Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Black Akuma]

How something comes along and they build a story out of a fragment of something and then its later proved wrong.

They work with the best available data. Like all scientists.

But they say its true and put it in books with pictures of creatures with snake like features to show connections.

Books such as...?

Its not that they get the detail wrong they make that small detail out to be true and build other connections into it and then it all comes undone again.

Again, if your complaint is that science changes in the light of new data, and if the simple fact that scientists don't completely agree on certain aspects about any given area of science is reason enough for you to dismiss everything that's presented, then there's really nothing to discuss. Nothing will ever satisfy you.

 

[stevevw]

They work with the best available data. Like all scientists.

Yes but its how they interpret that data thats in question. Its not so much that they get detail wrong sometimes and they are still correct about the overall thing. Its that they may be wrong about the overall hypothesis because they get the detail wrong so many times.

Again, if your complaint is that science changes in the light of new data, and if the simple fact that scientists don't completely agree on certain aspects about any given area of science is reason enough for you to dismiss everything that's presented, then there's really nothing to discuss. Nothing will ever satisfy you.

Well we will just have to wait and see. Recent discoveries and technics have brought up some surprising results. Some contradicting their predictions. New advances in testing tecnics have allowed them to look closer at finds and re accesss them. Such as the Archaeopteryx and the skulls at Georgia. Other DNA results are showing that some species may not belong to the ones they predicted and may be linked to others that should not go together.

The snake fossils and the confusion surrounding them are just another example. They have made great importance out of a feature they want to make out as a transitional link. But most of the other evidence doesn't support snakes coming from anything and they have no evidence for an ancestor. It could just be a snake that had great variation. It could be that they have jumped the gun and many of these finds are just great variation within species and not all species evolving from a common ancestor. Links can still be made with anatomy to a great variety but still within each species.

 

[mzungu]

Thats why i say it doesn't make sense. They say the creature will lose its legs to adapt to the environment or a niche. Yet when i picture that happening i can imagine a lizard with gradually have disappearing legs. Somehow a mutation came along that happened to start taking his legs away that fitted with the need for him to have no legs and adapt. They say that there is no intelligence in the process so a chance mutation happened. But then that only starts the process. He may start to lose his legs but still he has some form of legs while trying to get in the holes. So another chance mutation has to come along and repeat the same over and over again.

So then we have a situation where the process has started because of the need to adapt but its still not benficial as the legs still get in the way. So along the way to losing their legs wouldnt there be a time where its not beneficial. As its a long gradulal process then maybe the process may reverse or give up as there would be a long period where nothing is beneficial. If its random then how is it determined that the process kept going in the direction of losing the legs when there was no benefit for such a long time. Why didn't the creature just give up and keep its legs. How can the exact mutations happen over and over again despite there being no advantage. Its like somehow the lizard knew that it needed to lose its legs so the process kept repeating despite all this.

As with the example of the snake i can see many similar cases where evolutionist have painted a picture of how the species evolved with pictures and write ups in books and it was shown to be wrong. They justify this by saying it still happened but the details are wrong. But when it is proven wrong normally the evidence like the snake is contradictory to evolution happening in the first place. If the snake was suppose to look like it came from the Moasaur because of the features and then the DNA shows it didn't it shows the detailed story they made was built out of a vivid imagination. In some cases it points to a completely different animal with completely different features. Then they say they dont know but time will tell. But that different animal doesn't fit the type of story they were trying to say in the first place.

The fossils they found in the middle east suggests that snakes may have lost their legs at sea so that negates the burrowing theory. But because they were so old it also puts a big hole in the fact they said that snakes come from lizards. It makes them older and it shows there were still snake around many millions of years before lizards. To me these are big differences not minor details that needs adjusting. Yet here we have a snake who has similar feature to a lizard and they show the similarities once again and it may also be wrong. So what came first the snake or the lizard.

So we will have to see but to me its to all over the place and any explanation scientist have put forward just dont add up to fit a picture on evolution. I would have thought after showing that there must have been many stages to get from a lizard to a snake then there would be more fossils of stages then of a complete lizard with legs and a complete snake without legs. That is 2 fossils of complete creatures. There had to be a least maybe 5 or 10 or more stages for a lizard to turn into a snake. That to me means many more transitional fossils than to complete ones.

