I had no idea people in Britain were so religious?

[Yaya]

Or is God only responsible for the nice stuff

I think to attribute everything in the world to God is simply missing the big picture.

If God is the Creator of the Universe, then God is the Definer, not people. You can say all you want that an apple is red, but if God says it is not, then it is not. Words and descriptions, including what is good and what is bad, are human constructs. Ask around and everyone has their own idea of what is good, bad, etc. But it really wouldn't matter what the opinion of a creation is in the face of a Perfect Creator. I mean, if a Creator is responsible for the happenings of the universe, including what happens to you, then we must accept that all things occur with the will of the Supreme, whether we see them as good or bad. No doubt, all of us have experienced things in life that we thought were bad but turned out to be blessings, and vice versa. We as people define them as bad or good, but are found to be in error quite often. So the things you describe as "nice stuff" and the things you describe as "evil stuff" carry no real weight. You don't know in the end what will be good and what will be bad. Cancer can be a good thing if it prevents someone from harming someone else. Flowers can be a bad thing if a child eats one and it turns out to be poisonous. And with most things, something can be good or bad depending on the situation. So God is the Definer of good and bad in any given instance. This knowledge only rests with God.

Having said this, what separates mankind from the rest of creation is that we have been given a will of our own to the extent that the Creator allows us. Hence, we are still accountable for this special privelege that makes us closer to God than a tree or rock or other animals. They follow an inherent course we call instinct. We are closer to being "Godlike" in the sense that we are allowed to choose our course, something no other known creation (barring the existence of other such lifeforms in the universe) has been given.

To understand this, a human must accept that he is a creation. If this is not something you believe, then the above really has no meaning for you. I am speaking to you as someone who believes in the Creator and not as someone trying to prove His existence to you. This can't be done. You have to put yourself in my shoes as a believer in God to understand the thought process above.

Yeah, for one thing, I don't think it's the vengeful bastard its followers make it out to be. Assuming it exists.

Again, people tend to ascribe human-like qualities to a Creator so they can feel closer to Him. How petty a thing it is to say of something you believe to be Omnipotent to say that He is vengeful. Vengeful? That implies that a human can do something to a Supreme Being, which goes against what they believe God to be in the first place, namely, omipotent. An act of God might appear as vengeful to a person, but as I say above, God is the Definer. Whatever action is taken by God, that action is the correct action, whether it is viewed as vengeful or benevolent or whatever. For those who pray to God for God's sake, I have news for you. God doesn't need anyone's prayers and you sure as hell can't inspire vengeance in Him.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I love all this God lark,

Your 'God' requires worship, now read that, just read that and think

God + Worship.

I really hope I dont have to explain why those two words should co-exist together.

[Yaya]

I love all this God lark,

Your 'God' requires worship, now read that, just read that and think

Worship of God is never for God's sake. Like I said, prayer and worship are strictly for a person's sake, not something that a God would need. Nothing a person can do can increase or decrease a God's majesty or His dominion.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

so your telling me you dont worship god?

[Yaya]

so your telling me you dont worship god?

For my sake, I most certaily do. But if I didn't, it would not change God in any way, shape, or form.

God does not need any of His creation.

[Best First]

God doesn't need anyone's prayers and you sure as hell can't inspire vengeance in Him.

hey everyone, yaya speaks for God.

ok, you win, you are delusional.

happy?

so your telling me you dont worship god?

For my sake, I most certaily do. But if I didn't, it would not change God in any way, shape, or form.

God does not need any of His creation.

why did it create it and ascribe laws for it to follow then?

[Yaya]

God doesn't need anyone's prayers and you sure as hell can't inspire vengeance in Him.

hey everyone, yaya speaks for God.

There are many different beliefs when it comes to the nature of God. Some believe Him to be stone statues, some male humans, etc. Some believe there are many gods.

Personally, I believe God to be singular, beyond the comprehension of creation, omnipotent, and the Definer of all things. A person cannot speak for such a God.

[Best First]

not really ina position to say what it needs and what can be inspired in it then are you?

also loving the notion of believeing in something you can't comprehend.

