Life began 25 years ago

I was just thinking, this could all be an illusion anyway. I have had some conscious appreciation that a world surrounds me since I was born. But like my little black and white cat, do I really know what lies beyond "the view from my window"? If God exists, and he were an all-powerful one, would he not have the power to confuse my very senses? Evolution is a scientific matter, with (please admit it) some faith intersparsed, while religious beliefs are mostly belief with maybe some personal scientific experience behind it which cannot be shown and surely never proven to other people. It is personal if you believe, even if you have scientific evidence in your experience. But everyone may want to look inside themselves for just a few moments and realize that they are, in whatever form, a unique personality. I am not you nor can I see through your eyes. An individual am I. Personally, when I look deep enough, I see that the universe need not even exist though it seems to sure enough. What would space be without things inside it? Eternally nothing? Yessiree! What would I be if my mother had waited 31 _more_ days before my father was empassioned with the urge not to use a condom? Well, I dunno, do you? Stretch that back in time, what would my father have been if his parents had waited 31 days to have him, a cell flushed down the toilet? And his father, and his--back thousands of generations. Ever played the lottery? Wow, I feel like an individual soul looking out through these human eyes. I feel so lucky I can't believe it, I must have been placed here. No scientific jargon to cloud your thought, I think I really existed before being placed in this body. Call it eternality, or what you will, either the odds are in my favor or I am one of God's children. Can anyone say one way or the other?
-Brian (who is not a Christian, though maybe Christ is God, or maybe Krishna is, or maybe Allah, or maybe God is just laughing at us for even thinking we know!)

But of course someone would have to inhabit this body, else I be dead. But the difference is that I have a consciousness and can look out from within. I do not feel as a robot which would inhabit the body as the product of some chance arrising. It to me is not chance, but a certainty that I would be in a body, any body. Take, for example, the University professor who has created a digital similation of evolution with little digital organisms who reproduce more efficiently as a reward for performing well a certain process in the computer program. Interesting idea, but now think if those little digital organisms have a consciousness like you and I. We exist as separate living entites, while the digital entites in this man's computers have no such thing. Or do you believe they do? Afterall, to those digital organisms, they have electronic form, function, maybe even a name, and a Universe too. Yet do or could they ever have the consciousness that you and I share? Consciousness seems to me to exist as a product of individual, well, consciousness. Tough to break down further than just the word consciousness. I do not feel to be an evolutionary robot that exists for a short time and then ceases to exist. My existence is a product of something higher than chance, in other words.. Call it what you will, but I am not the only scientific type to believe in something higher, I am no Bible junky, just someone who feels it deep in his gut that there is a greater power which appropriates consciousness to all living beings.
-Brian

"Gosh, I was just thinking that too! What a weird illusion, indeed. I am surrounded by illusions of other entities who seem to be having the same illusion as me!"Ok, you have proven that you are unable to post a kind respectful reply, thanks and hope not to hear back from you..
-Brian

"By comparing something that we can all experience we can narrow down what is personal illusion."Well put, I agree except that an entire society, and everyone in general, could be in illusion to the real reality. Even our collective senses are imperfect and can lead an accepted scientifically observed reality being proven false. I know you know this, it is the nature of science. And I don't propose science just stop in its tracks because "oh no, we might have errors", but all scientists need to recognize that even though evolution is the best theory we have, it may be compltely wrong. And I hope that some are open to admit that should the data lead in that direction.."In the end, the evidence that supports the theory of evolution takes no faith other than admitting that other people exist."Explain this further please. I admit that other people exist. In fact, my stating that this word could be an illusion was not an affirmation that it is, but that it could very well be, we just don't know. You have seen "Matrix", well did the people living their false lives in a computer's imagination find their reality to be illusory?"You are still open to your own interpretation, no matter how foolhardy."Thanks for calling my opinion foolish, I much more respect for you now.

"If you were to draw a card, why is there any significance to the fact that you drew the Ace of Spades as opposed to the Four of Diamonds? Each one was equally likely to appear. The only conceivable difference is that you have attached an emotional significance to one of the cards and not to the other. That is irrelevant and doesn't mean anything."Interesting you should point this out. In an atheistic evolutionary perspective, there are infinite beings that will always be placed into a body, no matter what. But your example of the 52 cards is very similar to what I feel, that there are (even though an incredibly large number) a certain, limited number of souls which have to placed into a body, no matter what. I feel to be one of those "52 cards" which will be drawn for rebirth into another body when I die, lest I exit the cycle of birth and rebirth..

quote:

---

Just because you are uncomfortable with the notion that there may be nothing more than nature does not make it so that there is actually anything more than nature.

