Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Axeldeath]

Theories explain the relations between observed phenomena, frequently they are inaccurate. Theories don't make predictions, you make a prediction based on a theory, then test to see if the theory works. Evolution that has been theorized cannot be tested in the few millennia that we have records for, it's 'predictions' have not come true, results that haven't occurred yet cannot be duplicated, and therefore the theory has no scientific proof.

 

http://www.notjustatheory.com

 

I seem to remember you saying that theories became laws when they were proven.

[Rover]

Why shouldn't we? Does it really hurt you so much that we can't?

 

Because astrology does not have any scientific evidence to back it up, why should we teach fantasy in a science class just because some people really wish it to be true?

 

Actually I can't think of a better place to decide... It's where 90% of a teenager's choices are made anyways.

You really think we should let un-educated teenagers decide on the merits of a complex scientific idea instead of the scientific community? what? Should we have done that with nuclear physics, E=mc^2, cosmology, plate tectonics? Do you even realize what you're saying?

 

The model is, nothing evolves naturally. Evidence is personal observation, and 4 millennia of written records. Testable in what way? What are you meaning by "cannot be falsified"?

 

That's not a model, that's just a statement. One which is patently false, just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Gauging your knowledge deficit on this topic I'd say you probably have to start from the beginning http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14

And creationism cannot be falsified because the explanation offered can fit any and every observation. It can never be proven wrong, you can just say "That's the way god/the designer did it." That's not science because it can't be proven wrong.

For example human chromosome #2

What about it?

 

I'm glad you asked! I'll let Evolutionary biologist Ken Miller explain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

What's the creationist explanation for a chromosome with a telomere in the middle? "THat's the way the designer did it" Does that really have explanatory power?

 

Theories explain the relations between observed phenomena, frequently they are inaccurate. Theories don't make predictions, you make a prediction based on a theory, then test to see if the theory works. Evolution that has been theorized cannot be tested in the few millennia that we have records for, it's 'predictions' have not come true, results that haven't occurred yet cannot be duplicated, and therefore the theory has no scientific proof.

Fine maybe my definition of a theory was a bit oversimplified.

However on your other statements you are simply dead wrong. Evolution predicted transitional fossils, these exist even though you are completely unaware of them. Again, just because you have no knowledge of something doesn't mean it does not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03

As well as the video I linked earlier.

 

I would also like to posit a question to you: what is the mechanism which prevents positive or neutral mutations in DNA from accumulating throughout the generations?

 

Those "peer reviewed journals" don't publish anything that would disprove Evolution, and people in school either believe in Evolution already, or are writing exactly what the teacher wants to see. (we creationists learn early on that we fail any 'science' class if we don't pretend to take Evolution for granted)

 

Just like peer reviewed math journals won't publish my papers on how 2+2=65, I'm an alternative mathist. It was hell for me going through school having to conform to the scientific dogma that 2+2=4. Had to fake my way through every school I've ever been to.

Edit: let my clarify, you are inferring that those peer reviewed journals are motivated by some kind of demand for adherence to a strict unshakable dogma rather than the scientific method and evidence. This is your premise, however this premise is unfounded. You will need to prove your premise before I can accept your argument.

[BTGBullseye]

Because astrology does not have any scientific evidence to back it up, why should we teach fantasy in a science class just because some people really wish it to be true?

It is very closely related to Astronomy, and actually was the originator of it. We likely wouldn't have had such an extensive understanding of the solar system as quickly as we did if it weren't for the early astrologers.

 

You really think we should let un-educated teenagers decide on the merits of a complex scientific idea instead of the scientific community? what? Should we have done that with nuclear physics, E=mc^2, cosmology, plate tectonics? Do you even realize what you're saying?

I never said that. I said to let them choose their beliefs. Evolution is a belief, not a fact.

 

That's not a model, that's just a statement.

Oversimplified, yes. I didn't bother posting the 30+ page model that we have for it since I think that would be very cumbersome for these forums.