Consider this:

The pygmies of Africa live in dense jungle while the Masai live in open plains. The Pygmies have an advantage due to their short stature; it gives them mobility advantages in the thick foliage. A tall race would be at an extreme disadvantage. The same with the Pygmy elephants of the Congo. The Masai on the other hand have an advantage by being tall in the vast plains of East Africa. Like wise with birds that soar over the oceans as compared to birds living in dense bush.

A short person living in the savannah where tall grass grows and predators are hard to see unless you are tall enough is a disadvantage.

Now consider these pictures regarding loss of limbs:

The last picture is of a lizard whose limbs are practically useless.

 

[stevevw]

Consider this:

The pygmies of Africa live in dense jungle while the Masai live in open plains. The Pygmies have an advantage due to their short stature; it gives them mobility advantages in the thick foliage. A tall race would be at an extreme disadvantage. The same with the Pygmy elephants of the Congo. The Masai on the other hand have an advantage by being tall in the vast plains of East Africa. Like wise with birds that soar over the oceans as compared to birds living in dense bush.

A short person living in the savannah where tall grass grows and predators are hard to see unless you are tall enough is a disadvantage.

Now consider these pictures regarding loss of limbs:

The last picture is of a lizard whose limbs are practically useless.

This is a good example of what i am talking about. You focus on the fact it has legs and its a snake. They say the legs show the transition as they claim. But if thats the case then these little legs which is your proof should be all over the place. If this is proof for the snake then there should be the same proof for all the creatures. There should be fish with little legs now, there should be traces of organ parts seen not just in a couple of cases but everywhere. There should be little toes still on an animal that has lost its 4 or 5 toes into 2 toes. There should be these little bits and pieces hanging off a lot of creatures. The lack of them shows that these are one off and rare examples. They are simply a feature that is a variation within a species. They have either lost genetic information and lost their legs or the little legs has always been a part of them. Also if you notice the small legs they show are fully formed little tiny legs. They are not little stumps or flaps or bumps of what were legs. They are perfect legs but tiny. If they were transforming from bigger legs they dont shrink as perfect legs they would morph into the fin or disappear but in uniform size with changing features along the way. They look like they were just born with tiny little legs.

If this is an example of transition then it is very rare. The other thing is that picture looks recent so that means the snakes that have little legs are still around yet they had little legs millions of years ago. I thought they have already gone through that and evolved in snakes without legs. If its repeating itself then we should see that everywhere as well, not just in snakes.

You use the pygmies of Africa as an example of adaptation. Yet most natives have dark skin in the hottest places on earth which is the worst color to have as dark skin attracts the suns heat. Pale skin is better to keep cool. Plus there are many other contradictions to creatures having disadvantageous features. Like Eskimos are hairless and the growth of hair would not be a big adaptation but they dont grow it to keep warm. Scandinavians have fair skin in little sunlight so they should be dark to keep the warmth. The features are all in the wrong places for advantage.

Besides what about epigenetics as well. The environment has played a part in how they develop rather than the organism developing because of the environment. With natural selection they say that you have to have thousands of mutations before one comes along that is taken on because it has an advantage for the creature to adapt to its environment. But as i said before when one does come along its not going to suddenly shrink the native to a midget and be benefical over night. So the first mutations are going to take off what 6 inches. I don't know but it wont be a lot as they say its slow gradual transitions over a long time. So what benefit are the first lot of mutations. They won't make them short enough to have an advantage so what happens to the next mutations. What happens if the grasses change in that time through the climate or other environmental effects. The environment can change faster than mutations can come and take hold. Im sure that there were the environment was not like that millions of years ago when they needed that advantage. It could have been desert for i know.

Epigenetics can have other effects as well. The stresses that the natives can be subject to by lack of food or always having to run from predators can have an effect of their genes that are passed down as well. They have found that it can effect the next generation in a negative way which causes them to be less adapted.

Its not as simple as you are saying and it doesn't make sense.