---

You tend to think I am scared of one day not existing, when that is not true. How can fear exist if consciousness were to evaporate into nothingness? There is nothing to fear in that.
And please take note, the supernatural, which God is a part of if he exists, is also a part of nature.

quote:

---

There is nothing at all in Evolutionary Theory which requires anyone to think as themselves as a robot, or that nature is all there is.

---

I agree one hundred percent, but my argument rests on the atheistic evolutionary perspective, not a theistic one. An atheistic believer in evolution has a million reasons to justify why his body exists, but, correct me if I am wrong, absolutely none to explain his individuality among other beings. I justify this as follows: Why do you not have a long tongue and live in a swamp with other frogs, instead of having taken up residence in a human body? Notice the difference between "you" and "your body" in the question. Every human being has a complex set of processes firing millions of times every second in their brains. What makes it that _your_ consciousness rules over these processes and resides there instead of in one of the other beings, and at this particular moment in time? In your belief, if your mother had waited 31 days before deciding to have you, would _you_ exist?

quote:

---

No life is a product of chance alone.

​

The Theory of Evolution postulates that chance, in the form of random genetic mutation, combined with natural selection, which is the very opposite of chance, is how species change over time.

​

Evolution, in other words, does not work by random chance alone. Why did you think it did?

---

You stand corrected, the very basis of evolution is the mutation of the reproductive genome, this requires an error in replication, and this error is a product of chance unless one is in a laboratory. Second, this was entirely off my point. Lets get back to it. My existence and my body are two completely different things. So are yours. My body was _sure_ to be born as my mother had to have the baby come out. This was 100% sure even if my body was stillborn. A body exited my mother. But why _me_? Millions of babies are born all the time, each one an individual personality. Each one infused with the something that makes them alive and feeling.
One step further, when someone dies, it is evident that something about the body is different. No one is interested in marrying and starting a family with a beautiful dead body. The spark of life must be there. That is what sets me apart from my body and you apart from yours. Your brain contains your memories, but _you_ are consciousness itself.

quote:

---

Your belief is fine, but if you want to call yourself a "science type", I would suggest that you do some self-education WRT the basics of Biology and what the ToE actually states.

​

You have some major misconceptions.

​

Also, your "gut feelings" are irrelevant to the validity of scientific feelings.

---

You are correct that gut feeling does not play a role in the conclusions science makes. Let me break it down and say it then, you may not believe in God because by first and foremost concluding arrogantly that he probably does not exist (or if you do leave some chance that he may exist, this statement doesn't apply to you). "Hey dad, I know you don't really exist, in fact I dislike the very thought that you may exist, but can I have my allowance now?" No, leave some chance that he may be a kinder God than you ever dreamed, leave some room in your science that he may very well have a place in the Universe, and try to find evidence in the way that God communicates it, and then you will have practical scientific experience of this God who eludes you so. This has been my experience which I can in no way communicate to you because one cannot fathom the idea of God until one has learned to give him a try, see the evidence which most are too proud to try and see, and once you have this, learn to trust him, and eventually love him as you'd love your parents or greater.Look, man, I may have misconceptions about evolution, even though it was my greatest area of interest throughout high school and much of college (Virginia Tech tho we's just a bunch o country bumpkins aint we, uhhuh), but think about this: your stating that I have them implies you have none. This pride in knowing a little bit more than your average fellow implies that real knowledge eludes you. The more one knows, the more one realizes that one does not know. Einstein would have concurred.I'll let bygones be bygones before this turns into Jerry Springer. Let's quit the accusatory tone of our discussions (me too) and get down to the science of it. God has a science too, and it's not in any clear way seen to be the Bible! There are thousands of faiths each with their own beliefs. Yet God is above all human belief, just like, thanks Rrhain, gravity. Many of you, the scientists, myself included whether you like it or not, dislike the Biblical portrayal of God. Thanks India. Not that the Indians have it necessarily right either. But they offered me a new idea of God. Have many of you considered that God can be the most cool, accepting, and kind friend? That he has the best sense of humor, is the nicest of the nice, the biggest party-animal, the biggest woman chaser, the most honorable, the most fun, and that he likes his black and tan just a bit heavy on the Guinness? And yet despite all this, that he would have the greatest humility? Heck no, but hey, anyone who even _may have_ had something to do with making Laeticia Casta can't be all that bad! When I die, I hope to slap the Man some skin and have a few beers at the bar, discuss the pros and cons of evolution theory...-Brian[This message has been edited by brdean, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

Do you consider the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Germ Theory of Disease to be doubtful or uncertain?

