Creation or Evolution?

[Nicholas94]

I realize that I am surrounded by evolutionists. I understand that both evolution and creation are both theories and that when evidence is being brought to attention it needs to be looked at with an open mind. That is what most science books say when talking about the theory of evolution. I will use that same statement while I bring into light some evidence for creation.

The science textbooks say that the grand canyon was formed by the Colorado river over millions of years (little water, lot of time). This could be true. However, there is another way to look at it. It could have also been formed by the flood as mentioned in the Bible(a lot of water, little time). If it was created slowly by the Colorado river why is there no delta? The Colorado river enters the canyon around 2,800ft above sea level. The highest point of the rim of the canyon is over 7,500ft above sea level. Why it the highest point of the rim of the canyon nearly 5,000ft higher than where the river enters the canyon? Rivers don't flow uphill! How did it start cutting the canyon? I think that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a flood.

Also, some claim that the layers of rock that we see on the side of the canyon, and throughout the world, are from different time periods and different ages. Did you know that if you were to get a bottle of water and go outside and add some dirt to this bottle of water, and then shake it up, when it settled it would settle into layers? Layers that resemble something like the side of the Grand canyon. Also if you were to go down into the canyon you can see some petrified trees that go through multiple layers of rock! Please explain how this happened if each layer is millions of years old?

Creation and Evolution are both theories. We can use science to test the creation theory. Although the claim itself may not be "scientific" because it can not be changed, we can test the claim with science. There are two ways to look at nearly everything in the world, this is only part of what I believe. Not just what I believe only because the Bible says so, but because we can use science to test it. Unfortunately some Christians claim that they believe what they believe because the Bible says so and that is all that they need. I believe that this is unanimously what keeps creation from being a valid science, because too many claim that it is based on faith alone.

 

[Minority Observer84]

I realize that I am surrounded by evolutionists. I understand that both evolution and creation are both theories and that when evidence is being brought to attention it needs to be looked at with an open mind. That is what most science books say when talking about the theory of evolution. I will use that same statement while I bring into light some evidence for creation.

That is where you are wrong , your wrong to even compare them because the evidence credibility of these two ideas is not similar . The only evidence for creation is the bible / Quran / Torah . In other words superstition .

The science textbooks say that the grand canyon was formed by the Colorado river over millions of years (little water, lot of time). This could be true. However, there is another way to look at it. It could have also been formed by the flood as mentioned in the Bible(a lot of water, little time). If it was created slowly by the Colorado river why is there no delta? The Colorado river enters the canyon around 2,800ft above sea level. The highest point of the rim of the canyon is over 7,500ft above sea level. Why it the highest point of the rim of the canyon nearly 5,000ft higher than where the river enters the canyon? Rivers don't flow uphill! How did it start cutting the canyon? I think that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a flood.Also, some claim that the layers of rock that we see on the side of the canyon, and throughout the world, are from different time periods and different ages. Did you know that if you were to get a bottle of water and go outside and add some dirt to this bottle of water, and then shake it up, when it settled it would settle into layers? Layers that resemble something like the side of the Grand canyon. Also if you were to go down into the canyon you can see some petrified trees that go through multiple layers of rock! Please explain how this happened if each layer is millions of years old?

The fossils occurring in the deposits on the grand canyon walls indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old (By radio-isotope testing ) , and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is no way on earth that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood it's a logical impossibility and any decent marine biologist you suggest this to will likely laugh you out of his/her office .

As for your question about why the high point on the rim is 5000 feet above sea level , it was sedimentary rock Let me explain many mountains are composed of sedimentary rock example Mount Everest , angular unconformities are common usually form when one sedimentary rock layer is greatly titled , the exposed side becomes eroded flat and the next layer of sedimentary rock is deposited on top of it . What's you explanation for how these rock layers were formed by flood waters in a year ?

