Science and the meaning of life

The meaning of life is to someday destroy the Universe to give rise to a new, because everything that has a beginning has an end...

JetRanger
JetRanger wrote:
In short, God either does not exist or he wants me to think he's gone, or he simply doesn't care about us.
And I have no reason to think otherwise (even if I wanted to), if he himself will not reveal anyway.
Under one way or another you're still mean something very visible/the visible and the invisible from the category until you see it-I will not believe, for example, something like falling from the sky with a suitcase of money after the phrase God, if you exist, give me a million. Only now with a fright, God should turn into a goldfish/Gina, to fulfill the whims of men and to adjust them?

A. Soldier of Light
Not necessarily, God could do his work without the knowledge creation, where it all happened. Otherwise it is just that you speak for Him as if you know/understand His plan and obzar thinking (a projection of human thought onto God, Oh, how funny it looks) =]
I don't speak for him, and no one's thinking he is not credited. I judge him from the outside, based on elementary understanding of what it means to be interested in the welfare of living, feeling, intelligent beings whom you have created a great love.

If God is not even important we know about it or not (not to mention the nuances), then what kind of love of creation can there be? It is certainly incomprehensible to us in itself, but talk with us in which we can understand the language - is it really so difficult? If God is not indifferent to"the crown of creation, he would support a dialogue with him. Otherwise, he is indifferent.

And is that a statement or an assumption? 8) Gone, you see, in a future Europe and then to Asia and America (even so, in both!)...
Yes, even so. Have you heard about the resettlement of peoples, the migrations of the tribes, the settlement of the continents and Islands? Similarly, the left-behind traces and other evidence (e.g., genetic), it is possible in General to learn about the course of settlement even more ancient people. Anthropology as it explores, among other things.
Or do you think that the Indians right away in America - puff! and appeared as the respawn?
JetRanger wrote:
in related species of the genus Homo is easy to get confused - they are often too similar to each other, so sometimes it's hard to judge where a species or race, and even more difficult to determine who's who as a relative was.

Well nefig and then to say that man evolved from monkeys(podobnych ancestors) -)
Read the quoted part of my comment carefully. Especially where a bold font.

Many of the remains are so similar to each other that even inter-species boundaries difficult to draw. It tells about the relationship. Transitional forms in this case, assign it is very difficult not because candidates for this role not found, but because they are too much. Genealogy of our (as any other) species is not a neat straight branch on the evolutionary tree, it is rather thick twisted Bush. Direct branches only in textbooks drawing, for simplicity.

Here's the missing links - the missing such that as much the eyes diverge.

Although to be honest, even if not to take into account the paleontological findings, our affiliation to primates still obvious. So just because you don't appreciate evidence of the past, maybe we should look at the current state of Affairs in the living world?

Why so few? Continue the chain in the reverse order: who was Australopithecus, and so on.
This is so important in our case? The Australopithecines - not humans, their brains were no more chilpancingo. But we're talking sort of about the evolution of people.
The answer read, but the conclusion is not a fact that is true.
What exactly don't you agree?

Len4ik00N
Under one way or another you're still mean something very visible/the visible and the invisible from the category until you see it-I will not believe
Yes.
for example, something like falling from the sky with a suitcase of money after the phrase God, if you exist, give me a million
No.
Only now with a fright, God should turn into a goldfish/Gina, to fulfill the whims of men and to adjust them?
Should not, the fact of the matter is.
The only thing we need from him is clearly to make themselves known. After all, we're supposed to be for him something more than lab rats, isn't it?

JetRanger
JetRanger wrote:
If God is not indifferent to"the crown of creation, he would support a dialogue with him.
And he supports. How many believers who were convinced in the existence of God in his personal spiritual experience (e.g. follow the moral law and estimating the full height of his). But such an argument allegedly is refuted by the crazy or illusions that is the fit in favor of atheism. The atheist does not want to verify the existence of God, he needs to reject it at any cost. That God should make you think of? Send pink rays to the Earth, to all at once (not individually) made sure of his existence? And what is the meaning of faith then, in the trial and redemption?

The meaning of life in having fun?And how it should work on the example of my friend: he likes kids, but he's not pedobira, but wants to sleep with a teenager.No Chikatily, normal soft sex.But society does not allow him to live a full life and achieve dreams.And it is not a disease and not a perversion: 14 he just realized that he is attracted to boys, now he's older, but desire the same.And that's what you, the sofa philosophers, will tell him that?

