Aliens

We are still evolving just as the universe is still expanding. Everything around us is growing and learning. I don't think there is room for any God.

I can't believe that people can deny something like evolution and then talk about magic and fairy tales as though they are the truth. So Vi' you want proof before you believe that evolution is real, what proof do you need of a God? Don't you need to see it too? You'd rather believe a fable written 2,000 years ago that scientific fact.

There is no God, no Devil, no angels. When you're dead you're dead, get over it.

Well said Skunk. It's good to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. Denying evolution is the equivalent of people thinking the earth is flat.

I think the Earth is as flat as your minds, thinking we are ape men is like thinking the earth is flat. When your dead your dead, yeah, your body is dead, no doubt about that, but what about your spirit, that thing that actually separates us from the apes. I know not what happens to your spirit after death. there are a lof different speculations, but to be honest I don't know for sure. It has been proven that your body loses an infintesimal amount of unaccounted weight at death, those doing the experiments claim that is your spirit leaving. People that have had near death experiences tell of wonderful things that happen at the moment of death, seeing a bright light, moving towards them, seeing their dead relatives as alive and welcoming them into the light, etc. Maybe you Apemen don't have a spirit and when you die your nothing but wormfood, could be so. And since you dont have spirits, I kinda feel for you-Not! Live life as though this is it for this is all you've got. Why aren't you out pillaging and raping since there in no accountability after death. the worms don't care what kind of person you've been. "Oh you of little faith", "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead", "live life like ther'es no tomorrow" Well ther'es no tomorrow for you after death. Apemen forever. I see you guys on that apeman commercial on TV, You appear smarter on TV than in this forum! My opinion only!

jesus christ med, nopun intended. what I think is funny how you two are debating the existance of a supreme entity. I'll tell you how I do it (don't think it will matter much though). Prove to me that there is a god. Disprove to me the exhistance of a god. no takers. he cannot be proven by our five senses. you cannot deny the ego, superego, and id from saying that something is there that cannot be seen but is felt. as far as the cavement on tv, my wife think they are the funniest thing on the planet. myself, I like the jack links commercials called 'messing with sasquatch'. even though I have the beliefs that I do, I still live a moral and ethical life. i try to fall into the perameters of society (not for the cheeba though). my belief os called 'agnostic', and be careful, you may be one also. why don't we all try to agree to disagree. Then pass the fuckin hookah this way!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that you feel something that can't be described with your 5 senses should alert you to the fact there are some things men cannot understand, even apemen> People of faith call this spirit, (The Holy ghost)! even if you don't believe (have faith) you and the apeman have a spirit! The fact that they can't recognize it matters not, it's still there! So the world may be flat as the apemens heads, but the spirit is there. I guess it's just stronger or more recognized in some people. Don't worry, the worms won't get the best part of you. I feel if you live your life as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you will be rewarded at death no matter what you believe. so living a good life may have more benefits than you think!

Meduse, with all due respect, you really should read more and expand your knowledge. Your philosophy is all over the place, and does not conform to logic.
Now with that said...
When you die, you do loose a tiny bit of weight. 21 grams I believe, there was a movie (with that same title) staring Sean Penn. There was a line in the movie where someone suggested that 21 grams must be the weight of a soul.
However, in reality no one who observed this phenomenon has ever claimed that it is your spirit leaving your body.

Now before we can start talking about spirits or souls, lets try to define what we mean be that. I assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that your idea of soul or spirit is something that resembles the movie "Ghost" with Patrick Swayze; That there is spirit inside you that looks like you do and that spirit leaves your body when you die and then goes to Heaven or hell or something along those lines...

I certainly don't believe that. I think most people who study philosophy or have academically studied many different religions would find that idea absurd.

Now we know that everything in the universe including ourselves is made up of energy. The specific combination of different energies that make us tick can be called a "soul" or "spirit" if you like. That's up to you...

I can tell you one thing with certainty though, that if we (Humans) have this spirit or soul, then it doesn't separate us from apes; because every other living thing in the universe must have it too.