[Yaya]

why did it create it and ascribe laws for it to follow then?

Beats me.

Just because someone believes in a God doesn't mean they have all knowledge about the nature and reasonings of God.

[Best First]

why did it create it and ascribe laws for it to follow then?

Beats me.

Just because someone believes in a God doesn't mean they have all knowledge about the nature and reasonings of God.

so how can you confidently claim that god does not need its creation if you don't know why it created it?

FFS...

[Yaya]

why did it create it and ascribe laws for it to follow then?

Beats me.

Just because someone believes in a God doesn't mean they have all knowledge about the nature and reasonings of God.

so how can you confidently claim that god does not need its creation if you don't know why it created it?

FFS...

Perhaps you mistake me for someone telling your what to believe in, akin to the Bible thumping Christian who stands on their pedestal to judge my actions. You would be mistaken. Your actions and beliefs are your business, between you and the Creator which I believe in.

A God that requires anything would not be belief in a God by definition. It would be belief in soemthing immensely powerful, a force beyond reckoning, a 'god' with a lowercase "g". But still, a dependent force.

I don't believe God to be dependent. I don't need to know why God does what He does to believe He exists or to understand my place in the universe.

Belief in God is a faith based concept. I see the world as Signs of Him, but I could never claim to witness Him. Its like seeing the footprints of a dinosaur. You don't see the dinosaur, yet you feel those footprints bear witness to its existence.

For me, the universe and life itself are God's footprint.

[Metal Vendetta]

why did it create it and ascribe laws for it to follow then?

Beats me.

Just because someone believes in a God doesn't mean they have all knowledge about the nature and reasonings of God.

So essentially you believe in something but you have no idea what it is or what it wants?

OK you're delusional.

To understand this, a human must accept that he is a creation. If this is not something you believe, then the above really has no meaning for you. I am speaking to you as someone who believes in the Creator and not as someone trying to prove His existence to you. This can't be done. You have to put yourself in my shoes as a believer in God to understand the thought process above.

Yes, because as a rational argument it holds no water, whatsoever, it's mainly waffle.

[Best First]

A God that requires anything would not be belief in a God by definition. It would be belief in soemthing immensely powerful, a force beyond reckoning, a 'god' with a lowercase "g". But still, a dependent force.

I don't believe God to be dependent. I don't need to know why God does what He does to believe He exists or to understand my place in the universe.

how mind numbingly convenient.

[Yaya]

Yes, because as a rational argument it holds no water, whatsoever, it's mainly waffle.

And where is your rational argument? I mean, rationality implies that it can be proven through scientific or other means.

If my belief in a God is irrational, then prove to me God does not exist. But if you can't, then I want you to admit to everyone that your belief, which can't be proven, is irrational.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Because according to the rule book your god requires worship.

simple.

[Metal Vendetta]

Yes, because as a rational argument it holds no water, whatsoever, it's mainly waffle.

And where is your rational argument? I mean, rationality implies that it can be proven through scientific or other means.

Right. First of all, your argument is "only God can decide what is good or bad". Seeing as he's unlikely to let us know his views on the subject, let's look at what you're saying. You said that something as beautiful as the world cannot have happened by chance. So that's your opinion of what is beautiful. Not God's. You then say that humans are somehow special and "Godlike" compared to the rest of "creation". So if God has made this world for humans, he certainly didn't make it so that our time spent here would be pleasant, in fact the world show every sign of *not* being designed for humans, being two-thirds covered by water.

So basically you argument boils down to "I think a big invisible being created a world for me to live in because I am special." Most evidence (molecular, fossil) points to the fact that we are, in fact, a branch of the chimpanzee family, and all that separates us from them is the size of our brains, and through that the use of language.

If my belief in a God is irrational, then prove to me God does not exist. But if you can't, then I want you to admit to everyone that your belief, which can't be proven, is irrational.

How is it irrational to look at the evidence and say "this appears to be the most likely scenario"? I'm irrational because I think that we are animals with large brains? Well, let's test that, shall we? Cut open an animal, and what comes out? Blood? Guess what happens if I cut myself. I have lungs, a digestive system and sexual organs much like any other mammal. If I drink beer, I get drunk. If I feed beer to a monkey, it will get drunk. There's nothing to set us apart from the animals except *drum roll* a soul which just happens to be invisible.