 

One which is patently false

In your opinion.

 

just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it does not exist.

Just because you say the evidence is proof, doesn't mean it is.

 

Gauging your knowledge deficit on this topic I'd say you probably have to start from the beginning http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14

Shows no proof of any connection between any of the fossils other than looking like they might fit. Not scientific proof in the slightest.

 

And creationism cannot be falsified because the explanation offered can fit any and every observation. It can never be proven wrong, you can just say "That's the way god/the designer did it." That's not science because it can't be proven wrong.

If it can't be proven wrong right this instant, then it has to be wrong... Is that what you're saying?

 

For example human chromosome #2

 

I'm glad you asked! I'll let Evolutionary biologist Ken Miller explain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Evidence is not proof. Evidence supports, it doesn't prove conclusively unless you observe it take place, and can duplicate the effects.

 

Fine maybe my definition of a theory was a bit oversimplified.

At least you acknowledged it.

 

However on your other statements you are simply dead wrong.

I wish you would quit bringing this kind of opinion voicing into your argument. You're trying to use emotional argument when you do, and that isn't helping your case any.

 

Evolution predicted transitional fossils, these exist even though you are completely unaware of them. Again, just because you have no knowledge of something doesn't mean it does not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03

As well as the video I linked earlier.

Still doesn't prove that any of the fossils are linked to each other in any way than visual/genetic similarity.

 

I would also like to posit a question to you: what is the mechanism which prevents positive or neutral mutations in DNA from accumulating throughout the generations?

I haven't bothered researching it, have you?

 

Just like peer reviewed math journals won't publish my papers on how 2+2=65, I'm an alternative mathist. It was hell for me going through school having to conform to the scientific dogma that 2+2=4. Had to fake my way through every school I've ever been to.

It entirely depends on what base you're using for the math. I can do base 2 to base 16 in my head if you give me a little time. Base 10 is the most common since it is the most relatable for humans. (10 fingers, 10 toes)

 

Your sarcastic analogy is ineffective.

 

Edit: let my clarify, you are inferring that those peer reviewed journals are motivated by some kind of demand for adherence to a strict unshakable dogma rather than the scientific method and evidence. This is your premise, however this premise is unfounded.

Is it? They're just like you, ignoring scientific method while saying they use it.

 

You will need to prove your premise before I can accept your argument.

Riiight... I don't feel like writing the 10,000th article they throw in the trash, that I also have to pay to send to them. You try it. I'll retract the statement the first time you show me any pro-creationist article in one of those Evolutionist journals.

[Rover]

I never said that. I said to let them choose their beliefs. Evolution is a belief, not a fact.

Just stating this doesn't make it a fact. You seem to have it in your head that simply asserting something as true, makes it true.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and one of the best supported theories we have. The deny is means you're either almost completely scientifically illiterate or just living in a fantasy land. I am not here to spoon feed science to someone who rejects any science which doesn't match his or her religious or political ideology.

You did this as well with your claims about radiometric dating methods, simply asserting that other methods besides carbon dating were rarely if ever used. Even though this was completely false, you simply asserted it as true and left it at that.

 

Gauging your knowledge deficit on this topic I'd say you probably have to start from the beginning http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=14

 

Shows no proof of any connection between any of the fossils other than looking like they might fit. Not scientific proof in the slightest.

 

Almost every biologist, geologist and paleontologist on the planet disagrees. Where did you get your biology degree again?

I'm not turning this into an argument from authority, but I tend to think the experts in their respective fields are more credible than a random person on the internet.

 

And creationism cannot be falsified because the explanation offered can fit any and every observation. It can never be proven wrong, you can just say "That's the way god/the designer did it." That's not science because it can't be proven wrong.

 

If it can't be proven wrong right this instant, then it has to be wrong... Is that what you're saying?