And lastly, if the only reason you don't rape or kill people is because there's supposedly accountability after death then there is something seriously wrong with you. I don't rape or kill people because it's wrong. It causes pain and suffering and I wouldn't want to have that done to me or someone I love. Not because there's some fucking Holy father with a white beard sitting on HIS fucking throne in heaven waiting to judge and punish me.

skunkushybrid said:

We are still evolving just as the universe is still expanding. Everything around us is growing and learning. I don't think there is room for any God.

I can't believe that people can deny something like evolution and then talk about magic and fairy tales as though they are the truth. So Vi' you want proof before you believe that evolution is real, what proof do you need of a God? Don't you need to see it too? You'd rather believe a fable written 2,000 years ago that scientific fact.

There is no God, no Devil, no angels. When you're dead you're dead, get over it.

Click to expand...

All I'm pointing out is, that while the Evolutionists are telling the Creationists that they are taking their stand on faith alone, the Evolutionists are doing the exact same thing. Fossil evidence would be the proof of evolution. But then, if the fossil evidences were produced, the Creationists would just simply say: "Sooo ... who made the animal that the fossil came from?" Its a never ending argument.

Oh, and I really don't believe that the Bible is a fable at all. It was written by folks who were on a higher spiritual plane. Unless one is on that same spiritual level, one cannot see the Bible's true spiritual meaning. In other words, the Scriptures are written in two languages ... one is seen through the nonbeliever's eyes and the other is seen and understood by those in The State of Grace. It is that understanding that leaves no doubt in the believer's mind and heart.

Vi

I like to point out one thing to you Vi. You're right. when you said:

"But then, if the fossil evidences were produced, the Creationists would just simply say: "Sooo ... who made the animal that the fossil came from?"

Scientists never said that Evolution disproves God. You see you can trace back evolution say starting from Humans all the way back to the "Big Bang"
begining of the universe, where all matter (wich we are made of) was created. We can't go further back than that. So the source of that creation is up for debate. You can say God is that source and no one can disprove that.

But regardless of wether God exists, Evolution does.

If you believe in God, you could say that God snaped his fingers and BOOOM!
started the evolutionary process wich continues to this day.

As for the Bible, you can say the same thing about any story.
Did you know for example that there are people who formed a religion based on George Lucas' "Star Wars" story.

They believe he is on a different spiritual plane and see's things that most others can't. So they might believe that the A long time ago in Galaxy far far away existed a Luke Skywalker or a Darth Vadar.

Most of us would laugh at them and not take them seriously. But try disproving that Luke Skywalker existed in a galaxy far far away.

Now that I think about it, you don't have to look very far, just look at Scientologists, their beliefs are based on stories by L. Ron Hubbard. (Science fiction writer).

I think these people are delusional and I can't take them seriously, can you?

I apoligize for this really long post, but here's some fossil evidence.
The references can be found at this website Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology
These are only between 2001 and 2005, the website above goes back to 1997. (Too long to fit in one post)

Here is a selection of recent discoveries and other developments in paleoanthropology:

• Mar 2005: A newly-discovered partial skeleton from Mille in Ethiopia is claimed to be the world's oldest bipedal hominid. The fossil is about 4 million years old and has not yet been classified or published in the scientific literature, though it is said to fall between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis.
• Feb 2005: Two skulls found near the Omo River in Ethiopia in 1967 by Richard Leakey and thought to be about 130,000 years old have now been dated at 195,000 years, the oldest date known for a modern human skull (McDougall et al. 2005). The Omo I skull is fully modern, while Omo II has some archaic features.
• Oct 2004: A new species of hominid, Homo floresiensis, has been discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores. The most complete fossil is that of an almost complete skull and partial skeleton of a female who appears to be about a meter tall, with an astonishingly small brain size of 380cc. The floresiensis fossils date from between 38,000 and 18,000 and are thought to be a dwarf form of Homo erectus. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)
• Jul 2004: Fragments of a small H. erectus skull, OL 45500, have been discovered at Olorgesailie in Kenya. The skull is an adult or near-adult, and about 0.95 million years old. The brain size can not be measured directly, but from the size of the bones the skull is similar in size to the two larger Dmanisi skulls (D2280 and D2282) and so probably in the 650-800 cc range, which is small for erectus. (Potts et al. 2004, Schwartz 2004) (See also a New Scientist article, Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate, and my comments)
• Mar 2004: A new paper contains details of four new mtDNA sequences which have been retrieved from Neandertal fossils (Serre et al., 2004). This brings the number of known Neandertal mtDNA sequences to eight, all of which are closely related, and considerably different from all modern human mtDNA sequences.
• Mar 2004: Some fragmentary fossils discovered in Ethiopia and dating between 5.2 and 5.8 million years old were originally assigned to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Following further study, the finders have decided that the differences between them and other fossils justify assigning them to a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba. (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004, Begun 2004)
• Jun 2003: Three new skulls from Herto, Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world. (White et al. 2003, Stringer 2003)
• Apr 2003: A new study has claimed an age of over 4 million years for the australopithecine skeleton Little Foot from South Africa. If true, this would make it one of the oldest known australopithecine fossils. (Partridge et al. 2003)
• Feb 2003: OH 65, a fossil from Olduvai Gorge consisting of an upper jaw and part of the lower face, may cause a reevaluation of the species Homo habilis. (Blumenschine et al. 2003, Tobias 2003)
• Jul 2002: A fossil skull discovered in Chad, between 6 and 7 million years old, has been assigned to a new genus and species, Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The skull is small and apelike, but with some features associated with hominids. (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002)
• Jul 2002: The fossil skull D2700 discovered at Dmanisi, Georgia, is the smallest and most primitive hominid skull ever discovered outside of Africa, and although tentatively assigned to Homo erectus, it and two other skulls and three lower jaws appear in many ways to be intermediate between it and H. habilis. (Vekua et al. 2002, Balter and Gibbons 2002) These specimens have since been allocated to Homo georgicus (Gabunia et al. 2002)
• Mar 2002: According to its discoverers, a new Homo erectus skull from Bouri in Ethiopia, about 1 million years old, indicates that Homo ergaster should not be considered a separate species from Homo erectus (Asfaw et al. 2002)
• Dec 2001: A new study claims that Homo erectus had rapid dental growth rates and had not yet developed the slow growth rates of modern humans. (Dean et al. 2001, Moggi-Cecchi 2001)
• Jul 2001: A number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. (Haile-Selassie 2001) (P.S. this taxon was later named as a species, Ar. kadabba, in March 2004)
• Mar 2001: A 3.6 million year old fossil from Kenya, WT 40000, has been assigned to a new species and genus, Kenyanthropus platyops. (Leakey et al 2001, Lieberman 2001).
• Feb 2001: A French-Kenyan team has found a fossil claimed to be both considerably older than any other hominid (at 6 million years) and more advanced than the australopithecines. The fossil, originally nicknamed "Millennium Man", has been named Orrorin tugenensis, and is claimed by its finders to be a direct ancestor of humans, relegating the australopithecines to a side branch (Senut et al. 2001). These claims are being treated with caution so far (Aiello and Collard 2001).
• Jan 2001: A fossil of a 3.4 million year old hominid, probably belonging to a child, has been discovered in Ethiopia.
• Jan 2001: A new study has sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the anatomically modern Mungo Man fossil from Australia and found it to be outside the range of modern human mtDNA. The authors have claimed this is strong evidence for the multiregional model of human evolution, as opposed to the currently dominant Out Of Africa model (Adcock et al. 2001). However, other other experts have challenged this. Cooper et al. (2001) have published a rebuttal of this claim.