To answer your question about the trees , petrified is just another way of saying a tree is fossilized , in the process the tree's natural contents are replaces by minerals while the overall structure remains that of a tree. The Specimen Ridge formation in Yellowstone National Park consists of a section of 2000 feet in depth which reveals 18 successive layers of petrified forests. Each layer is characterized by large numbers of upright tree stumps with embedded root systems. Many of the tree stumps have trunks of considerable height. It is clear(By geological consensus) that each forest grew to maturity before it was destroyed by volcanic eruption and covered with volcanic material. The cumulative time for each of these 18 forests to grow to maturity could not be less than hundreds of years. This formation could not have been formed as the result of catastrophic changes taking place in a single year!So it is not one tree cutting through several layers of rock ( If you still maintain that , that is the case I want to see a recent scientific journal to that effect , and not from Bob Jones University either tis journal must state that the tree fossils intersect several geological time period strata ) it is several layers of trees each older than the one above it .

Creation and Evolution are both theories. We can use science to test the creation theory. Although the claim itself may not be "scientific" because it can not be changed, we can test the claim with science. There are two ways to look at nearly everything in the world, this is only part of what I believe. Not just what I believe only because the Bible says so, but because we can use science to test it. Unfortunately some Christians claim that they believe what they believe because the Bible says so and that is all that they need. I believe that this is unanimously what keeps creation from being a valid science, because too many claim that it is based on faith alone.

No what keep creationism from being science is the lack of evidence . It doesn't matter what people "believe" engineering is my field and if i walked up to one of my teachers and presented a model that i "believed" would work they'd laugh me out of the room . Science deals with theories evidence and fact , but if two competing theories explain the same thing and one of them has as much evidence as evolution and the other as little as creation no self respecting man of science would defend one because he "believed" it were true.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I realize that I am surrounded by evolutionists. I understand that both evolution and creation are both theories...

No you don't, not really. You're conflating two different meanings of the word theory. Creationism is a theory in the weak sense of being a belief or speculation, evolution is a theory in the strong scientific sense of being an organized and consistent body of ideas, analyses, observations, and evidence, that serve to describe and explain a range of natural phenomena. Moreover, it is empirical, testable, predictive, and falsifiable. Creationism is none of those things, it's a religious belief. Minority Observer84's done a good job of answering your questions, but I can add a few details.

...the grand canyon ... could have also been formed by the flood as mentioned in the Bible... If it was created slowly by the Colorado river why is there no delta?

There is a delta. It used to be about 8000 square kilometres of braided streams and mudflats and tidal wetlands and so forth, but dam and reservoir development and water diversions upstream in the 20th century reduced the water flow to the delta to a trickle and the delta's been reduced to about 500 square kilometres. But it's still there.

Why it[sic] the highest point of the rim of the canyon nearly 5,000ft higher than where the river enters the canyon? Rivers don't flow uphill! How did it start cutting the canyon? I think that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a flood.

Only if you assume there's been no subsidence or uplift anywhere along the river's course during its lifetime, which is false. The landscape hasn't always looked like it does now, and the Rocky Mountains in fact are still rising. I don't propose to give you a short course in the geological history of western North America here, you can be responsible for your own education, but if you make the effort to study that science, you'll find detailed explanations for all those questions.

Creation and Evolution are both theories

Again, not in the same sense.

We can use science to test the creation theory. Although the claim itself may not be "scientific" because it can not be changed, we can test the claim with science.

It's been done. The creation theory fails the test. It's unscientific not merely because it can't be changed, though that's certainly a pretty severe blow to its claims of being scientific. It's not based on observation, it's not testable, it's not predictive, and cannot be falsified, it's immune to any kind of evidence. That's what makes it unscientific.

There are two ways to look at nearly everything in the world...

Only two? I think there are many more than that.

I believe that this is unanimously what keeps creation from being a valid science, because too many claim that it is based on faith alone.

Well... no. What keeps creationism from being valid science is that it doesn't meet the defining criteria of what constitutes valid science, as I've described above. It doesn't really explain anything, it simply claims that god did it. That's just not a useful idea in science. Science wants to know, metaphorically, what he did and how he did it.

 

[Nicholas94]

Please excuse my ignorance of not knowing how to use the quotation box on message boards. I will use quotations and italics for quotes.