Creationism can't ever be proven wrong. For every single observation the creationist can say "that's the way god did it" because the creator has no limits. Hypothetically the creator could create a universe in which evolution is greatly accelerated and we could see species undergo major changes and evolve into other species in a manner of years or shorter. And still the creationist can say "that's the way the creator made it."

It could be true, but this complete inability to be falsified makes creationism inherently unscientific.

 

I wish you would quit bringing this kind of opinion voicing into your argument. You're trying to use emotional argument when you do, and that isn't helping your case any.

It can't be as annoying as you going around declaring what constitutes scientific evidence and what does not simply by your own fiat.

 

Still doesn't prove that any of the fossils are linked to each other in any way than visual/genetic similarity.

I'm starting to think you're one of those creationists who thinks the only good evidence for evolution would be if he saw one species give birth to a completely new species.

 

I would also like to posit a question to you: what is the mechanism which prevents positive or neutral mutations in DNA from accumulating throughout the generations?

 

I haven't bothered researching it, have you?

 

Thankfully scientists have, there is no magic barrier in DNA which allows an organism to adapt on a small timescale, like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, but not accumulate such changes over a longer time span to constitute a different species.

 

Edit: let my clarify, you are inferring that those peer reviewed journals are motivated by some kind of demand for adherence to a strict unshakable dogma rather than the scientific method and evidence. This is your premise, however this premise is unfounded.

 

Is it? They're just like you, ignoring scientific method while saying they use it.

 

Again your premise is unfounded, here you are once again simply pulling something from the journal of rectally derived facts and asserting it as true. Discussions don't work that way.

 

Riiight... I don't feel like writing the 10,000th article they throw in the trash, that I also have to pay to send to them. You try it. I'll retract the statement the first time you show me any pro-creationist article in one of those Evolutionist journals.

 

THere's a reason pro-creationism papers don't make it into scientific journals. Because in order to get published in a scientific peer reviewed journal your work is checked for errors, fact checking, your methodology is reviewed and the strength of your evidence is checked. Creationists cannot pass these hurdles, they have no evidence, no models, no observations which can only be explained with creationist ideas. They simply don't make the cut because they can't back up their beliefs using the scientific method.

 

Also this discussion will probably be entirely fruitless, so I'm leaving it at this.

[BTGBullseye]

I could post several flow charts defining the scientific process that you seem to have forgotten, but I know you'll just ignore it the same way you've ignored every single hole I've pointed out in your theory.

 

I'm glad you're not going to continue, it'll be nice to get away from all the emotional arguments.

[Song]

Hmm, from reading a bit here, what should be taught in school instead of those

two should be to be open for new possibilities and not ignorantly believing in

something that might be as right or as wrong as any other 'theory'.

 

THAT we could need a little bit more. But both, evolution and creation, we would

never need in 'real life', other then maybe for being a knowledge show-off, but

less ignorance, ahh... that could actually make the world a better place...

 

 

 

 

I hope that was understandable?

I'm kinda tired at the moment and I think I am lacking some grammer up there.

[danielsangeo]

Let's get down to brass tacks:

 

Evolution has scores of scientific evidence.

Creationism has NO scientific evidence.

 

Evolution belongs in science class. Creationism does not.

 

Students do NOT get to "pick and choose" what they should believe, science-wise, just as they don't get to "pick and choose" what they should believe math-wise, language-wise, history-wise, or anything else that involves facts. They are told: This is what it is.

 

You can't just "believe that 2+2=18" so why should you get to "believe that humans were created fully formed by an intelligent designer"?

 

Why don't we just teach everything that way? Cats are actually dogs! Christopher Columbus was a space alien! The United States of America was founded in 1298 BCE! Milk is pulled from a lake in Bavaria! Teach the controversy!

 

Unbelievable....

[alphabetagamma]

Let's get down to brass tacks:

 

Evolution has scores of scientific evidence.

Creationism has NO scientific evidence.

 

Evolution belongs in science class. Creationism does not.