I guess those are ape fossils eh, The link between man and ape has not been proven yet. I believe in intelligent design. I have no proof just like the paleantologists have no proof that man was directly descended from an ape. These things are taken on faith. The ape believers have faith that they will find a direct link to man and the intelligent design people believe that a higher power created man. Who is right, I guess we'll have to wait untill we die to find out. It makes me feel good to believe that this life is not all you have. How fair would life be in a balanced universe if a starving child in africa only got the one shot at life that a king of Arabia got. It doesn't seem balanced to me. I know there is no convincing the non-believers which is a shame, because the knowledge (faith) that you will get another chance is very comforting to the mind. To think that this is all you get and fade to black is a very scary scenario to me. But if that is what you believe, I'm sorry for you!

First of all it has been proven and second those are not just ape fossils, they're early human fossils. Precisely the evidence, "the link" between the 2 species.

You also have to understand that this "Link" is not one ape/man. It's a very long progression that happens very slowly. If you had every single fossil of every ape/man between us and the earliest apes (Billions of individual fossils) you would not be able to point to one specific creature and say that its strictly human or strictly ape. (Kind of like if you take a Marijuana Indica/sativa hybrid, you can't say its one or the other, because it has a characteristics of both).

And if you think that scientists make their Hypotheses based on faith, then your are misguided and don't understand science at all. Using the Scientific method is the exact opposite of faith. Scientists come to conclusions that are based on only observable hard evidence.

I'm glad that your beliefs of the "afterlife" make you feel good, you certainly have the right to your beliefs. I personally don't subscribe to your beliefs of the afterlife, but I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong. Scientists or philosophers have made some educated guesses of what is and isn't plausible, but still no one can say for sure what happens after death.

One thing I would like to ask you is; Why do you assume that life is fair and the universe is balanced? Just because it's a comforting notion does not make it true.

In fact you have beautifully illustrated the difference between scientists and people of faith; Scientists accept the truth wether its comforting or not...

Well put...however the scientific community is not pure as the driven snow. Plenty of researchers have so much "faith" in their own hypotheses that they see only the data that supports it and conveniently ignore, suppress, mimimize or otherwise fudge the results. But this usually gets exposed down the line when no one can duplicate results or someone rats. I love a good scientific scandal...man and his foibles.

Show me the exact link that ties man to ape, you cannot, as I cannot prove to you there is an after life. These are things beyond mans knowledge. Which is my point. If man was the most superior being in the universe, he would have answers to all questions, Not having them supposes there is a superior being that has, or what would be the point of trying to figure it out. Don't you think that is the goal of humanity, to figure out the un-answered questions. I'm sure I'll never get it all figured out, and I'm about as bright as the next guy. Even Einstein only used 12% of his grey matter, and look what he did. His theory on relativity has not been physically proven however, it is still a theory. I don't know how intelligent you are, I'll assume you are bright. Tell me something that hasn't been seen or done yet, be creative, I'll listen!

That's what I tried to explain to you in my last post. There is no one "exact" link between any two species, it doesn't work that way. It's more like a long chain with many many links each one slightly different than another.

One species can slowly transition in to another by changing just a little bit with each successive generation. After many generations those changes when compared to the ancestors are now noticeably different. If this process was allowed to go on for a long time, the offspring would have gone through so many changes that it would be considered a different species than its ancestors. Keep in mind however, that the original species does not just change into one other species, it braches out into many different species like a bush or marijuana plant. Each branch can become a different species.

One link on that chain, for example is Australopithecus. It's a species that has both characteristics of apes and humans. On this website Early Human Evolution:* Early Transitional Humans you can read about the other transitional humans.

"If man was the most superior being in the universe, he would have answers to all questions, Not having them supposes there is a superior being that has"

I don't believe man is the most superior being in the universe.
The universe is a pretty big place. There may be other civilizations out there who are more superior. Who knows.

I don't see how not having the answers supposes that there is a superior being. You're assuming that humanity has a goal. That may not be the case.

There may not be a goal or point to humanity just what we make of it ourselves. I know that it's one of those discomforting notions but that doesn't mean it can't be true.

As for Einstein, They did in fact confirm his theory in 1919 I believe, four years after he published it. During a solar eclipse they observed that mass (in this case our sun) curved the fabric of space-time, the curvature acted like a lense, and made the planet Mercury appear in a different location.

