Bitcoin Forum

Humans or GOD?

GOD is only four years old. What is this for a Question?

Also, we know that Humans build it. You are confusing me.  ???

God, being independent of time and space, cares little for your trival human notion of temporal continuity.

Humans. God is a virgin.

Not for long!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3LtxQR0Bj-cSlR1hX7f6YaOfNwC2m3HG_IQ2hjRRe5hXW3K5N

 ::)

Ask your pastor/rabbi/tribe leader  ;D  It's a simple question but it requires an educated background, of which not commonly found in religion as tradition conflicts with reason.  A better question is, why do Humans insist God?

It's like the question, chicken or the egg?  The chicken, of course.  The egg didn't magically appear out of thin air.  "But what hatched the chicken?"  Whatever it evolved from.

Well if you go of the premise that "god" created the universe ..The answer is???

The answer is God.

Herein lies the problem  :)  You must assume God created the universe.  But if you didn't, that leaves the question: what created the universe?

I don't know.  There are theories, but nobody knows.  And so God persists.

What came first? Birds or the tooth fairy?

 Definition of what god is crucial to define.

Very good point.  If I said my God was a bar of soap I carved into the image of Bill Cosby, you'd have a hard time telling me it didn't exist.  If I said my God was all energy to exist in the universe, it'd be a little more tangible, even then.

However, as God is described in the popular religions, there are too many contradictions which need to be addressed.  They chose Gods which were too OP and totally unbelievable, like the characters in Twilight.  Not Bella, but she had the personality of a desk.  This would essentially require a rewriting of the various Bibles.  To fill in the plot holes  :o  Which could never happen, as they are sacred.

I was of course talking about the Global Observation Device.

The Satellite Network

You can't have a God without a human. God came into existence when some caveman asked the clan chief "Just what the hell is the Sun?".  Ever since then the story has been getting more elaborate.

The question in the OP implies there is a difference, where in fact there isn't.
We all create the Universe as we go by observing it.
Think of it as a Universal Blockchain of consensus reality in which everyone of us has some divine hashpower.
"Us" doesn't imply just humans, but all beings.

I don't think cavemen worshiped any gods. Only humans did. I mean human beings because the difference between human beings and cavemen is pretty pretty spectacular, there's a huge chasm in the progression of development from apelike creatures all the way up to what is now" Human beings". 

At the same time, evolution does not occur in the way you describe.  Cavemen were humans, and slowly evolved into what we are now.  There is no simple caveman/human line you can draw.  As RodeoX described (excellent insight btw, totally forgot about that), at some point in time, someone tried to describe the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars, and thus, all were assigned gods--how else would they describe it?

It could be argued god/God is born from ignorance--which isn't an insult.  People back then really just didn't know, and it wasn't their fault.  It's only an insult nowadays because now we do know what the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars are.  We know what causes floods and what causes lightning.  We know there's no tangible heaven or hell.  It was easy, in the time of early man, to believe such things, because it made more sense than "I dunno."  If nothing else, religion was a stepping stone, a product of man's imagination, the earliest of sciences.  But a couple thousand years later and it's like beating your head on the desk, screaming, "We already figured this stuff out!"

I totally agree. By caveman I meant an early Homo sapien, not a Neanderthal or one of the other humanoid relatives.

Well that's just part of the evolutionary theory which can easily be  blown full of holes, there' have been a nr of  "missing links" claims  for example turned out to be hoaxes. The evolutionary link between human beings and apelike creatures still has to be found one moment were dragging knuckles next thing were shaving. There's two different species, they draw in the missing bits to make it LOOk like we progressed from apes but truth is there is no evidence for two or three drawings which they show and which supposed to prove we stemmed from the apes. There's a huge evolutionary gap.

I'll agree with you there, all theories are theories, and sometimes they have many parts which are hard to connect.  Newer theories overtake older theories, and science chugs onward.  But I feel some theories, like the theory of evolution, make more sense than other theories, like the theory of creation.  Even Newton's laws, which are taught in all schools by now, are still just theories--and even his are being overtaken by others (which sadly aren't being taught or acknowledged, but that's another story.)