"That is where you are wrong , your wrong to even compare them because the evidence credibility of these two ideas is not similar . The only evidence for creation is the bible / Quran / Torah . In other words superstition ."Minority Observer84

IN RESPONSE TO:
​

"I realize that I am surrounded by evolutionists. I understand that both evolution and creation are both theories and that when evidence is being brought to attention it needs to be looked at with an open mind. That is what most science books say when talking about the theory of evolution. I will use that same statement while I bring into light some evidence for creation."Nicholas94

By saying this opening statement I was by no means comparing the two. I was simply stating that they are both theories, and should both be looked at with open minds.I also never said anything about them being similar or different nor implied that one was more credible than the other. I used the term "theories" because that is what they both are. Also, if you are saying that the Bible is evidence for Creation I highly disagree. It is merely a claim. And you are certainly free to believe that it is superstition if you would like.

"Creationism is a theory in the weak sense of being a belief or speculation, evolution is a theory in the strong scientific sense of being an organized and consistent body of ideas, analyses, observations, and evidence, that serve to describe and explain a range of natural phenomena."Dexter Sinister (Underlining by Nicholas94)
​

___________________________________________________________________________

"The fossils occurring in the deposits on the grand canyon walls indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old (By radio-isotope testing ) , and represent life forms that do not exist today." Minority Observer84

You are saying that the topmost layers of the Grand Canyon must be 250 million years old because the radio-isotope testing dates the fossils back to that time? What happened to the Cenozoic Era, and the Mesozoic Era? 250 million years old jumps all the way down to the beginning of the Paleozoic Era? What happened to the first two eras? Or even the first ten Epochs of the Geologic time scale? Did the Grand Canyon not experience these Eras?
I am fully aware of how radio-metric dating works. Carbon-14 is a radio active isotope that an organism, when alive, assimilates in proportions determined by it's relative abundance in the environment.C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. From the time an organism dies, it takes 5,730 years for half of the radioactive carbon-14 to decay: Half of the remainder of C-14 will decay in the next 5,730 year half life. And half of that remainder will decay in another 5,730 years. And it repeats itself, over and over again. Although this sounds great in theory it has an assumption. The assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always remained constant! The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C-14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
________________________________________________________________________
"What's you explanation for how these rock layers were formed by flood waters in a year ?" Minority Observer84

If you pour a cup of water in a bowl with dirt the dirt will not remain unmoved. It will scatter throughout the bowl with the water and will soon settle into level layers. The layers of the Grand Canyon did not have to turn into rock during the flood. They just had to settle into layers. The rest of the water that remained on top of the canyon during the flood would have ultimately put alot of pressure on the freshly settled layers and would have found the weakest spot in the floor of the canyon to drain. The water would have then taken the easiest route to drain, and would have continued on it's path eroding the layers very quickly since the layers had not turned into stone yet. Have you ever noticed the inconsistent elevation of the rim of the Grand Canyon or in near surrounding areas where there are rolling dips and peaks in elevation. Have you ever noticed that even thought the inconsistencies of the elevation of the top of the canyon remain the layers inside the canyon remain to be rather consistent and level? The floor of the ocean is very inconsistent. It has dips and peaks very similar to what we see in an aerial photograph of the top and surrounding areas of the Grand Canyon. These dips and peeks that we see on the top of the canyon , and surrounding areas, could be explained by them being engulfed with water, and made by the currents of the water as the water drained away, and the consistent layers that we see inside the canyon can be explained by Hydrologic Sorting of sediment into level layers while it was surrounded in water, and the canyon itself could have been formed rapidly by the draining waters from the flood.
__________________________________________________________________________

"Only if you assume there's been no subsidence or uplift anywhere along the river's course during its lifetime, which is false. The landscape hasn't always looked like it does now, and the Rocky Mountains in fact are still rising."Dexter Sinister

IN RESPONSE TO:
​

"Why is the highest point of the rim of the canyon nearly 5,000ft higher than where the river enters the canyon? Rivers don't flow uphill! How did it start cutting the canyon? I think that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a flood." Nicholas94