One last thing I would like to point out. It always bothers me when people use the word theory without understanding its definition in terms of science. It always results in confusion and conflict.

In everyday language the word "theory" usually refers to someone's opinion that needs to be proven to be considered a fact. In science, Theories are not proven, they can only be tested and confirmed or falsified. The word "Theory", in science is an explanation or a model that is based on observable phenomena or already proven facts.
I.E.(The "theory of evolution" is an explanation of how Evolution works).

BTW I don't know if I could tell you something that hasn't been seen or done yet, but I am a Musician, so maybe I could play you something that hasn't been heard yet.

Posted by Arizonared

"Well put...however the scientific community is not pure as the driven snow. Plenty of researchers have so much "faith" in their own hypotheses that they see only the data that supports it and conveniently ignore, suppress, mimimize or otherwise fudge the results. But this usually gets exposed down the line when no one can duplicate results or someone rats. I love a good scientific scandal...man and his foibles."

That's what I love about science. Scientists have their work looked over by a review board. If the science is shit, then the scientist is discredited and his career is pretty much over. That's why most of them try very hard not to take things on faith but on hard evidence. Otherwise they are risking there reputation and career.

I do believe that man is the supreme being. I'm not sure of the odds on a planet out there having the right conditions to support life but they are very high. Which means that even if these planets are able to sustain life that the odds of there being intelligent sentient life are even slimmer.

I'm in a view of Nietchze's eventuality, that we are the supreme being and we will eventually colonize other planets. I also believe that we will be able to make uninhabitable planets inhabitable.

Philosophers wrote of our future when they wrote the bible. The bible tells us that it is we that are God, each and every one of us has the power to do good or evil. Only once mankind is pure will it step up to it's ultimate goal. Godhood is our eventuality.

As far as we know, we are supreme (at least for now). But I often stop and think about the vastness of the universe and I realize that it would be more strange if there wasn't intelligent life out there.

I read allot about physics and astronomy, so I often come across figures like 100,000 light years (the diameter of a galaxy) and I just keep on reading. But if you stop and just think for a while about the magnitude of that number and take into account that there are billions of these galaxies, it really is mind blowing. I try to visualize it sometimes and every time it humbles me.

I definitely agree with your point of view. Although I believe those Ideas precluded the bible, the ancient egyptians believed their destiny was to reach Godhood. I think it is in our nature to pursue God status.

However, Our chances at success may be slim. It reminds me of something Carl Sagan once said. He was a physicist, and host of a television series "Cosmos", (coincidentally He was a marijuana smoker and a marijuana activist). Anyways He said that there may not be very many intelligent civilizations out there, the reason being that when a civilization achieves a certain amount of intelligence they also gain the power to destroy themselves and they do eventually destroy themselves.

So in our pursuit of Godhood, we may destroy ourselves in the process.

Maybe it takes a few lifetimes to reach that plateau, and I'll concede that in some views, those lifetimes are considered to be through offspring. I have a different "opinion" I believe each individual is passing through this life for a brief moment to experience what it takes to make him or her progress to the next level. Some may achieve the level of oneness with God like Ghandi or Jesus or Mohammed etc, and have been through many incarnations to achieve this. I believe that every once in a while those spirits are put on this earth to teach us to be better and love one another. Now if you believe in evolution and apemen, maybe that is where it started on this planet, but I believe (Opinion again) that a higher power instilled a spark of intelligence above the animal level by putting a soul in the (apeman) if you will and created human beings. Call this the Garden of eden or the awareness of apes. Just my opinion

That, I can definitely understand. Your beliefs remind me of the Buddhist philosophy. (I like buddhists they preach and practice compassion).

I understand where you're coming from though, In fact just a few years ago our philosophies weren't so different. But now I'm leaning more towards the idea that there may not be a purpose to life (Just an opinion). I know that it's not as pretty as some other beliefs, but thats kind of where I'm at right now.