​

The Theory of Evolution has just as much, and in some cases, more and stronger evidence to support it than those other theories.

---

The theory of gravity can be witnessed, diseases can be witnessed, the Universe can be seen to turn each day and that the Sun is at the center of our orbit. Having faith in evolution is like having faith that a certain man really is guilty of a crime when no one was there to see it and he left no trace at the scene (yes, I know there are traces left for one to postulate evolution, but no one can witness it in motion). If we then sentence that man to death based on "the best evidence we have," this is not good justice. I completely and thouroughly understand that science must go with what it has to work with, but we cannot call an unobservable phenomenon "certain".
Rrhain says I cannot say that you have "faith" in evolution because "that would be a lie." Is it? You (Rrhain) are certain that your unobservable phenomena is truth? Well, that to me sounds like religion. Everyone saying "Jesus is God" when not a single human being alive today could know, though to them the evidence seems real, concrete. Rrhain is a very religious scientific man, that is my conclusion.
What is observable in evolution theory can be accepted (finches, fish, and hummingbirds adapting to their environments), to say that life came from non-living matter and that humans came indirectly from bacteria, or what have you, and then calling this a certainty--this is bad science. Yet it is common practice. It may be true, but the chickens have not yet hatched...-Brian

quote:

---

This is false...The only thing that is certain is that...I...misunderstand science

---

Does that make you mad? Then don't take quotes out of context.. Conversations are built on previous posts, if you had read my previous ones, I've touched on, and you may see that I agree with, just about everything you wrote. You got me on technical issues, which you would have taken as a given had you read the previous conversation...

quote:

---

This is false. Evolution is presently observed in real time. Take a look at Rrhain's description of a common labratory experiment and other similar evidences in this post here.

---

yes, microevolution. Now pull a rabbit out of your e.coli-test-tube hat.

quote:

---

This is abiogenesis, for which there is no explanation as of yet. The only thing that is certain is that it happened.

---

Another ziontist? Come on, the only thing that is maybe close to certain is that you slept through probability class.Ok, now test for me with your evolution theory, test I did say, as in, "show me the money", as to the missing links in an evolutionary line such as from a cat to a bear or more simply from Lucy our most recent ancestors. You cannot test. You can postulate and theorize by providing more evidence which just proves there are more missing links. I'll make a film for you, and charge you $20, and you'll get to watch my film. At the beginning, there is nothing, at around 20 minutes into my film, you'll see a brief glimpse of a woman. At around 50 minutes into it, maybe if you're not asleep you'll see a brief picture of a naked woman followed at 1 hour by the full scene of a grapefruit in an art museum. Highly erotic stuff, my film, and very convincing that you made a good choice in seeing my film, right? Well, that's what you get when we call a film something which it is not. At least, you'd probably want your money back.
However, if you can justify your faith in evolution--oops, you almost got me, macroevolution with real-time proof, then I'm joining your side.Please check out the previous posts here before jumping to conclusions about my beliefs and "misconceptions"...-Brian

quote:

---

What is the difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"?

​

In biology, "microevolution" is evolution that happens below the species level. "Macroevolution" is evolution that happens above the species level.

---

Your definitions are what I had in mind. The pictures quoted often show a line of somewhat monkey-looking dudes, to a modern human. I see things from your perspective now. At which point in this line back from humans, to the monkey-relative were the number of pairs of chromosomes different than 23? Is there any similar picture or diagram showing how many chromosomes each of these guys had along their journey? And how did the first 23-pair, like us, overcome his chromosome incompatibility with his mate?I guess our trouble lies in what we call microevolution. In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother. While it is seems at first glance a bit too highly specific, it makes perfect sense.

quote:

---

brdean writes:
...to say that life came from non-living matter...

---

quote:

---

ae writes:This is abiogenesis, for which there is no explanation as of yet. The only thing that is certain is that it happened...