 

Students do NOT get to "pick and choose" what they should believe, science-wise, just as they don't get to "pick and choose" what they should believe math-wise, language-wise, history-wise, or anything else that involves facts. They are told: This is what it is.

 

You can't just "believe that 2+2=18" so why should you get to "believe that humans were created fully formed by an intelligent designer"?

 

Why don't we just teach everything that way? Cats are actually dogs! Christopher Columbus was a space alien! The United States of America was founded in 1298 BCE! Milk is pulled from a lake in Bavaria! Teach the controversy!

I think the difference between that and the exsistance of an intelligent designer is that god is impossible to disprove, as omnipotence would explain for otherwise normally incontrovertible evidence.

[danielsangeo]

God or an intelligent designer is also impossible to prove. So, unless you can produce evidence of Him or it, ID/creationism does not belong in science class.

[Blue]

What is taught is what should be considered relevant and factual knowledge.

I shall take a quotation from a dialogue on a component of the Bible from which all other verses depend on.

 

"Should Genesis 1 be called a "scientific account"? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the Origin of the material Universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no. Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term "kind" does not correspond to the notion of "species"; it simply means "category", and could refer to a species, or a family, or even a taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domestic stock animals (livestock); small things such as mice, lizards and spiders ("creeping things"); and larger game and predatory animals ("beasts of the earth"). Indeed, no species, other than man, get its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which "the earth brought forth vegetation" (1:12) or by which the various kind of animals appeared- although the fact that it was in response to God's command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself."

 

Genesis and Science - Preface to the book of Genesis, p.44, para. 2. T. Desmond Alexander, Ph.D, 2007 English Standard Version Study Bible

 

God or an intelligent designer is also impossible to prove. So, unless you can produce evidence of Him or it, ID/creationism does not belong in science class.

Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History.

There are corroborating evidences of the Ressurected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once, but only one of the Roman invasion of Gaul. Yet the one of Gaul is taken as fact.

[danielsangeo]

What is taught is what should be considered relevant and factual knowledge.

I shall take a quotation from a dialogue on a component of the Bible from which all other verses depend on.

 

"Should Genesis 1 be called a "scientific account"? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the Origin of the material Universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no. Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term "kind" does not correspond to the notion of "species"; it simply means "category", and could refer to a species, or a family, or even a taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domestic stock animals (livestock); small things such as mice, lizards and spiders ("creeping things"); and larger game and predatory animals ("beasts of the earth"). Indeed, no species, other than man, get its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which "the earth brought forth vegetation" (1:12) or by which the various kind of animals appeared- although the fact that it was in response to God's command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself."

 

Genesis and Science - Preface to the book of Genesis, p.44, para. 2. T. Desmond Alexander, Ph.D, 2007 English Standard Version Study Bible

 

Then, really, anything could be taught, even a flying spaghetti monster. But what is of import here is science. Intelligent design is no scientific. It relies entirely on the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance".

 

God or an intelligent designer is also impossible to prove. So, unless you can produce evidence of Him or it, ID/creationism does not belong in science class.

Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History.

There are corroborating evidences of the Ressurected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once,

 

Could you, perhaps, produce that evidence?

[Axeldeath]

Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History.

There are corroborating evidences of the Ressurected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once, but only one of the Roman invasion of Gaul. Yet the one of Gaul is taken as fact

 

Funny how Jesus is never mentioned in any other historical books from that time period, only the Bible.

[Blue]

Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History.

There are corroborating evidences of the Resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once,

Could you, perhaps, produce that evidence?

Paul's First Letter to the Church in Corinth, Chapter 15, 3-6

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

 

Pray tell how a public letter, given to a Church, written within 10 years of the event, would be able to stay in Canonically held, historically accurate and reliable accountance by many Churches and Religious institutions for over 1,500 years, if any component of that was a fabrication. Within 10 years.