So who is the irrational one? The guy who says "I believe in a God, except I'm not sure what it is, what it wants or where it lives?" or the guy who says "Hmmm, we're very similar to all these other animals here. Bit of an odd coincidence, that."

[Yaya]

So if God has made this world for humans, he certainly didn't make it so that our time spent here would be pleasant, in fact the world show every sign of *not* being designed for humans, being two-thirds covered by water. Most evidence (molecular, fossil) points to the fact that we are, in fact, a branch of the chimpanzee family, and all that separates us from them is the size of our brains, and through that the use of language.

Whoa, you got that wrong friend. Better check your facts there. You forget that there is no intermediate stage yet to be recognized that would legitimately represent the missing link between the apes and men. By scientific study, all the prior Homo species died out and are not in fact the precursors of man. This has been genetically proven. Apes look like people, no doubt. But if you want to go the evolutionary route regarding mankind, where then are the fossilized intermediates between men and apes? Wouldn't you think that a man-ape would be far superior by evolutionary standards in its ability to survive and adapt than todays apekind? Where then are they? You can't possibily have me believe that the human predecessor would simply vanish from the earth without a trace. Wouldn't you assume, then, that there should be a plethora of many apemen, all in the different stages of development between men and apes, somewhere in the world today. And not just one stage, mind you. There would be many stages that would have to exist to make a monkey into a man.

The universe follows set laws and orders, all of which can be mathematically written down on a piece of paper. That implies an order to the universe. What maintains this order? Where did it come from? God works in ways of His choosing. The fact that you have lungs and a turkey has them too may indicate simply a preference of the Creator, that things work in a certain similar fashion according to His chosen design.

This is what I believe. Your opinion, nor does mine, change the reality of things. You could be right, I could be right. But we can't both be right. For me, divine intervention is completely a certainty.

[Denyer]

A God that requires anything would not be belief in a God by definition.

"God" doesn't imply omnipotence, that's strictly a Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Early gods were generally as fallible as humans -- unsurprising, really, as they were humans. (That carried on for a long time, really: the Kemetians, the Romans, etc. were all keen on rules being gods incarnate.) Running parallel there were ideas of humans, then ideas of one god above all, then cutting back the pantheons towards monotheistic worship.

It's an interesting progression to observe.

Personally, I reckon there's a lot to be said for ascribing limits to the people in the sky we make up. It leads to a lot less hypocrisy, with fewer people trying to rationale evil as having been created as part of the same being's divine plan.

rationality implies that it can be proven through scientific or other means.

Nope. Science is not out to say "this irrefutably happened". It's there to weed things down to what's most likely. There's no claim to ultimate knowledge -- in fact, that's rather the point. Science is an admission of how much we don't know, it just doesn't seek to paper up the cracks with "all those things we don't understand, we'll never understand, and we shouldn't ask questions because those people with pitchforks think it's true."

If my belief in a God is irrational, then prove to me God does not exist.

Invisible Pink Unicron Theory.

For those not familiar with it: The Invisible Pink Unicorns are a counter-argument to a common straw-man attack on atheism.

The attack is "You can't know whether there is a god, so to disbelieve is every bit as much an act of faith as to believe."

The counter goes as following.
Atheist (A): "Do you believe there are herds of invisble pink unicorns somewhere unnoticed on the planet?"
Believer (B): "No, of course not."
A: "So this would be an absolute religious conviction, would it?"
B: "Well, no, not really"
A: "Right. I don't believe in god in the same way you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns."

I'd reiterate, however, that I don't give a toss if you believe in invisible pink unicorns. It's the point at which you start telling kids "the invisible pink unicorn thinks you're bad if you don't eat your vegetables", onwards up the scale to "the invisible pink unicorn thinks war is the right thing to do" or "the invisible pink unicorn doesn't like those homos and niggers, nosirree."

basically you argument boils down to "I think a big invisible being created a world for me to live in because I am special."