​

...it is indeed certain that abiogenesis happened. What is uncertain is how it happened.

---

quote:

---

Rrhain writes: Evolution doesn't say that. Could you find me any peer reviewed journal article that says, "Since life started via abiogenesis"?

---

No, I didn't find any such articles. It does seem though that there is division in the camp over abiogenesis, as shown above. Obviously that one can't be settled today..I read one of your other posts that interested me:

quote:

---

Life could have started chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method I haven't mentioned. So long as that life did not reproduce itself perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

---

Glad to hear some level headedness. I had never heard it put that way by my biology professors. But, and this is no condemnation, you'll probably never get past the blacklist in science if you mention God at all. Just look how often in this thread people related what I said to "Genesis" and creationism like the Bible tells it. It is assumed though I never supported Biblical Genesis even once. All I was saying is as follows:
1. Don't leave God out of the picture
2. Don't put all your eggs in the evolutionary basket
You may not agree, but my agrumentation was never intended to be in any way saying that God DID create the Universe, only that he may have, and that I have a tendency to believe that he played some part, though I do not know which and to what extent.You'll notice I have no dogma, I am open to all possibilities. What angers me is people who dogmatically proclaim scientific truth where there is still uncertainty, even if it is a very convincing bet. The proof of the uncertainty is here: Would we even be having this discussion if there was no debate to be had? There is division among the population, and this means science has not proved itself adequately on the point. It may be adequate for you, but now I have the chance to say that your feelings are irrelevant in the matter. That evolution will have been proved beyond a doubt will be evidenced not before you see the hard-core Christians committing hara-kiri in the streets as their God "has left them".Funny, you stated that being honorable to more than 1 woman is not possible for God, that it is "contradictory." Is it? Maybe the rule of where God lives is happiness without shame? Shame is a man made concept, assuming morality is man made as well. Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong? What makes this bad for God to do so as well? You think he is going to use and mistreat his lovers? Maybe you have the idea of God as a boring old man who has trouble getting around heaven with his walking stick. Maybe you think he doesn't care. Evidence is there for me that God cares about me. I have no business relating to you the signs that God gave me to show me each time I questioned and was in need that he was there. Don't get mad that I can't give you my evidence in scientific terms and repeatable proofs, God is not our order-taker. And I retain this for myself not because I do not want to give it freely, but because it is a personal matter just as you do not share all of your personal experiences with your girlfriend with your buddies. She would be angry, most likely. I have found that when I told even to people close to me, these things that God showed me, that they no longer occurred for a time. Not to mention they thought it too fantastic. ("Oh, that can't be." Is it? "Is anything too wonderful for God?") It was like it was not meant for others to hear until they would learn to open their own hearts and pay attention to what is being shown. If that sounds cheezy to you then find your own way of doing it. God is not limited to how he can communicate with you, try and find a way if you have not already.
Look to books of spiritual wisdom from across the world, not for concrete answers, but for hints at how others have done it, then look inside yourself and find a way which fits you. My only vested interest in this is seeing the world a more loving and happy place. Dogmatism in religion or science has never provided such a thing.------------------
--+--+--+--+--+--+--
1: God is capable of all on all levels
2: Science is capable of all on the material platform only
3: God rules the material platform as well as any other that may exist.
4: Science, and all of its products, is therefore ruled by God.
5: Scietific facts are relative and subject to change.
6: My list may change

quote:

---

Nothing is "proved beyond a doubt" in science. Otherwise, we would never be able to refine or incorporate new, previously unknown data.

---

I am happy to hear someone say this. So are there then two populations of scientists, one which says there are phenomena which are "certain" and they mean it, and those who say there are phenomena which are "certain" but they really mean to say, for the ease of laguage, "pretty certain, but with a very small chance of being false?"

quote:

---

So, you are saying that we should consider suspect a scientific theory that has never been shown to have any major flaws in over 100 years of research and billions of tests of the theory from every field of life and Geologic sciences?

---

No, my feelings which are now disproven by your being "not an atheist" go exactly against what I thought most evolutionists are--replacing God with evolution theory. This was, in fact, my misconception. But now I am beginning to get the impression that it is just the lazy man who replaces God with evolution--the non-scientist. I think it was Lenin who, upon learning of Darwin's theory, said "I knew that God didn't exist, now there is evidence," or something on that order. 90% of the people I have discussed evolution with were in fact atheists. It is interesting that several of you defending evolution haven't proclaimed atheism. And that turns my opinion a 180..