If I wrote a book five years from now, about how at a Student Rally at Trinity Western University in Vancouver became violent and that ten people died, do you think a statement in a book like that would be able to stand the test of time? No it wouldn't, because critics and actual members of that Rally would be still alive, they would say "No, that didn't happen, your book is a fabrication and you are a liar."

And yet Paul wrote a letter which stated 500 people saw Christ after he died, and that document is held as truth by institutions far older than most countries, written within ten years of when it happened- which I would bet even with the status of average persons' health back then, lots of those 500 would still be around, enough to either claim an inaccuracy, or proclaim its truth.

Funny how Jesus is never mentioned in any other historical books from that time period, only the Bible.

Documents from far flung parts of history and many authors contributed to the process of making the Bible, among them the approximate 60 or so people over the course of 3000 years.

Let's start with the Torah (The first five books of the Bible, also known in Greek as the Pentateuch) or the Pentateuch as adopted by Christians, the Septuagint. That is to say Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Then we go on to the Jewish Nevi'im (or Prophets) give us the books Joshua through Malachi. The Ketuvim were scriptures written during the Judaic exile under the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empire (as detailed in the books of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zephaniah). There are also numerous books which supplement context historical and cultural references.

That's just the Old Testament. The Bible in of itself is the amalgamated works of many different peoples at many different times with many considerations taken into what is divinely inspired and what would not be. (And on that note, there are things that can be read that are considered possibly supplementary but not divinely inspired in such works as the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonics). To say that the Bible is the only document that is used as evidence for that time period is like pointing at an Encyclopedia made by the collected works of ten different Universities and saying it's only one book.

 

Saying the Bible is only one document has every power of an accusation except that of being a useful accusation.

 

But if you are so insistent to avoid having the Bible be its own self-evidence, Look up the names "Thallus", "Pliney", "Suetonius", "Celsus", "Lucian of Somosata", "Tacitus" and "Flavious" (Testimony of).

 

The only document that says the Roman Empire invaded Gaul is Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Julius Caesar, which is dated at about 50 BC, give or take a few decades.

If you're wondering how accurate documents are to the dating of information relevant to the New Testament, take a look at your calendar, the Year is based upon the most accurate research that could be ascertained to the year Christ was born. BC stands for Before Christ, and AD stands for Anno Domine, which is Latin for "Years of Our Lord". Feel free to swtich to CE and BCE (Current Era and Before Current Era) but they're still pivoted off of 0 AD.

[danielsangeo]

Historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ are both more accurate and plentiful than many other historical accounts of that era of History.

There are corroborating evidences of the Resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people at once,

Could you, perhaps, produce that evidence?

Paul's First Letter to the Church in Corinth, Chapter 15, 3-6

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

 

So, that's the evidence?

 

There are those that believe that this is a 2nd century interpolation and was not written by Paul, but assuming it was (purely for the basis of argument), where is the corroborating evidence?

[Blue]

So, that's the evidence?

There are those that believe that this is a 2nd century interpolation and was not written by Paul, but assuming it was (purely for the basis of argument), where is the corroborating evidence?

I don't argue for the sake of argument, I'll have you know. I will finish this statement and go no further, as the practicality and usefulness of time spent debating for its own sake is negligible in my mind.

That article you linked only pokes at a few verses. Looking at all the other contents of the Pauline Epistles in context would not make the verse outlandish, even if they were interpolation generated from the Apocrypha. To say eight verses nullifies the possible truth of thousands of others is quite a leap.

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/reliability_of_the_bible.htm

I'm not a historian or an archaeologist so I would not be able to point out any single particular documents without extensive research, but it would surprise me if 1st Corinthians was its own only evidence.

 

Personally I don't think the origin of the universe needs be taught in school since there appears to be such controversy over it, and saying that it should be taught in school is just a proxy war for Creationism vs. the Big Bang Theory.

A fight which should be fought by professors in universities, not teachers, parents and politicians in school board meetings. Or teenagers on a forum, for that matter.