 

[mzungu]

This is a good example of what i am talking about. You focus on the fact it has legs and its a snake. They say the legs show the transition as they claim. But if thats the case then these little legs which is your proof should be all over the place. If this is proof for the snake then there should be the same proof for all the creatures. There should be fish with little legs now, there should be traces of organ parts seen not just in a couple of cases but everywhere. There should be little toes still on an animal that has lost its 4 or 5 toes into 2 toes. There should be these little bits and pieces hanging off a lot of creatures. The lack of them shows that these are one off and rare examples. They are simply a feature that is a variation within a species. They have either lost genetic information and lost their legs or the little legs has always been a part of them. Also if you notice the small legs they show are fully formed little tiny legs. They are not little stumps or flaps or bumps of what were legs. They are perfect legs but tiny. If they were transforming from bigger legs they dont shrink as perfect legs they would morph into the fin or disappear but in uniform size with changing features along the way. They look like they were just born with tiny little legs.

If this is an example of transition then it is very rare. The other thing is that picture looks recent so that means the snakes that have little legs are still around yet they had little legs millions of years ago. I thought they have already gone through that and evolved in snakes without legs. If its repeating itself then we should see that everywhere as well, not just in snakes.

You use the pygmies of Africa as an example of adaptation. Yet most natives have dark skin in the hottest places on earth which is the worst color to have as dark skin attracts the suns heat. Pale skin is better to keep cool. Plus there are many other contradictions to creatures having disadvantageous features. Like Eskimos are hairless and the growth of hair would not be a big adaptation but they dont grow it to keep warm. Scandinavians have fair skin in little sunlight so they should be dark to keep the warmth. The features are all in the wrong places for advantage.

Besides what about epigenetics as well. The environment has played a part in how they develop rather than the organism developing because of the environment. With natural selection they say that you have to have thousands of mutations before one comes along that is taken on because it has an advantage for the creature to adapt to its environment. But as i said before when one does come along its not goping to suddenly shrink the native to a midget and be benefical over night. So the first mutations are going to take off what 6 inches. I don't know but it wont be a lot as they say its slow gradual transitions over a long time. So what benefit are the first lot of mutations. They won't make them short enough to have an advantage so what happens to the next mutations. What happens if the grasses change in that time through the climate or other environmental effects. The environment can change faster than mutations can come and take hold.

Epigenetics can have other effects as well. The stresses that the natives can be subject to by lack of food or always having to run from predators can have an effect of their genes that are passed down as well. They have found that it can effect the next generation in a negative way which causes them to be less adapted.

Its not as simple as you are saying and it doesn't make sense.

Here you go: Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also watch this (mudskippers):

Fish That Walk - YouTube


And this (frog fish):
You've got to SEA this - Walking frog fish - YouTube

 

[EternalDragon]

Consider this:

The pygmies of Africa live in dense jungle while the Masai live in open plains. The Pygmies have an advantage due to their short stature; it gives them mobility advantages in the thick foliage. A tall race would be at an extreme disadvantage. The same with the Pygmy elephants of the Congo. The Masai on the other hand have an advantage by being tall in the vast plains of East Africa. Like wise with birds that soar over the oceans as compared to birds living in dense bush.

A short person living in the savannah where tall grass grows and predators are hard to see unless you are tall enough is a disadvantage.

Now consider these pictures regarding loss of limbs:


The last picture is of a lizard whose limbs are practically useless.

Losing traits is consistent with the biblical view. Especially a snake.

 

[Black Akuma]

Losing traits is consistent with the biblical view. Especially a snake.

Why 'especially' a snake?

 

[EternalDragon]

Don't forget the ability to talk, when did anyone last hear a serpent talk? was it Eve? anyone else?
I don't think that really happened do you? I think it's just a children's story.

Yes, I do believe Adam and Eve could communicate with animals. Do I think it was spoken Hebrew? No, I do not.

It happened again later with Balaam and the donkey. It didn't just happen. God enabled it.

 

[stevevw]

Here you go: Walking fish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also watch this (mudskippers):

Fish That Walk - YouTube


And this (frog fish):
You've got to SEA this - Walking frog fish - YouTube

This is very interesting but it doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove any transitionals at all. Evolutionist like to point out that a creature exhibits a feature of another species and say see there is the transitional. What they don't do is point to all the other evidence that says that is isn't. But because a fish looks like its walking it can be used as an immediate visual proof that show a common feature between two different creatures. IE fish and land species.