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says "I'll have it off him". Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest—it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth—mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? —you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[Bouncelot]

Sorry, are you saying that you have evidence that the specific miracles recorded in the New Testament didn't happen, or are you claiming that you have evidence that miracles couldn't possibly happen? I've yet to see even any hint of the existence of any evidence for either claim.

How about the evidence of nothing like that happening before or since?

An event's unique, therefore the reports about it having happened must be false? Is that supposed to be a logical argument? And I've come across lots of accounts of similar things happening. Prophecy, including knowing things that you couldn't know from human knowledge? Plenty of that around in my church. Feeding of the five thousand? A couple of weeks ago, a friend from church experienced something extremely similar during a day's work as a chef. Miraculous healings? I've seen a few of them, there's a church just down the road from me in Solihull where they happen all the time. People talking in languages they don't know? You might claim that "speaking in tongues" is just gobledegook, but I know of several occasions where somebody has heard a tongue and it's been in their own language - a language the speaker doesn't know. And that's just a few things I've heard first hand which happen to come to the top of my mind.

I'm saying that if the criteria for truth is old and cross-referenced sources, the world was once inhabited by dragons, frost gods and several other pantheons of deities.

Which would be cool, actually. Partway through reading American Gods again at the moment.

Oh, and it'd mean those Egyptian texts about the world being created through divine masturbation are true! All true! Yay!

(Love the way you're automatically substituting "recorded" for "made up", incidentally.)

You got any first-hand, eyewitness accounts of any of dragons, frost gods, other deities, etc? Because that's what sets the Bible apart from other ancient works which talk about the supernatural - the writers were actually there, or knew people who were actually there. All the other examples you cite were first recorded many generations after the events they claim to describe.

I love all this God lark,

Your 'God' requires worship, now read that, just read that and think

God + Worship.

I really hope I dont have to explain why those two words should co-exist together.

As Yaya said, worship is for our benefit rather than for God's. God wants us to enjoy knowing Him (because, well, it's actually the best thing ever). Worship is the natural expression of that. Imagine that the World Cup final is between England and Germany, and it's been a close game, it's drawn and we're into second-half injury time. Beckham boots the ball down the field to Rooney, who puts it in the back of the net just seconds before the game ends. What the England fans would do next if that happened would be worship.

[Yaya]

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says "I'll have it off him". Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest—it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth—mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? —you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[/quote]

Wow. For being 'early man', he sure does think a lot.

This entire thought process is based on the premise that man evolved from something. Again, I challenge anyone to present to me any of the intermediates between man and ape, who should have been discovered in quite a large number given their superiority over other creatures at the time. Where are they? Please, someone address this. Where the [composite word including 'f*ck'] are they???/

What a bunch of tripe. This D.N.A. guy doesn't start at the beginning. He already is assuming man is capable of a logical thought process, "if this, then that". What's that you say? Its instinctual behavior, not logical? That's interesting too, because prior to that, no creature thought in this manner. So how did such a thought process come about? I mean, for a creature to think about things like "who created this and that", that's far, far more advanced thinking than the average trilobite.

[Denyer]

You got any first-hand, eyewitness accounts of any of dragons, frost gods, other deities, etc? Because that's what sets the Bible apart from other ancient works which talk about the supernatural - the writers were actually there, or knew people who were actually there.

It may surprise (frankly, I'm beginning to worry it may actually surprise) but people besides the apostles claim to have seen supernatural things, or "know people" who were around to see them.

Yourself, for instance. Fast forward a couple of thousand years, and your account will be no different from Gerald and his friends who went out into the Welsh countryside and met God. And yes, I know Gerald -- as an eyewitness account, I suspect I'd trust him a little more. As I'd trust Bill or Julian, people I was never privileged enough to meet, by years and centuries respectively.

"that's what sets the Bible apart from other ancient works which talk about the supernatural - the writers were actually there, or knew people who were actually there"

Oh, that tickles, that does... particularly the "knew people who were" bit...

it's actually the best thing ever

People. Also frequently the worst. Sometimes in the same person.