JetRanger
JetRanger wrote:
for example, something like falling from the sky with a suitcase of money after the phrase God, if you exist, give me a million

No.
A phenomenon then you need?

Tula Potsik
For such must ravivatsya modern technology. Simulation. Well, it's only abroad maybe in Russia it is impossible. Let him go abroad and expect.

Tula Potsik
well, as if he can have fun but probably if he does not get it - there are voschem so relatively speaking the system of priorities and it is possible to build long-term prognostic implications and weigh their value is absolute and relative in time. and it seems to give pleasure to tillage and Cohanim is like a values in the negative outweighs the value of pleasure and because of this not happening. if viewed as a probability that the action will happen ono less than 0, AZM =0 never happens under such a system of personal values.
elementary logic matematicas model pawson.

Gauguin
And he supports.
What, then, he didn't like me and the other skeptics who genuinely configured to search for the truth about the world.
for example follow the moral law and estimating the full height of his.
Well, moral rules are followed, of course, not only believers. The only difference is that one is seen as a source of morality in God, others in the most advantageous system of social relationships based on the highest possible well-being and empathy toward our fellowmen.
I think we already talked about this before.
But such an argument allegedly is refuted by the crazy or illusions that is the fit in favor of atheism.
Insanity is, of course, absolutely extreme case. But the illusion - Yes, a lot of them in the life of any of us. From the illusions of one are not free. In this respect, the difference between skeptics and believers - that are not afraid to admit the fallacy of their beliefs and change their opinions in light of new data, while the second would rather turn a blind eye to the real facts, but would not undermine the usual views.

There is still a purely emotional motives for religious belief, when a person is, roughly speaking, very good during prayer or sacraments, for example. Or they saw the meaning of his life in a particular doctrine. Or religion for them is a source of comfort and support in difficult circumstances.

I don't think you're going to deny all this. Purely human propensity for errors and the strong dependence on emotion is an inevitable part of our lives. Where did you see fit under atheism - absolutely incomprehensible.

The atheist does not want to verify the existence of God, he needs to reject it at any cost.
An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God/gods.
And that's all.
No more, no less.

The reasons for disbelief can be different in different people. In most cases, and in mine, too - it's not to reject any price (incidentally, why?) a basic healthy skepticism.

Someone saw a Bigfoot walking in the mountains? Proof, otherwise I will not believe (and rightly so).
Someone was abducted by aliens? Proof, otherwise I will not believe (and rightly so).
Someone claims that there's some invisible super-being who created the Universe? Proof, otherwise I will not believe (and rightly so).

That God should make you think of? Send pink rays to the Earth, to all at once (not individually) made sure of his existence?
And even if the pink rays as an option. Why not.
And what is the meaning of faith then, in the trial and redemption?
Here is that sense-no, I'm saying.

Faith?
JetRanger wrote:
In all important Affairs of his life, we are guided by logic, reason, and not faith. And rationality the more we have, the more important the job they do. Why is suddenly the Most Important of the Important Issues of Life And Death should be radically contrary, and faith suddenly turns into a virtue?
Test?
And the test, in fact, what? Patience? )) When the Bible says ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, but in real life people years praying for strength in his faith and does not receive the slightest token in response, and the facts about the surrounding world continues to throw more and more doubt... is it a Good test?
And so the story of job's Suffering is the most real sadism.

Redemption?
Redemption to whom? If you are on Christ's Sacrifice, why did God wait thousands of years to send to the slaughter of his son (that would be the incarnation nor meant), and finally leave the land just like before, like he never thought anyone to forgive?
But if you mean the redemption by us of our sins, then I'm, frankly, fed up even to mention the notorious sufferings of the innocent.

Len4ik00N
A phenomenon then you need?
What can you organize it? ))

Any will do, if only I understood what this God is and what he wants from me.

JetRanger
JetRanger wrote:
What can you organize it? ))
yeah, like in the movie Bruce Almighty))
JetRanger wrote:
Any will do, if only I understood what this God is and what he wants from me.
I already knew, just I would like specifics as an example.