The thing is they have not found definite proof and links with a fish and a tetrapod. They have speculated may different creatures because they have shown some similar features or they have shown some feature that can show the bone structure has changed. But many have had inconclusive proof in that there are only fragments of fossils such as a skull only or traces of foot prints that have not been found but who knows what it was. They like to speculate it was a link but all they have is foot prints and no carcass to verify it. The other thing is many of these creatures have parts that are not associated with fish at all but they still will focus on the legs as the main proof.

Like your videos of the frog fish there are species which walk on the sea floor which shows that they dont need to come out of the water to do that. If developing feet was to come on land for an advantage then why do some have walking ability in the sea which is evidently their special advantage. The fish that have front legs and come out of the water are easily taken for dinner by the monitor lizard so what is their advantage. They would have been better off staying put in the water.

There are ones like with the snake around with legs today. Are they in the process of evolving. So we should see the back legs coming soon. Out of all the fish or should i say Amphibians or reptile type water creatures have either complete front legs or complete 4 legs or a fully formed fin as the mud skipper has. I can never see a set of rear legs even starting to pop out or any legs disappearing. They are all complete fully functioning features.

I notice that the flat head looks similar to tetrapods in features and so does the crocodile in many ways. There is no reason why these are not a unique species that have unusual characteristics. But they are and always have been the same but with great variation.

There was a theory that the environment dried up and forced them onto land. But i would have imagined an easier way to adapt would have been to just go back to deeper water than grow legs and have all the changes for breathing and that. Besides if they were the first creatures to go onto land what did they eat. Why would it be an advantage to go onto a place with no or very little food. They say they sometimes ate each other but if thats the case its more or less killing themselves to survive. It just doesn't make sense. I wonder if they can do a DNA test to see where they actually came from. If they can check the coccoliths lookalikes they have found.

Just like the snake there is a lot is being made out of the legs. Even the evolutionist say its all inconclusive. But i have noticed how they go on about certain discoveries and make a lot out of them only to be refuted by a newer discovery which puts everything they have said up in the air again. I guess only time will tell or when they do some genetic testing.

Even so it still doesn't say that all this just like the snake isn't variation withing a creature that was designed to spend its life in and out and around the water edge just like the croc or the many that are around today.

 

[mzungu]

This is very interesting but it doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove any transitionals at all. Evolutionist like to point out that a creature exhibits a feature of another species and say see there is the transitional. What they don't do is point to all the other evidence that says that is isn't. But because a fish looks like its walking it can be used as an immediate visual proof that show a common feature between two different creatures. IE fish and land species.

The thing is they have not found definite proof and links with a fish and a tetrapod. They have speculated may different creatures because they have shown some similar features or they have shown some feature that can show the bone structure has changed. But many have had inconclusive proof in that there are only fragments of fossils such as a skull only or traces of foot prints that have not been found but who knows what it was. They like to speculate it was a link but all they have is foot prints and no carcass to verify it. The other thing is many of these creatures have parts that are not associated with fish at all but they still will focus on the legs as the main proof.

Like your videos of the frog fish there are species which walk on the sea floor which shows that they dont need to come out of the water to do that. If developing feet was to come on land for an advantage then why do some have walking ability in the sea which is evidently their special advantage. The fish that have front legs and come out of the water are easily taken for dinner by the monitor lizard so what is their advantage. They would have been better off staying put in the water.

There are ones like with the snake around with legs today. Are they in the process of evolving. So we should see the back legs coming soon. Out of all the fish or should i say Amphibians or reptile type water creatures have either complete front legs or complete 4 legs or a fully formed fin as the mud skipper has. I can never see a set of rear legs even starting to pop out or any legs disappearing. They are all complete fully functioning features.

I notice that the flat head looks similar to tetrapods in features and so does the crocodile in many ways. There is no reason why these are not a unique species that have unusual characteristics. But they are and always have been the same but with great variation.

There was a theory that the environment dried up and forced them onto land. But i would have imagined an easier way to adapt would have been to just go back to deeper water than grow legs and have all the changes for breathing and that. Besides if they were the first creatures to go onto land what did they eat. Why would it be an advantage to go onto a place with no or very little food. They say they sometimes ate each other but if thats the case its more or less killing themselves to survive. It just doesn't make sense. I wonder if they can do a DNA test to see where they actually came from. If they can check the coccoliths lookalikes they have found.