If in fact there has been an uplift along the rivers course and it had caused part of the river to be higher than others you would not only see it in the varying elevation at the top, but also in the consistent layers inside the canyon. The layers inside the canyon would move as well. They are still level.
__________________________________________________________________________

Polystrate trees have been found all over the world. I do not believe that they cut through the rock, as this would be quite absurd. Although, It does make sense that during the flood that they were surrounded with sediment layers, and some even knocked down by the water current. Have you noticed that in petrified forests trees often lean or lay in the same direction? It's almost like they were being pushed or pulled in the same direction by something. Maybe the flood waters! Or maybe it was coincidence!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ah, I get it now. It was the word "polystrate" that revealed it. That's not standard geological terminology. You're reading some creationist literature, that's the only place I've ever seen that word, and dropping bits of it in here without really understanding much of the science you're pretending to talk about. Your description of carbon dating also gives it away, that's not how rocks are dated, it's useful only for organic remains less than a few tens of thousands of years old. Nobody but an ignorant creationist would talk about carbon dating on rocks. You're also quite wrong about the inaccuracy of carbon dating. It's been calibrated against bits of the ancient atmosphere trapped in ice cores and cross-referenced against samples from very old but still living trees, and various other things. We know how to correct for the varying carbon content of the atmosphere within the limits for which carbon dating is useful.

Read this, that should keep you busy for a while and answer most of your questions. The truth is out there if you care to look for it.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

There's nothing scientific about the Biblical account of creation, and there's nothing religious about the theory of evolution.

Hmmmmmm I think Buddhist would agree that Darwin's theory has merit.
Buddhist have long debated the creation theory, they think it happened so long ago everyone forgets how it all got started, or if it realy had to have a start.
Lets see what we know now and use what we know to better out understanding of us.
I think the big bang theory and it's implication of repatition is valid. I can live with that.
That finite lil speck though that everything comes from....wow Eh?

Does it truly matter in the grand scheme of things if there is a God creator or not .....whole other topic.....hmmmmmm off to start a thread.

nah.....

 

[talloola]

I'm not sure it's worth responding to such massively ignorant foolishness, but in keeping with my general policy of fighting ignorance wherever I find it, I'll go a round with the newbie.

There's nothing scientific about the Biblical account of creation, and there's nothing religious about the theory of evolution. You're right that the Biblical account will never change, but that's only because the evidence doesn't matter to it and those who believe in it. That's what makes it unscientific. You're also right that we can test both claims with science, but when we do, the Biblical account comes out looking completely wrong, it doesn't even get the basic order of events right. It has light created before there are any light-generating objects, the earth existing before the sun appears, land plants appearing before sea life, birds appearing as the first creatures on land, it is wrong in every detail but the final one: humanity came at the end. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation, and plenty that directly contradicts it.

The scientific account changes quite often because we keep finding new evidence that needs to be explained; that's just the nature of science, but the core of the theory of evolution itself hasn't fundamentally changed since Darwin first wrote it down. Evolution is not founded on any "Atheistic religion," there can be no such thing, that's a contradiction in terms. Evolution has no religious content. It is a wholly empirical theory that explains an enormous range of phenomena, it is predictive, testable, and, at least in principle, falsifiable. Those are the defining features of a good scientific theory. Evolution is one of our best-attested scientific theories, supported by multiple converging lines of evidence from many other scientific disciplines; nothing in biology makes sense without it.

You don't have to believe there's no god to understand and accept the theory of evolution, the theory says nothing about god's existence or non-existence, though it doesn't leave him with much to do. Faith doesn't enter into it, evolution is what the evidence records, for anybody with the wit to understand it. Given your obvious belief that there is a god, however, there's nothing inconsistent with postulating that evolution is the method he used to create us. It's not a very useful idea and doesn't have good odds in its favour, it's not a necessary hypothesis, but at least it's not demonstrably false the way the Biblical creation account is.

Evolution is how we got here--the evidence is overwhelming--whether you believe in god or not.