[Metal Vendetta]

Wow. For being 'early man', he sure does think a lot.

There's no need to imply that the people living even 30,000 years ago were less intelligent and resourceful than we are now. We've discovered carvings, paintings, even musical instruments that are thousands of years old. This suggests that our intellects were stretching even when we lived in caves or trees or whatever.

This entire thought process is based on the premise that man evolved from something. Again, I challenge anyone to present to me any of the intermediates between man and ape, who should have been discovered in quite a large number given their superiority over other creatures at the time. Where are they? Please, someone address this. Where the **** are they???/

You're ranting. Wipe your chin.

The fossil record is patchy - there is no evidence of gorillas in the fossil record, for example, because by its very nature it doesn't preserve everything. This does not mean that gorillas do not exist, it just means none were fossilised. However, by comparing the fossill record (and more recent finds that would stray into the realm of archaeology) and comparing DNA sequences between species (or to be more precise, mitochondrial DNA which are really adapted bacteria that live inside DNA molecules, these are passed down the mother's side), it is possible to calculate how long ago those species share a common ancestor. This how we know how closely we are related to chimps.

To answer your question, we may never find evidence of man's immediate precursors, but there are fossilised remains of several species of homo that would have been similar to our ancestors. Lucy, for example, is a "gracile" australopithecine and several other species of graciles have been discovered (Mr. and Mrs Ples to name but two). "Little Foot" is an example of a "robust" australopithecine (think low forehead, heavy-set). At this time we don't know if we are decended from the graciles or the robusts, but both displayed characteristics similar to humans.

[edit] The closest remains that we have found to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (regular and bonobo, of course, as they are separate species but share a more recent common ancestor) are known as Toumai and Orrorin. By estimating the number of generations it would take to produce the changes in mitochondrial DNA between chimps and humans (this is a reliable method as we can trace changes in mitochondrial DNA in human families) we can say that our common ancestor lived 5-7 million years ago. Both Toumai and Orrorin are bipedal, which suggests a number of intriguing possibilities, not least that chimpanzees (and perhaps gorillas) are descended from apes who walked upright at one time and later reverted to all fours because of a change in lifestyle. Chimps are quite capable of walking upright but choose not to do so, though there was a famous case of a chimp named Oliver who walked upright all the time, wore clothes, drank beer, smoked a pipe and even tried it on with the zookeeper's missus.

Another possibility is that our ancestor walked on all fours, but Toumai and Orrorin represent other bipedal ape species of the same time, implying that bipedality is nothing "special" for humans. So to quibble and say "Aha! But you haven't got the exact skeleton of our ancestor!" is pointless. Think of how much of you will be left in 7 million years' time.[/edit]

Where do Neanderthals fit into your world view? We know that they were a separate species and went extinct, and it's unikely that they bred with humans yet there's evidence that they walked upright, used language, wore clothes and buried their dead with ceremony. Does that mean that they were "blessed" by God too?

What a bunch of tripe. This D.N.A. guy doesn't start at the beginning. He already is assuming man is capable of a logical thought process, "if this, then that". What's that you say? Its instinctual behavior, not logical? That's interesting too, because prior to that, no creature thought in this manner. So how did such a thought process come about? I mean, for a creature to think about things like "who created this and that", that's far, far more advanced thinking than the average trilobite.

So God exists because we can think about him? In that case so does Optimus Prime.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

As Yaya said, worship is for our benefit rather than for God's. God wants us to enjoy knowing Him (because, well, it's actually the best thing ever). Worship is the natural expression of that. Imagine that the World Cup final is between England and Germany, and it's been a close game, it's drawn and we're into second-half injury time. Beckham boots the ball down the field to Rooney, who puts it in the back of the net just seconds before the game ends. What the England fans would do next if that happened would be worship.

No thats admiration.
Your bible states worship god or your not following the rules properly.

God + Worship, doesnt work.

I wouldnt worship a god with an ego thats killing our world.

[Metal Vendetta]

What the England fans would do next if that happened would be worship.

No thats admiration.

Actually that's idolatry. It's probably sinful. Like wanking.