Just like the snake there is a lot is being made out of the legs. Even the evolutionist say its all inconclusive. But i have noticed how they go on about certain discoveries and make a lot out of them only to be refuted by a newer discovery which puts everything they have said up in the air again. I guess only time will tell or when they do some genetic testing.

Even so it still doesn't say that all this just like the snake isn't variation withing a creature that was designed to spend its life in and out and around the water edge just like the croc or the many that are around today.

Ah; so you are not here to learn but to preach creationism. Just like all creationists; no amount of evidence will convince you. Here is my last link for you to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Looks like I wasted my time with your insincere question. Bye

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very interesting but it doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove any transitionals at all. Evolutionist like to point out that a creature exhibits a feature of another species and say see there is the transitional. What they don't do is point to all the other evidence that says that is isn't. But because a fish looks like its walking it can be used as an immediate visual proof that show a common feature between two different creatures. IE fish and land species.

First off if you want to talk science you need to learn the language of science. Nothing is ever "proved" . If you use that term there is no "proof" of anything including gravity. The proper term is evidence and we do have evidence of transitional species. When a hypothesis is first formed ways to test it and evidence that support it have to be found for it to advance. After a hypothesis passes its first few tests it is usually introduced to the scientific community as a whole. Eventually after thorough testing it may become a theory. The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years and has not failed yet. It is accepted as "provisionally true. As are all other accepted theories.

The thing is they have not found definite proof and links with a fish and a tetrapod. They have speculated may different creatures because they have shown some similar features or they have shown some feature that can show the bone structure has changed. But many have had inconclusive proof in that there are only fragments of fossils such as a skull only or traces of foot prints that have not been found but who knows what it was. They like to speculate it was a link but all they have is foot prints and no carcass to verify it. The other thing is many of these creatures have parts that are not associated with fish at all but they still will focus on the legs as the main proof.

See there you go being unreasonable again. Scientists know that there is no "definite proof" of anything. And again you have to think, if an idea was wrong could it survive 150 years of people trying to show that it is wrong. Though you cannot prove an idea to be right, you can prove it to be wrong. For example the claim of a global flood is disproved from all sorts of approaches. One of my favorites is that of a population bottleneck. We can tell by the measured diversity in animal species that there was no flood 4,500 years ago, nor in the last 100,000 years, due to the diversity of the species of animals of the Earth:

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like your videos of the frog fish there are species which walk on the sea floor which shows that they dont need to come out of the water to do that. If developing feet was to come on land for an advantage then why do some have walking ability in the sea which is evidently their special advantage. The fish that have front legs and come out of the water are easily taken for dinner by the monitor lizard so what is their advantage. They would have been better off staying put in the water.

Sometimes yes. But there are environments where the predators are in the water, not on the land. And when the first tetrapods evolved the land was very safe. No predators at all were there to attack them.

There are ones like with the snake around with legs today. Are they in the process of evolving. So we should see the back legs coming soon. Out of all the fish or should i say Amphibians or reptile type water creatures have either complete front legs or complete 4 legs or a fully formed fin as the mud skipper has. I can never see a set of rear legs even starting to pop out or any legs disappearing. They are all complete fully functioning features.

All creatures are always in the process of evolving. But there is no definite "goal' to evolution except for survival. Anything that helps survival will be saved. And of course all features are "fully functioning". That is a rather foolish complaint. New traits evolve from old abilities. What happens is that a creature can always perform a range of functions. Some new ones arise at it evolves. If those functions are positive for survival they can become fixed in the genome of the population as a whole. For example it is not much of a change for a walking species to develop the ability to run. There would always be a range of walking speeds that different offspring had and if it was advantageous to be able to move more quickly the offspring that were faster would be more likely to succeed (pass on their genes). There offspring would have a range in speeds too, but since they were descended from the faster moving critters their offspring would also be faster than the old norm. In a few hundred generations all of them would be running.

I notice that the flat head looks similar to tetrapods in features and so does the crocodile in many ways. There is no reason why these are not a unique species that have unusual characteristics. But they are and always have been the same but with great variation.

Sure there are. Just because you cannot spot significant differences does not mean that the experts cannot.