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong?

---

​

No, but what do the women he's chasing think or feel about it?

---

The story of Krishna and his 1000 lovers in Vrindavana should explain this. Quite simply, because Krishna has all good qualities being God, each of the 1000 lovers was in love with him. He would play and chase with them, all of them undeniably crazy about him. And this was on Earth, think of the many more loves he had on his own planet, Goloka? And the men (actually all are young boys)? All his friends, and all friends together. Playing and fighting like young tiger cubs would. And actually it is said that sex is quite rare given the other ever-increasing pleasures available in this "Heaven". Did you know that Krishna was also known as the "Butter Thief" as a young boy? He would go stealing butter from the milkmaidens, all of them transcendentally enjoying this game of then punishing him. It was a joy for everyone, even though it involved something that here on Earth we consider a serious behavioral disorder--theivery. Does that answer the question?

quote:

---

Maybe God is incomprehensible to humans

---

Perhaps your scientific method for finding God needs some mending and a few adjustments? A scientist must admit he is wrong when he cannot find a solution, so perhaps change your method?

quote:

---

That's all very nice, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?

---

You are right, nothing. But this change in allele frequencies in populations over time is all that can be discussed in what I write? If you want pure science talk, you's in the wrong place..

quote:

---

You seem to have this fear of being wrong. But science has no such fear. It embraces being wrong. It knows that everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong. And that's a wonderful, glorious thing because when we find out we're wrong, we have the opportunity to learn something new and become less wrong. Every new discovery, every new observation tells us something we didn't know before and we get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on. We will never know if we ever get it right because we can never see everything. In fact, even if we are right, we'll never know it. But that doesn't deter us.

​

In science, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, you win the Nobel Prize.

---

If that is in fact the way it works, I am happy to hear it. It is truly the way which each individual should conduct his own life, and the direction which society in general would do well to aim.

quote:

---

Invoking capricious, arbitrary entities working on the basis of whim is something that cannot be replicated and thus cannot be a justification for a scientific claim.

​

You will note that I didn't mention god. Just as science ignores the action of god, it also ignores the action of you, and we know you exist. If we're doing an experiment on anti-gravity and we find out that the reason the object isn't falling to the ground is because you're holding it up, we have to discard that data. It had nothing to do with anti-gravity: You were doing it.

---

Something on this order would have knocked my argument off track right from the beginning. Save that thought.

quote:

---

Except for the one that says your god had nothing to do with it.

---

No, I am open to all possibilities. I accept God as you accept scientific fact. I have had repeatable proofs, not when I asked for them for testing purposes, but when I had a genuine need for God whom I've come to depend on as much as or more than my own wife. She always says how independent I am in everything I do, but she does not believe in God like I do, and she does not know the help he has given in all I do, she thinks it "too fantastic" to believe.

quote:

---

If you don't know the fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory, if you are unfamiliar with the data and studies and experiments that are used to justify it, how can you possibly think you are capable of making an informed opinion about it?

---

Since you can obviously see how less understanding I am in the matter, even though it didn't seem to me that I was, I'll have to admit it. Everybody thinking me a unknowledgable on the subject, not much else I can say until I play catch-up with more modern science..

quote:

---

Making someone unhappy by treating them poorly is not an honorable thing to do.

​

"Woman chasing" is not honorable. It's being a jerk.

---

That is, unless the woman being chased is laughing and smiling, and being simply unable to wait until she is caught. That is called playful love. If you don't ever chase your girlfriend around the house, you should start, it's lots of fun. And there's a nice reward for the catch. Lots of laughing and even more smiles! Wow, one could almost call it immoral it is so much fun.. Read my last reply to Schrafinator on the subject.

quote:

---

If god wants to be honorable to more than one woman, then he has to stop chasing them and treat them honorably.