[Denyer]

This entire thought process is based on the premise that man evolved from something.

Rather than was created last Thursday?

If you do find any compelling evidence the world wasn't created last Thursday, be sure to let us know.

mean, for a creature to think about things like "who created this and that", that's far, far more advanced thinking than the average trilobite.

It's a fairly common trope of creationism to assume things happen within a decade or five (or even the lifespan of one creature.) We're not very geared up to thinking in geological eras... heck, most of us can't conceptualise time in centuries. Thus, the tendency is to pick two 'obviously' dissimilar things and insist one couldn't possible turn into the other. Also popular is "well, how did the eye develop?"

In increments. Part of the problem people have with conceptualising change over long periods of time is that they could never be around to witness it (the "it ain't real unless it's happenin' on the table in front of me" stance.) Eyes develop from light-sensitive cells, with proto-eyes that are less effective not allowing the competitive edge creatures with fractionally more effective proto-eyes have.

In some cases, the creatures with less effective means of survival find somewhere else to eat, and development branches -- one group towards neanderthals, one group towards the path to homo sapiens, for example. In other cases they die out completely, leaving a variable amount of evidence they existed. Ice ages, earth movements and many other things affect how many bones will ever be found.

It's a fairly human thing to dig up a small, twisted skeleton and think "eugh, my ancestors couldn't possibly have been like this."

Because of the pace of change, populations proceed at a rate permitting reproduction. Part of the danger of labelling is that people are inclined to turn around and go "so why aren't there examples of homo erectus around now?" when there isn't a clearly-defined boundary at which a different label becomes applicable -- it's a scale, not a series of boxes or categories. If part of the population had been separated and somehow continued to thrive, we'd still have examples of homo erectus.

None of which means anything to someone determined to think that the world was created last Thursday. If they even register it, it'll be as "this is a threat to my idea that the world was created last Thursday, because it says something happened last Wednesday."

For being 'early man', he sure does think a lot.

Yes. And before caffeine abuse was really established, too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=figurative

[Yaya]

To answer your question, we may never find evidence of man's immediate precursors, but there are fossilised remains of several species of homo that would have been similar to our ancestors.

Where do Neanderthals fit into your world view? We know that they were a separate species and went extinct, and it's unikely that they bred with humans yet there's evidence that they used language, and buried their dead with ceremony. Does that mean that they were "blessed" by God too?

It's interesting that despite your evolutionary based argument that you feel its no big deal that we have not found the ancestors to homo sapiens despite our superiority in the natural sense to other creatures on Earth. Wouldn't we find at least one? Two? No, I guess they just upped and vanished like a fart in the wind, eh?

"We may never find the ancestors?" I mean, that doesn't strike you as odd? Evolution does not happen overnight. It takes millions, sometimes billions of years, to occur. That's millions to billions of years of time that would have given us the chance to find an ancestor to homo sapiens. And yet, still, no such luck. If evolutionary pressures are your thing, why haven't gorillas evolved over the thousands of years they have existed?

I don't deny that evolution exists. Things do evolve. I just don't think that mankind is a product of it.

[Denyer]

that doesn't strike you as odd?

It's more remarkable that much has survived... people look at wired skeletons and think they were preserved in the ground like that.

Give an alien a sandpit full of partial human corpses, sans flesh, and the assemblages they'd come up with have potential to be very amusing...

find an ancestor to homo sapiens

Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. The former sharing more physiology with Asian populations, the latter with African populations.

Things do evolve. I just don't think that mankind is a product of it.

So, in the middle of these changes, Jimmy Nail (or God, or whatever you want to call it) comes along and thinks "ehhh, I'll park me space-hopper and make some different creatchoors wot are really rather similar to the ones already 'ere."

How strong is this need to think we're something special, and won't die in the same way as anything else?

[Metal Vendetta]

It's interesting that despite your evolutionary based argument that you feel its no big deal that we have not found the ancestors to homo sapiens despite our superiority in the natural sense to other creatures on Earth. Wouldn't we find at least one? Two? No, I guess they just upped and vanished like a fart in the wind, eh?