Len4ik00N
I would like specifics as an example.
For example, the knowledge that medical right in the head. Or something like voices from within, which would be to say, ask him questions and he answered them and at the same time tells other important information. And so I decided that was crazy, this information should correspond to the real world. That is, for example, the voice said something very specific and verifiable, and I went and checked. For example, he told me this: Now that guy will do this and that then I look at the selected person and see how he makes predicted. And such precision checks should be enough so that it was clear to me that this is not coincidence, not hallucinations and are not set up by someone a trick, but something really outside the laws of physics.

Then, the Voice could synchronize their messages in the minds of many people so that each of them saw that with all the other same thing happens.

It will be the most that neither is a Universal Revelation. To this version - it is working but certainly not the best - thought of just a mere mortal, so God is even more able to organize such.

JetRanger wrote:
I judge him from the outside, based on the elementary understanding that...
Judge, based on the fact that they are able to recognize and understand your human brain. That's what matters. Who said that God is a three-dimensional creature? How many dimensions exist? If we are not able to know what lies beyond the fifth dimension, you know the plan of God can not even dream ;]

JetRanger wrote:
It is certainly incomprehensible to us in itself, but talk with us in which we can understand the language - is it really so difficult?
He tried to do it. The main work - the Bible, the Koran and other things, well, you know. Too many crimes, people are susceptible to temptation, it's a fact. So He pulled away from us, they say, do cook with the porridge ) Maybe one of us will be able to rise, but now it's harder to do. Although the world population is large, so statistically all is fine 8)

JetRanger wrote:
Or do you think that the Indians right away in America - puff! and appeared as the respawn?
Of course, as with all types of animals. BAM - and there was a deer, and there's the tiger, both by themselves and not as from the point of view of evolution: from small mammals. This theory of creation, and it is a position of faith. Science is not, science needs to find out the truth to all, so there was no need *to believe*. Question: can science? Pull it? Obviously trying to do it, but with origin of species, obviously, makes it not very convincing. Yes, and what else? The theory of evolution on the example of transformation of one species into another to prove Oh so easy, and the more highly developed animals we take as an example, the harder that is to do. Not make, exact. Was not done, has not been proven, and Yes it can not be due to objective reasons, as I said. And if belief in creation will remain, and it is not a paltry one million people among seven billion, no, it's billions of inhabitants. And here is how they are stupid, and you're smart - leave with 8)

JetRanger wrote:
It tells about the relationship.
The similarity of the DNA of chimpanzees and humans suggests that this shaggy creature is practically my brother. It's funny, but leave me the right to think otherwise, lol =]

JetRanger wrote:
maybe we should look at the current state of Affairs in the living world?
Worth it. Looked. Evolution is not observed. New species found, but only among the very small creatures (insects, more than 90% of all species on the planet), or in the depths of the ocean. Nothing really new.

JetRanger wrote:
This is so important in our case? The Australopithecines - not humans, their brains were no more chilpancingo. But we're talking sort of about the evolution of people.
The same issue: fundamentally it is about people? But if I want to see the next chain of Australopithecus? Well, because... all humanoid, from whom we supposedly went to, do something from someone went? From the monkeys. What kind of - tell me the chain continue...

JetRanger wrote:
The answer read, but the conclusion is not a fact that is true.
What exactly don't you agree?
The question here does not make sense, there's just nothing to continue the line of discussion, I point put ) What I meant: that the conclusion is interesting, but not the fact that the true. Point. Regarding intuition. That is just your or someone's opinion, and it is impossible to prove in any way. But it has a right to exist, as the theory of evolution.

