderful.

        "before mankind nature was in charge and always will be. The human species have evolved from nature and now take a major role in that evolving." "I do not deny there is a design in nature. A design goes along way to convincing me that there must be a sort of destiny for mankind, a destiny designed for the benefit of mankind,"

        You are talking in riddles Derek. Mankind is part of nature, nature has evolved, nature designed itself ?
        Where are the facts; what aspect of nature does the designing ? How did that aspect come into existance in the first place ?

        :-)
        • Jun 2 2011: Hello Peter. First fact is; Mary's place of work was like a religeous shrine, she was obsessed to the point of substituting real for fantasy and that is why she had to be rigorously investigated. To make your workplace a shrine is a bit worrying woudn't you agree? Second fact; you do not substantiate her findings. (blood cells.) She has certainly changed her story from when it first happened, I wonder why? 3rd fact is; I said I try to go by the facts, by that I mean I don't take in all I read or am told, it does not mean I don't do these things. 4th fact; nature= evolution. Evolution= ability. There is no riddle to the laws of nature, they exist for a purpose. Ability without some kind of guidance would spiral out of control. this applies to ability wherever it exists. This also means evolution. 5th fact is; my intention is not to be malicious or disrespectful but evolution has brought us to this stage in our evolving. With intelligence our knowledge grows daily and with our expanding knowledge comes an expanding environment, (The Cosmos.) Also, with our continuing growth of knowledge comes the realization that there other reasons, other than supernatural ones. We are all brainwashed to a certain level without even realising it. You can see the tide turning, be it very slowly, but changing it is, and we will all be the better for it.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2011: Hi Derek
        "Mary's place of work was like a religeous shrine, she was obsessed to the point of substituting real for fantasy"
        Specifics please, I see no shrine. All that is around is lab equipment. It does seem that she is a Christian, & had one plaque with a bible verse, but she is an ardent evolutionist . Her boss is Jack Horner who is an eminent paleontologist , & he seems quite happy to put his reputation on the line.
        The Paleo Group thought enough of the idea to Carbon Date the materials.

        ".....various carbon dating labs. Then the bones were dated by the Accelerated Mass Spectrometry method. These tests run on numerous samples have confirmed that those dinosaur bones are less than 50,000 years old - not 65 million years old."
        http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/dinoblood.htm

        I think you are all too ready to dismiss facts that don't agree with your theory. There is an anomaly here that honest folks are trying to work out, & that should be encouraged.

        :-)
        • Jun 2 2011: Hi Peter. I don't dismiss their facts, however the story has changed since I first researched it and since you only mention the fossils , not the blood cells; I can only assume that it is you who is avoiding the truth. Having said that; what has it got to do with my fact based theory of evolution? Ability= Evolution. Can you send me details concerning dinosaur blood cells?
        • Jun 3 2011: Hi Peter. You did not send me the details regarding the dinosaur blood cells; I am genuinely interested. I have written a book and this could really affect certain chapters. Thank you.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2011: Hi Derek

        [Dinosaur Blood Cells?

        The hints of hemoglobin remain speculative and are not covered in the new, peer-reviewed study, which appears in today's issue of the journal Science.

        Some scientists suspect the hemoglobin is a contaminant.

        If it's not a contaminant, "it is much bigger news than [the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper," said Pavel Pevzner, a computational biologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the new research.]

        This from the National Geographic link above.

        So the blood cells are not confirmed, only "Blood Vessels and other Connective Tissue". Although you could infer the possibility by doubting "some scientists" as there must have been hemoglobin present to have been considered a contaminant ?
        Check it out yourself, I am pressed for time.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA
        There does seem to be a flurry of interest in C14 in general. It seems to be present in just about everything with a carbon content. Conventional wisdom would have it that with a half-life of 5730yrs it should be totally undetectable after 100Kyrs or so. Diamonds is particularly interesting, as they should be immune to all the usual suspected sources. As usual there are two sides & both have possibilities.