You always say it so well, so logically, so truthful, so real. But the realization that I won't be here
when we all finally know how it all started, irks me, it really does.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Hmmmmmm I think Buddhist would agree that Darwin's theory has merit.
Buddhist have long debated the creation theory, they think it happened so long ago everyone forgets how it all got started, or if it realy had to have a start.
Lets see what we know now and use what we know to better out understanding of us.
I think the big bang theory and it's implication of repatition is valid. I can live with that.
That finite lil speck though that everything comes from....wow Eh?

Does it truly matter in the grand scheme of things if there is a God creator or not .....whole other topic.....hmmmmmm off to start a thread.

nah.....

Ah Doc, blessings upon you, you never fail to entertain and amuse, and always with a serious undercurrent we can respond to or ignore as we see fit. If I were ever compelled under oath to pick a religion, with the atheist position specifically disallowed on pain of death (hey, it's happened before), I'd go for Buddhism or Wicca. Except in most cases where the atheist position has been disallowed, so have Buddhism and Wicca, ya gotta buy the faith the persecutors are laying out, or they'll shoot you or hang you or burn you or whatever they think is appropriate. Buddhism and Wicca, as far as I know, have never done that.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You always say it so well, so logically, so truthful, so real. But the realization that I won't be here
when we all finally know how it all started, irks me, it really does.

Blessings upon you too. With me you know, flattery will get you anywhere you want to go...

I know what you mean. I want to live long enough to learn everything I want to know. I know I won't, and that seriously annoys me sometimes, but it also means I'll never lose interest in the cosmos around me and I'll never be bored. And that's not too bad a trade.

 

[Curiosity]

Dexter is the closest creature who resembles a deity in my thoughts - a teacher of wisdom - never demeaning - having expectation that the listener/reader of his words can comprehend them at their high level.... and he takes time for us....I am in awe of this amazing human.

 

[Minority Observer84]

By saying this opening statement I was by no means comparing the two. I was simply stating that they are both theories, and should both be looked at with open minds.I also never said anything about them being similar or different nor implied that one was more credible than the other. I used the term "theories" because that is what they both are. Also, if you are saying that the Bible is evidence for Creation I highly disagree. It is merely a claim. And you are certainly free to believe that it is superstition if you would like.

Evolution is a theory in the same way as relativity is a theory . A theory has many assertions and it does no become a law until all the assertions are tested and proved .
The Bible is evidence of nothing , it's the basis for the absurd claim that is creation .

You are saying that the topmost layers of the Grand Canyon must be 250 million years old because the radio-isotope testing dates the fossils back to that time? What happened to the Cenozoic Era, and the Mesozoic Era? 250 million years old jumps all the way down to the beginning of the Paleozoic Era? What happened to the first two eras? Or even the first ten Epochs of the Geologic time scale? Did the Grand Canyon not experience these Eras?

This is funny . :lol:
The Grand canyon is a recent occurrence , but the layers of rock it exposes are not , they were initially deposited as marine sediment and it was only millions of years later that grand canyon began to form (About 6 million years ago ) .
​

I am fully aware of how radio-metric dating works. Carbon-14 is a radio active isotope that an organism, when alive, assimilates in proportions determined by it's relative abundance in the environment.C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. From the time an organism dies, it takes 5,730 years for half of the radioactive carbon-14 to decay: Half of the remainder of C-14 will decay in the next 5,730 year half life. And half of that remainder will decay in another 5,730 years. And it repeats itself, over and over again. Although this sounds great in theory it has an assumption. The assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always remained constant!

No that is not an assumption , Carbon dates are calculated using calibration curves which are in turn confirmed by atmosphere tests on frozen ice cores and dentrochronology( Study of tree rings)

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C-14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Again no one is dumb enough to assume that the amount of carbon in the air is constant . Also carbon dating is only effective to about 58000-60000 years(After which so little carbon remains that it's impossible to evaluate ) . After that period Radio-Isotope testing takes over , a refined mathematical process that although it does have an error range is very small . It's based on the purity of the sample so modern spectrometers are designed to prevent sample contamination .