A. Soldier of Light
Judge, based on the fact that they are able to recognize and understand your human brain. That's what matters.
Yes. And God, if we something stand should, in theory, to condescend to our level to interact with us. If this interaction is not attended to, then we do not need him.
Who said that God is a three-dimensional creature?
I do not know.
If we are not able to know what lies beyond the fifth dimension, you know the plan of God can not even dream of
And what is there to understand? He either loves us or not. Believers say that the first real world screams the second.
He tried to do it. The main work - the Bible, the Koran and other things, well, you know.
Notably he tried. )) The Almighty, th.
Too many crimes, people are susceptible to temptation, it's a fact. So He pulled away from us, they say, do cook with in their porridge
Good parents do not give up on their children, especially if they get in trouble.
BAM - and there was a deer, and there's the tiger, and both by themselves
M-m-magic! XD
Question: can science? Pull it?
Well, given that science is the only way of knowing reality that works... something tells me that, Yes. ))
Obviously trying to do it, but with origin of species, obviously, makes it not very convincing.
Yeah, not convincing to those who do not want to understand even the basics and is confident in the wrong professionals.
The theory of evolution on the example of transformation of one species into another to prove Oh so easy, and the more highly developed animals we take as an example, the harder that is to do. Not make, exact. Was not done, has not been proven, and Yes it can not be due to objective reasons, as I said.
And nevertheless - what do you think? - it has been proven, as I said. And your objective reasons are reduced (as I understand) to okolofilosofsky formalism. Type, the skeleton of a man in the land - no proof that this man ever lived, dinosaur bones - not proof of the dinosaur, etc. But the photo giant skeletons you suddenly gain probative value is really worse than all of the remains found.
And if belief in creation will remain, and it is not a paltry one million people among seven billion, no, it's billions of inhabitants.
Yes, even trillions. )) The truth dictate not individual people and not a random majority. The truth is manifested in facts and their consideration by the scientific method.
And here is how they are stupid, and you're smart - leave with 8)
Where did I say that?
People always something wrong. And I including. And try to fix it whenever possible. At what here nonsense?
Among the creationists is full of normal, adequate personalities. Not their fault that the pastor in their local Church, teachers in the Sunday school, abundant Christian books and third-rate science curriculum created around them such unscientific environment.
The similarity of the DNA of chimpanzees and humans suggests that this shaggy creature is practically my brother.
The similarities not only in DNA. The most striking resemblance on the outside. In the childhood I lost faith in the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and eve, as soon as I saw the monkey skull in one book. And their hands, eyes, ears, intelligence? Did you know that apes can be taught human sign language, and they will then say what they want and what you feel? And our hairs all over the body, which seems not necessary, but they are still there (even there where I would not want them to have)? And the wisdom teeth, this relic of the days when jaws were larger? And off a gene for synthesis of vitamin C, just like apes?
It's funny, but leave me the right to think otherwise, lol =]
In what sense leave, what have I do? These are the facts - an obstinate thing, that they must be reckoned with.
Worth it. Looked. Evolution is not observed.
Looked bad, because then suddenly:
New species found, but only among the very small creatures (insects, more than 90% of all species on the planet), or in the depths of the ocean. Nothing really new.
The question is, what does the new species. I don't about them then spoke, and the obvious kinship of the living groups of organisms.
And in case you say similarity doesn't mean relationship, then the relationship is the only logical conclusion. Adequate alternative explanations exist. Standard It's all God! not a ride, because it explains the same as M-m-magic!, and also adds extra unprovable figure into the equation.
But if I want to see the next chain of Australopithecus?
Well, proconsul at the moment is considered the common ancestor of the genus Homo and modern hominids. The role of the common ancestor of all the apes good archibus. If further back, then one of the first primates were purgatorius outwardly resembled the modern tree shrew. Even then - with the first Mesozoic placentals, tiny night creatures like shrews...
What I meant: that the conclusion is interesting, but not the fact that the true. Point. Regarding intuition. That is just your or someone's opinion, and it is impossible to prove in any way.
This is not my opinion, and even in General not an opinion at all. It is scientifically proven pattern. It is pretty obvious, if you think logically with enough information on the subject, but to officially confirm extra time never hurts.

JetRanger wrote:
And God, if we something stand should, in theory, to condescend to our level to interact with us.
So. Used to directly communicate with people (when officially no civilizations were not...), then through the teachings (books like the Bible, etc.). It's all there. And not because there is a saying God works in mysterious ways? ;]

JetRanger wrote:
He either loves us or not. Believers say that the first real world screams the second.
Summarize what was said earlier, and I withdraw the question.

JetRanger wrote:
M-m-magic! XD
No, it's science too. Divine level ^_^ Well, somehow... to create planets and stars, to sculpt creatures from molecules, cells and so on.
Time is relative and irrelevant, the speed of light - nothing, the manipulation of matter - ordinary matter, as the two fingers as they say ))

JetRanger wrote:
Well, given that science is the only way of knowing reality, which...
By the way, when you were little, did you know the world without scientific articles and textbooks, you just used your innate five senses. Not the fact that they are *only* five, by the way, but that's not it. The knowledge comes not through feelings of others, namely yours. Science simply structures a General knowledge of civilization and allows *better* to know the world.