        "my fact based theory of evolution? Ability= Evolution."
        Well I guess if the scientists got the timeline wrong with the dinosaur extinction, then maybe they got evolution wrong as well.
        I strongly suspect that stories of Dragons are based on true accounts of man's interaction with the remnants of the dinosaurs. As scientists had long discounted stories of dragons, they had to come up with another story when they started to be dug up; Dinosaur was invented, & far from being eliminated 65 million years ago, they survived much later.

        http://creation.com/bishop-bells-brass-behemoths

        :-)
        • Jun 3 2011: Thanks Peter, It was as I had thought. thank goodness there are no changes. It was this assumption of Mary's that put everyone on their guard. I don't really want to get into a discussion about dinosaurs but; China has the largest collection of dinosaur fossils and so follows their passion with dragons. Early man was not lacking in intelligence altogether and an intelligent species discovering these fossils, would have done the same thing has we still do today. Technology as moved on since then, instead of cave walls we use computerized graphics. No change there then? I do have an interesting question; what purpose did the dinosaur's reign have in God's eternal plans? Evolution is the only place I can find the answer. Science has no answer, they can't see the wood for the trees.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2011: Hi Derek

        :...what purpose did the dinosaur's reign have in God's eternal plans?"

        I see no 'reign' of the dinosaurs. They were just created creatures like all the rest. During the 1500yrs before the flood it is recorded that man lived over 900 years; it seems reasonable to assume more favourable climatic conditions caused this and the animals would be long-lived as well. As dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles continue to grow throughout their lives, it makes sense to assume that the reptiles would attain great size. After the flood we would have had an ice age; warm seas + cold land mass = lots of snow. This would have pruned the species count somewhat, and any large ones left would be hunted by man.

        This is a reasonable hypothesis if you accept the bible at face value; if however you go for the millions of years of evolution, then another narrative is necessary. I don't really understand the requirement for mass extinction of the dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, first by indigestion, then by suffocation, and now by meteorite (all in my lifetime). Why can't they just die out like all the others ?

        Going away for a couple of weeks on monday, so if I go quiet, it's nothing personal.

        :-)
        • Jun 4 2011: Hi Peter, Whether dinosaurs evolved or were created by God is irrelevant. We both agree that there is a design in nature, if there was no reason for the dinosaur, this would mean that there is no design. Nature cannot be random, food chain etc. This not only applies to all life,but our species also. If the only way to answer is to move the goal posts, then the debate becomes farcical. We must have the courage of our own convictions. Science often reconstructs the demise of the dinosaur in so many different ways; it is obvious they have not got a clue. On the other hand, their purpose is never aired, this is the area that religion and science do not venture. I will address this at some other time. (There is an answer.) Enjoy your holiday.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2011: Hi Derek

        You have stated in other places that you believe in evolution, so clearly it is relevant. Why should there be any more reason for a dinosaur than there is for a bear. Man is excited by dinosaurs because they are big & exciting. To my way of thinking all creatures are made by god to show his power, & to make life more interesting for us. He succeeded, nature is awesome & points many to the Creator. If it were just random, then there would be no point to it at all.

        I don't know if you have come across the video "The Privileged Planet". It is quite good at putting our puny thoughts into perspective.

        http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/full-the-privileged-planet-earth-origin-accident-or-design/kPdFy1OlxN2S6qGy1_zLAA