If you pour a cup of water in a bowl with dirt the dirt will not remain unmoved. It will scatter throughout the bowl with the water and will soon settle into level layers. The layers of the Grand Canyon did not have to turn into rock during the flood. They just had to settle into layers. The rest of the water that remained on top of the canyon during the flood would have ultimately put alot of pressure on the freshly settled layers and would have found the weakest spot in the floor of the canyon to drain. The water would have then taken the easiest route to drain, and would have continued on it's path eroding the layers very quickly since the layers had not turned into stone yet.

The layers of sediment are not all the same age which would mean that for your idea to work the flood must have happened outside our time/space to affect all the sedimentary layers before they became solid(????).

Have you ever noticed the inconsistent elevation of the rim of the Grand Canyon or in near surrounding areas where there are rolling dips and peaks in elevation. Have you ever noticed that even thought the inconsistencies of the elevation of the top of the canyon remain the layers inside the canyon remain to be rather consistent and level?

I thought we went over that angular unconformities are not uncommon in sedimentary rocks .

The floor of the ocean is very inconsistent. It has dips and peaks very similar to what we see in an aerial photograph of the top and surrounding areas of the Grand Canyon. These dips and peeks that we see on the top of the canyon , and surrounding areas, could be explained by them being engulfed with water, and made by the currents of the water as the water drained away, and the consistent layers that we see inside the canyon can be explained by Hydrologic Sorting of sediment into level layers while it was surrounded in water, and the canyon itself could have been formed rapidly by the draining waters from the flood.

Sedimentary layers cannot form rapidly they are deposited one over the other over millions of years . As for Hydro-logic sorting , the scientific observation is that water would sort matter according to density . So if the grand canyon was created by hydro-logic sorting of one major event you would expect the denser sediments to settle on the bottom with lighter less dense sediment place on top , surprisingly enough the opposite is true in other words heavier strata on top of lighter layers case in point , the incidence of limestone strata overlaid by granite .

Polystrate trees have been found all over the world. I do not believe that they cut through the rock, as this would be quite absurd. Although, It does make sense that during the flood that they were surrounded with sediment layers, and some even knocked down by the water current. Have you noticed that in petrified forests trees often lean or lay in the same direction? It's almost like they were being pushed or pulled in the same direction by something. Maybe the flood waters! Or maybe it was coincidence!

Yes the idea of trees cutting through rock is absurd , cutting through different dating zones even more absurd and the idea of the grand canyon being creating by a flood also absurd . Now I can find no pictures of these leaning trees you speak of but even if they are , it is probable they were formed by local flood events , remember there are 18 separate layers of petrified trees there is no one one big flood would be able to knock all these trees down because they are not the same age . Unless of course the flood occurred outside our space/time(????) and was able to affect all the forests at once .

 

[talloola]

Blessings upon you too. With me you know, flattery will get you anywhere you want to go...

I know what you mean. I want to live long enough to learn everything I want to know. I know I won't, and that seriously annoys me sometimes, but it also means I'll never lose interest in the cosmos around me and I'll never be bored. And that's not too bad a trade.

My daughter is part of the 'sophian nosticism', and they believe that when one dies, the energy in the
body leaves and returns to a 'certain' area of the universe, a large dark place that is 'actually'' there.
(this is not me talking, don't forget that). And, that energy stays there for 'however long it needs to
before it returns to unite with a 'new' human.
That would be great, cause I could come back a few hundred hears from now and check in to see
how we're doing, just wishful thinking, as I know better.


What I do like about that belief is that, they are loving of everyone, and don't preach, and don't
criticize, similar to eastern buddism, but is a western belief system. They do deep meditation
and when one is a 'master', they can go beyond meditation and actually 'see' others in their
places,---- oh, now I'm really fading, as I got off this train a few stations back.

I chat with her from time to time about her beliefs, as I like to learn about it, just to know.
She is very happy with it, and will be going to Sacremento for some 'lessons' soon, up till now
she practices here, but does all of her studying through the internet and books.

Are you familiar with this belief?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter is the closest creature who resembles a deity in my thoughts -...