The difference being, anyone can test the theory of evolution, and create a new, more improved theory.  The theory of creation, however, is not only extremely old, but designed to be absolute and untouchable, or, due to its method of inception, 'sacred.'  If nothing else, I cannot agree with a theory which does not allow itself changes.  Ideas evolve, and they always will.  Religion pretends not to evolve, and protects its archaic theories to death.

That is not as true today as it has been. We have a fairly good evolutionary tree for humans now. The thing that confuses people is that there have been so many dead end species in the human tree.  In the past we have lived with at least as many as five other humanoids at the same time. It was likely only in the past 13,000 years that we were the only humans on Earth.

No there's a huge evolutionary gap and they can't explain it.

Yeh that 13000 or 12 thousand years something cataclysmic happened around that time. .

Ahh I see what you mean; that's what wasn't clicking.  The popular image for the 'missing link' shows human beings evolving linearly.  However, it actually looks more like a tree, with many different versions of us side by side.

It could've been possible to have two versions of us existing today  :o  Learn something new every day! ;D

But Rob, it's not that they can't explain it, it's that they're still trying, and still researching.  Even if they have to scrap their previous theories, it doesn't mean they'll never figure it out.  The only way that would happen is if everyone accepted things as they are and never questioned why.  There will always be someone who says, "No, it's impossible, don't even bother."  But he's no wiser than the next guy for it.  At least the scientist can say he tried, and can confirm that is in, in fact, impossible--or better yet, prove that it isn't.

Yeh but that's like saying we have a theory and if that doesn't work we'll have another theory. But what it is, all the way, is evolution. We just haven't found the right theory yet, we have no evidence, we just need to fill in the missing evidence with theory  . for which there is no evidence. . This is good.   What's wrong with a theory that we were Engineered by a civilization beyond the stars the sumerians seemed to think so, and they lay the blue print for civilization.. 

If you believe in a diety, the diety.
If you don't, humans.
And, tangentially: the egg.

well either something is true or it isn't, belief is not gonna change what is or isn't true.

Really? I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm unaware of any gaps. Of course we don't know all the species in the direct human line, but we do know that radiation of species started about 7 million years ago. Many species evolved and died out. Some, like homo erectus, spread out of Africa.
Then about ~120k years ago a new species evolved and a tiny group, perhaps only 100, left Africa and populated the Earth while killing off any remaining human relatives.
Everyone outside of Africa is descended from that tiny group.

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

I was thinking of the Human line. The Cambrain explosion is another thing. You are right about a gap there. I don't know WTF happened to kick that off, lol.
My vote for the best theory about it is sex. Before sexual reproduction evolution moved very slowly. There were occasional changes due to mutation. but things weren't changing much.
Once sexual reproduction evolved genes were mixed, and as a result there was far more DNA diversity and speciation  taking place. This could have accounted for the "explosion" of new living things.  Of course these are just expressions of the same living thing. There has been only one living thing ever discovered. You, me and the trees are all the same DNA creature.

Well realistically it's more peculiar than that, we develop from apes along a given line . . time line .. and these all fit the ape like features and skull features. . then all off  a sudden "boom" there is man- totally different in "Bone" structure alone, as you would know the ape like bones are nothing like human  bones the ape like bones are much much heavier by design alone. The closest relative of man could literally rip us limb from limb. .

Yeh but it is with humans too. . That's why there were well know cases of "missing link" hoaxes. Because they needed to fill in the gap from ape like beings to Homo novis.
.

An they still haven't found the missing link!!

The idea of a "missing link" is outmoded in biology. I think if you look at the latest work you will see a very complete record from tree dwelling apes to lots of upright hominids to Humans.
Humans didn't just appear. It's kinda about where you draw the line of human/pre-human. Even the skeletons of "modern Humans" from tens of thousands of years ago are noticeably different from skeletons today. Especially in the past 10k years, skeletons have become more delicate.  There are other changes likely related to cooking. Our guts are WAY to small to eat uncooked food and our appendix has stopped working all together.
We were just another one of the tool using apes until our genes won the arms race. Now we are the last of the group, and still evolving and changing.