It's extemely unlikely anything gets fossilised at all. Go back and read my edit, and like I said, in 7 million years' time you'll be a fart on the wind too. It doesn't bother me that they haven't found the exact one (or they may have but we can't prove it; any of the robust or gracile australepithicenes could be our ancestor, or none of them) because some contemporary species from the same family were preserved (and like it or not, we are all one big family) and we can piece together clues from them.

"We may never find the ancestors?" I mean, that doesn't strike you as odd? Evolution does not happen overnight. It takes millions, sometimes billions of years, to occur. That's millions to billions of years of time that would have given us the chance to find an ancestor to homo sapiens. And yet, still, no such luck.

Like I said, the fossil record is extremely patchy. 90% or more of all species will never fossilise and the chances of us finding the fossils are even slimmer. So no, it doesn't seem odd that we didn't find the remains of the early humans because until around 20,000 years ago humans were pretty scarce themselves. It''s estimated that our numbers were down to about 5,000 worldwide at one point, and we know that leopards nearly went extinct around the same time (perhaps 500 left) because both sets of DNA show patterns of bottlenecking and then expanding.

If evolutionary pressures are your thing, why haven't gorillas evolved over the thousands of years they have existed?

They have. They function perfectly well as gorillas. If you view evolution as "progress towards human" then you understand even less than I thought. The point of evolution is to survive. Gorillas have survived until the present day therefore they are equally as successful as every other species that is still alive. The fact that gorillas appear more primitive to us is an interesting one; there's a theory that humans are a kind of ape that underwent what is known as paedomorphosis - essentially we started breeding at a younger and younger age compared to the other apes, and "chopped off" the end part of the ape life cycle - the growing of all that hair and muscles. There is a creature called the axolotl that is a salamander that has done the same thing, ostritches are another, that's why they resemble outsized baby chickens. Now human babies and chimp babies look very similar indeed. It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine humans as the "kids" of the ape family, perpetually hairless and peurile, always playing, always investigating. I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory or not, but again, it explains the facts.

I don't deny that evolution exists. Things do evolve. I just don't think that mankind is a product of it.

So we alone on this earth are magical creations? Then why do we work in exactly the same way as every other creature? Why are we mammals, more specifically apes? Why do we share DNA with them? What about the Neanderthals?

[edit]

How strong is this need to think we're something special, and won't die in the same way as anything else?

Strong enough to deny logic, reason, evidence and rationality, on the strength of this debate.

Actually, while I'm editing, just to point out I also have a big problem with

...our superiority in the natural sense to other creatures on Earth.

but I'll save that for another time.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I like the idea that if we all die, and theres no one to belive in god, then he woudlnt exist?

I wonder if it would get lonely and make a new race of ppl to lick his ass.

[Best First]

Man, i love this topic.

Den and MV seem to have most of it covered off , but i especially liked th e below:

An event's unique, therefore the reports about it having happened must be false? Is that supposed to be a logical argument? And I've come across lots of accounts of similar things happening. Prophecy, including knowing things that you couldn't know from human knowledge? Plenty of that around in my church. Feeding of the five thousand? A couple of weeks ago, a friend from church experienced something extremely similar during a day's work as a chef. Miraculous healings? I've seen a few of them, there's a church just down the road from me in Solihull where they happen all the time. People talking in languages they don't know? You might claim that "speaking in tongues" is just gobledegook, but I know of several occasions where somebody has heard a tongue and it's been in their own language - a language the speaker doesn't know. And that's just a few things I've heard first hand which happen to come to the top of my mind.

so... what do you think all this means?

Why would a God who loves everyone equally provide extra food in some cases, or heal people in certain circumstances? Or provide visions of the future (all of which i am sure yielded much in the way opf tangible reward. what? oh?)? Or make people speak in a foreign language?

Even if what you claim has happened (cough) then how does it point to the divine?

Hey! today i am going to make someone speak French - marvel at my omnipotence.

God' he's the bet thing ever. Especially if you are looking for an excuse to enforce your views without logic, eviudence or a care for the wellbeing o those who disagree.

In other circumstances please refer to Mr T.