        :-)
        • Jun 5 2011: Hi Peter. Of course all life is important, but all life has its part to play in the design that both of us agree on. A dinosaur has a different reason for being here than the bear. If there was no pattern, there would be no reason, all life would be the same. there would be no variety and that is just one reason why life is as varied as it is. Without variety; where would we get most of our stimulation from. If God is showing his power by making so many creatures; why the mutations? Does this mean that God gets it wrong sometimes?
          Evolution with mutations; the scenario changes dramatically, evolution is improving the species, not making mistakes. If God is behind these mutations, then he hadn't got it right in the first place and he still hasn't, because life is still evolving and mutating. ( There is proof of this.)
          I cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, but a God that consistently makes mistakes, well it takes some believing. We all know what the bears place in nature is; to keep its habitat balanced in a way that preserves the life that lives there, all is finely balanced. Could this be said about the dinosaur or had its presence started to upset the balance that was required all those millions of years ago? They reigned for more than 2 million years, which makes me think their presence was bit more important than that. They had gone along very smoothly doing what nature intended, so what did finally kill them off and why?
        • Jun 6 2011: Hi Peter. I have just watched "The Privileged Planet." I have seen it before somewhere, it gave me a buzz then and it still does. We are not so far apart in what we believe, it's just the source that divides us. There is so much to discuss about the video, but I will make one point. Science does not have a clue why we are able to understand the intricate workings of the Cosmos. Remember me saying that our knowledge is spreading throughout the Cosmos, so our environment is expanding also. Evolution; if getting its information from the species, then it is aware of our changes and in time, who knows, if we keep evolving? Do you see how important evolution is? I could go on about a lot more. They mentioned Einstien's theory of relativity, but not his theory of general relativity. I wonder why? They should have considered it alongside the Quantum theory of gravity which does not equate.
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2011: Hi Derek
        The reason for mutations. God gave us a choice at the beginning, to obey him or not. We chose not and the consequence of that is death. Mutations bring death, that is fairly obvious.

        It would be really cool if you could come up with proof that mutations improve the species & evolve us. That would be a first.

        Off on the hols; catch you later.

        :-)
        • Jun 6 2011: Hi Peter. Mutations also bring life the means to evolve and adapt to environmental changes. Check out the Galapagos cormorants, you can see the changes going on that will allow them to adapt to the environment. But when checking, remember the scale by which evolution adheres. Don't you hesitate, when you see a religeous based video where they are at a loss to explain the fundementals of life because they ignore what might be the alternative? They ignore that which will give them even more understanding and explain why they understand. You mention death has a punishment from a forgiving God. I look on death not as punishment, but for the multitude of the most unpleasant emotions we will ever experience. I then try to figure out why! Environment changes must have brought those same emotions to the species affected and gave them the presidence to change. But with intelligence comes another dimension with death. (Afterlife.) I have to repeat myself again, but if evolution is getting its information from the species,(us.) then those terrible emotions that we feel are for our benefit; in the greater scheme of things that is. I hope this gives you a clue to our evolving. We both agree to a design. so intelligence did not happen by chance, it was destined from the very beginning. Intelligence was perhaps to match the way we evolve because like in the video our environment is changing. Like science, perhaps we can't see the wood for the trees. There is proof that we are still evolving, however it is too detailed to go into in this debate. That is why I wrote a book.
        • Jun 11 2011: Dear Peter,
          "God gave us a choice at the beginning, to obey him or not"
          you mean Adam? or all humans?
          it was only for Adam.
          but we all have free will in our life.

          I disagree our death is the result of deed of Adam.
          our dead is our nature. is creation of God. is decisions of God. like why we have hand and eye. why we have eye? at the same time we have death.
          why we does not have more eyes? because Adam had disobey?
          sin is when a religion exist. before coming Adam to earth no religion existed.

          also why we should pay the price of deed of Adam?

          any one has its own bill of deeds.

          it was the scenario of God for sending human in earth. it was a lesson to us.
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: ..
      Oh Thou, who didst Man of baser Earth make,
      And even with Paradise didst devise the Snake:
      For all the Sins wherewith Man has blackened his face
      Man's Forgiveness give--and take!

      Omar Khayyam
      • Jun 11 2011: Dear Richard,
        can you copy Persian version?
    • thumb
      May 30 2011: Hi Kristofer
      "How can you know which parts are predictable before you have watched them?"
      The section on biblical inaccuracies; I have checked out more of these than I care to remember. Likewise alleged creation problems, Noah's Ark etc. I only had an hour or so.

      I came to believe after years of searching when I realised that the evolution hypothesis just cannot work. Folks think that a living cell has the complexity of something like a Space Shuttle (or major city etc). So we are made up of trillions of these, which are all slightly different depending on their position within the body. This universe of cells reproduces other universes and constantly renews itself. It is also capable of moving, breathing, thinking etc. It has 3D colour vision, and can contemplate the wider universe.
      Some say this came about over millions of years of trial & error with no intelligent input, even though there is no solid scientific evidence. Sorry; I don't buy it.