Well here's the thing " They  "Just" evolved. . How did they know they had to reproduce in the first place? And do you also realize that both sexes had to start of on the same time?

What i understand there still is this thing called the missing link they have not found it yet, they might have drawn it in, in the drawings progressing towards human beings but i can pretty much assure you that those are just drawings, there is a huge difference  between the human skull and that of our last known ancestors; the ape like creatures.

Outmoded? I just found an article 2010 from a well known news paper saying the missing link has been found.

Maybe this time ::)

Let's just all agree that religion was the original science and move on ;D

No but it's good to talk about these things. And maybe look at how we've been programmed to think, through our . educational systems.

Actually, you have it backwards. First came the egg. Within the egg was a slightly mutated version of the creature that laid it. The parents looked an awfully lot like chickens but weren't quite there yet - the offspring was.


The term "missing link" is the creationist's way of moving goalposts. Scientists use the term "transitional species", as in:

Every time irrefutable evidence is discovered demonstrating the existence of species "linking" us to previous species, the creationist says, "But where is the link between them and us!?" ad infinitum.

yeh but there is only "irrefutable" evidence in word not in actual evidence itself. And if you like to call them " transitional fossils " instead of missing links that doesn't really make a lot of difference we still know what we're talking about, actually transitional already expects that the fossil will be present which is misleading.

What I'm saying is, there will always be "missing" links unless someone can catalog each and every one of the countless ancestors that lived between you and the first strand of amino acids that began reproducing itself billions of years ago.

Irrefutable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrefutable): Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible

The fossils are present. What is misleading about this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Australopithecus_sediba_MH1_%28ausgestellt_in_Maropeng%29.JPG/320px-Australopithecus_sediba_MH1_%28ausgestellt_in_Maropeng%29.JPG
Australopithecus sediba

Ok but that means that the theory of evolution accepts such things as missing links or Transitional fossils in it's theory.
Even if they are Huuge gap of missing transitional fossils. What if those gaps where interventions by extra-terstrial divine or some other out side force (es).

Going from single celled life form to 34 (?) different Phyla, of which all known life forms, we know of today stemmed, in a blink of an eye, without any transitionary fossil evidence; or going from hairy ape like creatures who could tear a now a day human being from limb to limb, to homo novis,  without any transitionary fossil evidence.. does not boggle the mind. . Maybe we've just been programmed to believe an evolutionary theory. .

I totally agree with you. I once had my students try to fly. I asked them if they had tried to fly, or just believed they could not fly because they had been told so.  You are also asking some good questions. The Cambrian explosion is somewhat of a mystery in biology. Even more inexplicable is where life itself comes from. Is it a weird quantum phenomena, is life unusual in the universe, did it even start here? I don't know, and I teach this stuff. So questioning is always appropriate in science.  

We cant, however, ignore the evidence we do find. In over 150 years of tests and observation no findings contradict the theory of evolution. Indeed we now see how it works right down to the chemical process of DNA. We see that all living things are really expressions of this chemical and even contain a record of how all these forms are related. By looking at fossils we can tell something about creatures from the past and track how their bodies change and become different species over time. We can even directly observe evolution in short lived organisms like germs.

Why it happened, what it means, is a different question.

"You are what you've been looking for"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyf38s4pjD0

Seek no more! :)

Well then it feels like you're telling me that life is basically chemical bonds and matter ..I find this
 hard to accept. .

It must be more than that or we would likely be able to make living thing from scratch. But there is no question that DNA is the code used to make all living things. With a tiny speck of your body a new you could be cloned. One could even throw in a little jellyfish DNA to make your skin glow in UV light. We are all DNA based creatures.
Maybe life is quantum? Here is what Penrose and Hameroff are looking into. They are more concerned about conciousness, but they may be onto something about all life.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html