---

He does more than be honorable, he loves them greater than comprehension, and they reciprocate. Again, your idea of God is limited, open yourself to this new idea that he is not sometimes nice and sometimes a bastard, that everything he does is for good and out of love which will come to benefit anyone bestowed this honor of knowing such a great person.

quote:

---

Please answer my question:

​

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Gladly. My understanding is that God allows us to have as free a will as can be allowed in these given constraints. He may, and I like to think, though I have no proof, that he set the Universe in motion (and this does not mean each individual planet). Think of it as God setting the spark and the fire taking over the burning all by itself. In the law of karma, one who is hurt will _have
the opportunity_, though not the obligation, to hurt his perpetrator whether it be in this life or some other, as a frog, or as a human. Given the opportunity to do something inherently bad, you will not always take it. But if you have the urge, it is probably because there is some injustice waiting to be equaled and you can prove your good heart by not taking advantage of that or you can take your "revenge" though you not know the actual event in your past life which makes you want to do harm. So just as gravity pulls you to the Earth, God created the law of karma which allows you to express your free will in a way that keeps the modes of good and evil in harmony. And when you die, either you have achieved a state of goodness high enough to be allowed back a place in "Heaven," or you can continue to roam the material world through countless lives acting out your desires. That does not sound so injust of God, he is giving you a place to be free and independent of him, completely if you so desire. However, if you have a change of heart, then he is there to hear you.
Put simply, the only time God has actively, physically meddled with our independence is when he created the spark which set the Universe in motion, and when he created our Universal laws which science so actively tries to understand and quantify. Then these laws reign, without God's further interpretation, such as the law which governs how you shall be reborn--in a good family or bad, as a higher level species, or a lower level one, all depending on another law, that of karma.
Notice I said he doesn't meddle with our independence. But when you desire God, he seems glad to help in almost any reasonable way.-Brian

quote:

---

There are few of the heathen non-believers here who will argue with this point of view.

---

Did you mean to say there are few or a few? In either case:

quote:

---

Your views are those of many practicing scientists and are not in anyway in conflict with almost all of current science

---

seems to be in conflict with both "few" and "a few". I guess I am lost. And am I being called a non-believer here?[This message has been edited by brdean, 12-17-2003]

quote:

---

Your views are those of many practicing scientists
...
There are only a ... few ... here who will argue with this [brdean's?] point of view.

---

So still something eludes me in these two very contradictory statements-- are there no practicing scientists here? Or are there just not many practising scientists, period? And am I a non-believer though I believe in God? What gives? I give a hundred reasons why I believe in God, and this guy says I am a non-believer. Incredulous.
In addition, it is really silly to use one line of thought to both say "you seem alright, dude" and "you are a filthy heathen non-believer unlike me."
Hey rigid, faith-blinded, and following Nosy Ned, you're a pretty interesting and level headed whiny, snot-nosed Christian who I wouldn't mind getting to know better over a nice cup of tea... oh, Friday afternoon?Look, buddy, I trust in God. PERIOD. Find a way to work an argument in around this seeming paradox.

Might I just add that initially you, NosyNed, come off initially as a really decent guy. I have to wonder why the sly derogatory remark has to even make its way into the theme...
This is an honest question, do you feel a need to provoke personal persecution so that you may relate better to Jesus and the martyrs who came before you? Your statement would have made equally as much sense to anyone reading it without calling me a heathen non-believer. What gives?

quote:

---

However, I do think that you do anthropomorphise god in a way that makes god have what many human males would consider a fantasy sex and party-hearty life.

​

Gee, as a woman, the idea of God as an oversexed drunken fratboy is particulary distasteful.

---

Actually, God can be male or female, being unlimited as he (for ease of language) is. And, in fact, if one equates any "bad" thing on this material platform, he should be able to translate it into a "good" one on the spiritual platform. The whole idea, in my perception, of the material world is that it is a place for us to have our independence from God. That is, we didn't fit well into Heaven so we were allowed to be "bad" down here. Meaning that in "Heaven" most everything is a pleasure which on Earth can be considered to be "bad behaviour". God's abode is transcendent of good and evil. And woman enjoy just as men, there is no taking advantage of one another for love and respect are central.
But that is straying a bit, though I did want to clear it up.

quote:

---

Actually, I would tend to say that it's the lazy person who ignores or rejects science in favor of belief in the supernatural. It's much easier to believe what feels good and reassuring than to, well, not believe that.

---

I would agree but add to that, it is the lazy person who just accepts anything they were fed, whether it be scientific or religious. 99.9% of the fanatic Christians in North America, were they born in Iran or Pakistan, would being shouting "Jihad! Jihad! Kill the Christians!"

quote:

---

So, do you then agree that the Theory of Evolution is valid?

---

Yes I agree the Theory of Evolution is indeed a valid one.