      It is good to surrender the ego to God; but first you must be convinced that He really does exist. If not then you are doomed to fail. Did Jesus really physically die & resurrect in Jerusalem 2 millennia ago, or not ? Is the bible true ? If these are just fables, then I wouldn't waste my time. It is what is true that really matters, not what we would prefer to be true.

      :-)
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: I think I can agree with your last sentence, and agree to disagree on much of the other things. I think my experience is much of the reverse of yours.

        I just wanted to point out that the hypothesis that we have two choices, to accept or reject God is an assumption that exists within the framework that assumes Gods existens. And by judging all people by that framework atheists are portrayed as rejecting God as authority for egoistic purposes, when that often isn't the case.
        • thumb
          May 30 2011: I think that folks like Dawkins come over as egoistic, & there are many like him. Many times I have been told that I am stupid, because I don't accept evolution. Now I fully agree that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I have better manners than that.
          I agree that the majority of Atheists are ordinary Joes with whom a rational discussion is possible. Many, like the guy in the vid, have thought it through & can give rational reasons for their position & I respect that. Let's face it, if one is really an Atheist, then the subject of God should be one of moderate indifference. I don't have time for football, but I would never raise the interest to go on a ban football rally. In fact I would likely stand against any attempt to ban it.
          :-)
      • May 30 2011: HI Peter. I am an evolutionist or athiest, whatever you want to call me will be OK. I might surprise you but I think that religion is of the utmost importance; if it wasn't it would not be there. I also think that evolution is important for the same reason. Wouldn't it be better if both sides could come together and maybe arrive at some kind of compromise. I know and you know, though you may never admit it; but because they are both there; they must both be linked in some way.
        • thumb
          May 31 2011: Hi Derek
          I hope that we can compromise in that we can agree to differ, and in the meantime have constructive dialog. I think that there is perhaps a bit of confusion surrounding "religion". Most of religion is formality, dress, pecking-order etc. It encompasses belief in a higher power, certainly, but it has become so wooly recently that I resist classing myself as 'religious'.
          When man comes up with a concept, his first instinct is to form a committee; this way the blame get's shared. A lot of religion is the same beast.
          So from your point of view, if I may be so bold, religion fulfills an evolutionary function in binding individuals together in a common cause. So they are linked.

          My position is somewhat different; no surprise there.
          I have two pertinent views. 1) Soup to man evolution is a fallacy. 2) God controlled the contents of the bible.
          I believe there is one creator God. He wants us to seek him, find him, and love him. In order for that to be meaningful, he has allowed us options from which to chose. So we have lots of religions to sidetrack us, but if we are honest & logical, the truth can be found. I'm afraid that I would lump evolution in with religion. It seems to me that at every point we have to take the opinion of someone as to what actually occurred, as there is never any repeatable experiment that can show it happening. Again we have a link.

          :-)
      • Jun 11 2011: Dear Peter Law,
        Evolution is not a hypothesis.
        it is a theory including many hypothesis.
        I agree Evolution and accept it as a useful theory for knowing the life and species more and more.
        Adam and Eve came to earth near 7000 years ago and are different of species of homo before Adam and Eve.
        also I doubt a species can transform to other specie in a random process.
        but natural selection is clear true. we can see it.
    • Jun 11 2011: Dear iqbal,
      "before that the world was doing ok. so does it sound a sensible way to think that these two guys are from God?"
      human is the only creature of God in material world with free will.

      I do not believe sin causes death. it is the belief of some or all today Christians.

      I believe sin cases punishment. perhaps in some cases punishment be in form of killing.
      about Adam and Eve i do not consider eating of that tree sin. because before Adam and Eve come to earth no religion existed. and before any religion be significant to human, sin has no meaning.
      actually I consider it the scenario of God for creating wold and sending human in world.
      as God is arrogant and proud selected this scenario.
      God selected the attribute of arrogant only for himself and banned it for human to humble people against God be known.
      any way the fuel Hell is people and stone and hell needs fuel.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2011: So there needs to be a clarification of life. Are you speaking to the flesh or the soul. The life and death being discussed is the one of the soul.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.