There was a theory that the environment dried up and forced them onto land. But i would have imagined an easier way to adapt would have been to just go back to deeper water than grow legs and have all the changes for breathing and that. Besides if they were the first creatures to go onto land what did they eat. Why would it be an advantage to go onto a place with no or very little food. They say they sometimes ate each other but if thats the case its more or less killing themselves to survive. It just doesn't make sense. I wonder if they can do a DNA test to see where they actually came from. If they can check the coccoliths lookalikes they have found.

Why do you think there was no food on land? Even back then there were mosses and lichens and other such near plant life. Just think of it, a place safe from predators with a food source that no one else is eating. For an animal that is as close to heaven as you can get. Once fish started to make an incursion onto land the benefits for the ones that evolved was unlimited.

Just like the snake there is a lot is being made out of the legs. Even the evolutionist say its all inconclusive. But i have noticed how they go on about certain discoveries and make a lot out of them only to be refuted by a newer discovery which puts everything they have said up in the air again. I guess only time will tell or when they do some genetic testing.

Even so it still doesn't say that all this just like the snake isn't variation withing a creature that was designed to spend its life in and out and around the water edge just like the croc or the many that are around today.

Why are you concentrating so much on a family that there is little evidence of?

You need to remember the animals that we do have evidence of evolving strongly implies that all animals evolve.


Also the creationist side has no explanation besides "magic". They cannot explain the fossil record. They cannot explain nested hierarchies. and ERV's make their heads spin.

Why believe in something that not only has no scientific evidence supporting it, and has almost endless evidence opposing it?

 

[stevevw]

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts. Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God. Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet. Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have. Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

 

[mzungu]

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts. Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God. Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet. Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have. Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

Personally; NO! I do not believe in the supernatural. Do you believe in the Hindu God's? Do you believe in the Greek Gods of mythology or the Norse Gods? If no then why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts. Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God. Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet. Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have. Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

Personally, no.

Now the odds of life on other planets is extremely high. The odds of intelligent life is much less, but still quite high. In our galaxy alone the number of Earth like planets is calculated to be about 4 billion in a recent article that I read. Earth like being roughly Earth size and within the habitable zone of an appropriate star.

Now there is a huge difference between intelligent life on other planets and UFOs. Interstellar travel would be a huge problem to overcome. If a civilization did so I would not think that inappropriately probing lonesome farmers and his cows would be the first thing that they would do when they got here.

As much as I love science fiction interstellar travel may be a practical impossibility for any being.

 

[stevevw]

Personally; NO! I do not believe in the supernatural. Do you believe in the Hindu God's? Do you believe in the Greek Gods of mythology or the Norse Gods? If no then why not?

I dont know their religions enough to know what they believe. From what i understand of some but i maybe wrong they have reincarnation or multi Gods. I dont believe in these things as God unlike other Gods says that he is the one true god and most other religions allow other gods or have many gods.

The bible talks about the gospel being preached to all mankind and the end will not come to everyone has heard the word of god and had the chance to receive salvation. Other religions dont normally say this and its like a take it or leave it type thing. The bible is very specific about God being the one true light of the world and it is only through Christ that we are saved. God says he is the beginning and the end and all things are made through him and there is no other god like him. He goes out of his way to say this and let it be known. Other religions dont say this.

I am not sure about ghosts or poltergeists as i have heard stories from what seems like genuine people of their experiences. Though i think most of it is rubbish i do think there is an element where something unusual is happening. As for UFOs this is another area which is interesting. I think most of it is untrue but there have been some very interesting cases with even people from military backgrounds or astronauts saying they have seen something unusual. IT may have been there imagination but they certainly looked liked they believed it. I think there is some sort of supernatural thing going on as everything that has been reported cant be in everyone's imagination all the time.

Besides i would have though evolutionists believe in life somewhere in the universe. IF evolution is true then chance are there's another planet out there that can sustain life or has had some form of life on it in the past. Even if that life is foreign to humans there would have to be some form of life out there.

 

[46AND2]

I dont know their religions enough to know what they believe. From what i understand of some but i maybe wrong they have reincarnation or multi Gods. I dont believe in these things as God unlike other Gods says that he is the one true god and most other religions allow other gods or have many gods.

The bible talks about the gospel being preached to all mankind and the end will not come to everyone has heard the word of god and had the chance to receive salvation. Other religions dont normally say this and its like a take it or leave it type thing. The bible is very specific about God being the one true light of the world and it is only through Christ that we are saved. God says he is the beginning and the end and all things are made through him and there is no other god like him. He goes out of his way to say this and let it be known. Other religions dont say this.