<blush> aw shucks...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

My daughter is part of the 'sophian nosticism', and they believe that when one dies, the energy in the body leaves and returns to a 'certain' area of the universe, a large dark place that is 'actually'' there.
...
Are you familiar with this belief?

No, I've never encountered that particular idea, though there's a lot of similar stuff around. Even if it's true though--highly improbable, in my view, as you no doubt could have guessed, and no more provable or disprovable than any other such claim--it's clear that you don't remember what you learned the last time around, so when your body energy returns to another body, you have to start all over again anyway. I don't see the point of coming back if the past has been blanked, you won't know you've come back, it'll still look like this life is the only one you get.

 

[talloola]

No, I've never encountered that particular idea, though there's a lot of similar stuff around. Even if it's true though--highly improbable, in my view, as you no doubt could have guessed, and no more provable or disprovable than any other such claim--it's clear that you don't remember what you learned the last time around, so when your body energy returns to another body, you have to start all over again anyway. I don't see the point of coming back if the past has been blanked, you won't know you've come back, it'll still look like this life is the only one you get.

And, it is, and that is the 'rub' for the believers, they can't come to terms with that, it is horrifying
for them, what is the point, they say. Our lives are the point, our lives are wonderful, and we don't
totally leave, our children are here, then, their's, and so it continues.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Our lives are the point...

My sentiments exactly. The only thing we know for sure, that we can prove, about these matters is that we have THIS life, so the smart thing to do with it, it seems to me, is to live it on the assumption that it's the ONLY one we're going to get. I wish I'd come to that bit of wisdom a little earlier than I did, there are a couple of people I'd have been a lot nicer to and I'd have fewer regrets over some of the hurtful things I did to people who deserved better from me.

But we're getting a long way away from creationism versus evolution... Except that evolution can provide reasoned explanations of "bad" behaviour in terms of self-interest while the only insight creationism can offer is that you're evil, which isn't very useful information even if it's true.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

The reason you are denying reincarnation is due to not remembering?
Your energy returns to another body???.....
Funny way of looking at it for me. Why do you need to remember? Whats so important, your pin number? Is all this stuff so important you need to remember it.Whats so important about Dexter that isn't happening almost exactly in so many other people right now ...when dexter ceases to be will there still be similiar people with similiar bent...sure there will...sooooo whats the big whoop?

In other news.

You are stuck in Dexter. You think Dexter continues or stops . You don't really know what Dexter is , and you make assumptions of where and what parts of Dexter go or stay or discontinue.your very comfydo in Dexter aren't ya?

The one law of physics that energy changes but is always constant....no more no less in all of existance......

And erm yeah you only have this life Dexter as Dexter....you actually don't really have it all . it's being held together by so many other variables and is very fragile in fact. It' s more like your watching dexter exist and amass earthly knowledge and expierence the human form and is like lost in the human form.

So many things happened from conception to form a unique though.... it's always a one off.....

I think yer gonna put another nickel into the machine again though ...you can't resist now can you...

 

[mrmom2]

Damn Sinister i'd a thought you'd finished this arguement by now 8OYou are persistant fellar :lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Damn Sinister i'd a thought you'd finished this arguement by now 8OYou are persistant fellar :lol:

I never surrender. Never.


And Doc, I'm not denying reincarnation (though I strongly doubt that it happens), my point was that I am infinitely curious, I want to know everything that's knowable and I can't possibly live long enough to do that, but coming back multiple times with your memories blanked every time is functionally the same as going around only once. If I could come back understanding everything I currently understand about physics, for instance, by the end of my next life I might have some hope of fully comprehending the mathematics of string theory, then in the next one I could move on to loop quantum gravity theories, without having to grope through all the basics again.

 

[talloola]

;-)

Damn Sinister i'd a thought you'd finished this arguement by now 8OYou are persistant fellar :lol:

A great intelligent mind, which also contains 'pure common sense', is the cream that rises to the top, and tells all of us what we need to think about.
OK, that's it, I won't gush over him any more, it'll get sickening, if not allready. ;-)