[ProHypster]

I'm just going to add that I think neither theories are conclusively logical, which means there is a very good chance neither are true.

 

The Big Bang happened when there was no general relativity.................then something happened. I don't think I need to add anything more to point out to what pathetic conclusion we came.

 

Christianity sounds somewhat logical as a story but also that is observed in any other religion, which creates confusions and disbelief in any religion. To disprove the bible I guess one would just have to find other literature before the bible, which in scientists theories, developed the bible.

 

There are those that say, it doesn't matter how it started, we probably will never find out, until we die, it matters what is happening now, nobody should purely live to find out the past by wasting the present and the future.

[Blue]

There are those that say, it doesn't matter how it started, we probably will never find out, until we die, it matters what is happening now, nobody should purely live to find out the past by wasting the present and the future.

It is only logical then to do as much research as possible to figure out what would happen to oneself after they die.

Either there is nothing and therefore nothing to worry or think about, or there are diametric eternities. Personally if the razor's edge is between void and eternity after we die, I would want to be absolutely certain it was one or the other, as opposed to leaving it to some sort of mullthory assumption. Entirely removed from prejudice, guessing or ambivalence.

If after we die there is nothing, then there are a great deal of things I should set about doing, since in the end of it all there is no consequence to me personally.

If after we die there is eternity, then there is an incredible amount of importance to what is said and done by each moment.

 

Either way, both decisions have an incredible amount of social and moral weight to them- so much so that being on one side or the other is too important to the individual to be said that it could be thought about objectively. Eternity is longer than any career will promise, and longer still how long an army will endure or a civilization will stand. The importance of such a decisio has a 50% chance of being more important than anything we know of to that individual, so to say that an individual can look at such a decision objectively would be a conflict of interest of laughable proportions.

[Doom Shepherd]

The Big Bang happened when there was no general relativity.................then something happened. I don't think I need to add anything more to point out to what pathetic conclusion we came.

 

Maybe that;s because your books haven't been updated since the 1960's? Maybe you should make an effort to acquire some more RECENT knowledge.

 

Because YEAH, we've added to the sum of human knowledge since Einstein. We're rapidly closing in on the actual cause of the Big Bang. Clearly, you missed all of String, Brane, and M-theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

 

(On the other hand, the God-believers haven't even begin to consider trying to explain where their superbeing came from. Which is kinda sad, because every comicbook hero needs an origin story.)

[Doom Shepherd]

To disprove the bible I guess one would just have to find other literature before the bible, which in scientists theories, developed the bible.

 

Just so you know... that's already happened.

 

For example, it seems clear that the Biblical story of Noah derived from the earlier stories of Unapishtim and Deucalion (Babylonian and Greek)

 

Also, try "The Garden of Eden Myth: Its Pre-biblical Origin In Mesopotamian Myths" By Walter Mattfeld.

 

Eden's garden is understood to be a recast of the gods' city-gardens in the Sumerian Edin, the floodplain of Lower Mesopotamia.

 

This article is also relevant: http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

[ProHypster]

The Big Bang happened when there was no general relativity.................then something happened. I don't think I need to add anything more to point out to what pathetic conclusion we came.

 

Maybe that;s because your books haven't been updated since the 1960's? Maybe you should make an effort to acquire some more RECENT knowledge.

 

Because YEAH, we've added to the sum of human knowledge since Einstein. We're rapidly closing in on the actual cause of the Big Bang. Clearly, you missed all of String, Brane, and M-theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

 

(On the other hand, the God-believers haven't even begin to consider trying to explain where their superbeing came from. Which is kinda sad, because every comicbook hero needs an origin story.)

I didn't miss those theories, to be fair, as far as I know they don't bring us any closer to the "Actual cause" of the Big Bang. They just propose how everything is made up of the same 1 dimensional matter which is vibrating and which is probably true, but doesn't bring us anywhere. What is the cause of the vibration for example.