I am not sure about ghosts or poltergeists as i have heard stories from what seems like genuine people of their experiences. Though i think most of it is rubbish i do think there is an element where something unusual is happening. As for UFOs this is another area which is interesting. I think most of it is untrue but there have been some very interesting cases with even people from military backgrounds or astronauts saying they have seen something unusual. IT may have been there imagination but they certainly looked liked they believed it. I think there is some sort of supernatural thing going on as everything that has been reported cant be in everyone's imagination all the time.

Besides i would have though evolutionists believe in life somewhere in the universe. IF evolution is true then chance are there's another planet out there that can sustain life or has had some form of life on it in the past. Even if that life is foreign to humans there would have to be some form of life out there.

I don't believe in any of the things you mentioned, except that there is a high likelihood of ET life somewhere in the universe. However, I don't think we have been visited by any due to the limitations of interstellar travel. Also, much of the life that may be out there would not be what we call intelligent life.

I think a good percentage of atheists feel the same way I do about your question. Essentially, I'm with subduction zone on this one.

 

[mzungu]

I don't believe in any of the things you mentioned, except that there is a high likelihood of ET life somewhere in the universe. However, I don't think we have been visited by any due to the limitations of interstellar travel. Also, much of the life that may be out there would not be what we call intelligent life.

I think a good percentage of atheists feel the same way I do about your question. Essentially, I'm with subduction zone on this one.

Me too!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Out of interest I'm wondering for those who dont believe in God do you believe in anything else. Do you believe in poltergeists or ghosts. Do you believe in anything within the spiritual realm that doesn't have to be associated with God. Do you believe in UFO,s or life from another planet. Do you believe in demons or any of the mystic beliefs that some have. Do you believe in any of the miracles that have been claimed by people.

Of the myriad of supernatural and superstitious beliefs people have claimed over humanity's long history, none have been demonstrated to be anything other than quirky human psychology. If psychic abilities exist, then they would be demonstrable under scientific analysis - but they invariably fail.

Ghosts, poltergeists, demons, etc, there's not even the faintest whisper of evidence. Instead, the more we look at the world, the more we realise that such things were man's early attempts to explain the world. Disease is mysterious without the biological theory of germs, and mental disease even more so, so a plethora of evil spirits, evil demons, and superstitious taboos were 'deduced' to exist.

As for UFOs, well, the universe is vast. This means that it's almost certain that life exists beyond Earth, but also that intelligent life would be unlikely to find us. We're a speck in a speck in a speck, and the odds that UFOs would come here is remote indeed. But the odds that UFOs exists somewhere? That's much more likely.

 

[stevevw]

Of the myriad of supernatural and superstitious beliefs people have claimed over humanity's long history, none have been demonstrated to be anything other than quirky human psychology. If psychic abilities exist, then they would be demonstrable under scientific analysis - but they invariably fail.

Ghosts, poltergeists, demons, etc, there's not even the faintest whisper of evidence. Instead, the more we look at the world, the more we realise that such things were man's early attempts to explain the world. Disease is mysterious without the biological theory of germs, and mental disease even more so, so a plethora of evil spirits, evil demons, and superstitious taboos were 'deduced' to exist.

As for UFOs, well, the universe is vast. This means that it's almost certain that life exists beyond Earth, but also that intelligent life would be unlikely to find us. We're a speck in a speck in a speck, and the odds that UFOs would come here is remote indeed. But the odds that UFOs exists somewhere? That's much more likely.

But i would have thought that a form of life such as microbes would be fairly common throughout the universe. As a form of life can even survive in inhospitable places like the volcanic vents of the sea floor, hot acid springs and some of the coldest places on earth then wouldn't it be around in quite a few places.

 

[mzungu]

But i would have thought that a form of life such as microbes would be fairly common throughout the universe. As a form of life can even survive in inhospitable places like the volcanic vents of the sea floor, hot acid springs and some of the coldest places on earth then wouldn't it be around in quite a few places.

Who says it isn't?

You keep coming to conclusions based on your personal feelings. I suggest you read up on the subjects that are pertinent to your questions.