JetRanger wrote:
And your objective reasons are reduced (as I understand) to okolofilosofsky formalism. Type, the skeleton of a man in the land - no proof that this man once lived
False judgment, and I'm surprised this situation. I thought you understood my position. Of course, the fingerprints in the apartment at the murder scene suggests that there could be the owner of these fingers, although probably another conclusion (that the prints brought back to substitute someone). The bones are real physical objects, and scientific method allows us to determine their authenticity or falsification. If they are genuine, then the dinosaur *was in fact*.

JetRanger wrote:
The truth is manifested in facts and their consideration by the scientific method.
However, the truth, the reality - for me it's the same thing. Really don't depend on anything, it's a given. Our methods of cognition only allow you to learn a piece of reality that is reality. Not always accurately and completely, by the way.

JetRanger wrote:
And here is how they are stupid, and you're smart - leave with 8)
Where did I say that?
Nowhere is my style like this 8) I mean, I guess *someone* could say so, heard it already. And once I had told, that nobody would say this sentence, otherwise it will look like a woodpecker ))

JetRanger wrote:
In the childhood I lost faith in the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and eve
Well done, I disbelieved a lot later ^_^

JetRanger wrote:
The question is, what does the new types
Perhaps if that is not the fact that they appeared now thanks to the evolution. That is, such assumption has the right to live, but it's just a guess.

JetRanger wrote:
Adequate alternative explanations exist
From the point of view of materialism only one explanation *adequately*: the theory of evolution ^_^

JetRanger wrote:
The role of the common ancestor of all the apes good archibus.
But the question was not about ancestor apes, and about the almost-human. Well, Australopithecus common ancestor, right? And where did he go? Or again Bang and came out as? )

JetRanger wrote:
tiny night creatures like shrews...
And they went well, just all other mammals. Bears, tigers, elephants... How cute. However, *believe* in it everyone has a right )

A. Soldier of Light
God works in mysterious ways
Here! )) Here it is, what is all the talk about God inevitably converge. It means, translated into everyday language, Don know.

And that ignorance in itself is not bad. The bad thing is that God (if there is one) allows us in it, because such attitude to us does not correspond to what we call love.

Summarize what was said earlier, and I withdraw the question.
What was said earlier - what is this mysterious? So in fact the answer is know does not remove the question.
No, it's science too. Divine level ^_^ Well, somehow... to create planets and stars, to sculpt creatures from molecules, cells and so on.
Time is relative and irrelevant, the speed of light - nothing, the manipulation of matter - ordinary matter, as the two fingers as they say ))
Well, I say, magic. Differences do not. That the magician is manipulating the matter that God. The latter is more skill in the business.
By the way, when you were little, did you know the world without scientific articles and textbooks, you just used your innate five senses.
A little more than enough. But one senses there's a lot you don't know. You'll know just enough to navigate the immediate surroundings. And what a dazzling disc floats across the sky each day that the flashing point vsypayut the night sky, why it rains, why the snowflakes are so beautiful, why birds fly, and dogs - no, and generally where it all came from and why it is so, and not another? It has no auxiliary means will not answer.
The knowledge comes not through feelings of others, namely yours.
Been to Australia? I don't. I read about it in books and seen in films, learned about it through other people's feelings. The fact that I saw with my own eyes the letters on the page with the image on the screen - would not have had if for me did not see it first someone else. So from other people's feelings we can not get away. Progress in knowledge, technology, and culture in General - especially collective effort.
Science simply structures a General knowledge of civilization and allows *better* to know the world.
Better to know" means to add new knowledge to the existing. Already don't just structures.
I thought you understood my position. Of course, the fingerprints in the apartment at the murder scene suggests that there could be the owner of these fingers, although probably another conclusion (that the prints brought back to substitute someone). The bones are real physical objects, and scientific method allows us to determine their authenticity or falsification. If they are genuine, then the dinosaur *was in fact*.
Then it is clear.
Although what was all the fuss about evidence and facts against evolution... Well, not to digress more than necessary.
However, the truth, the reality - for me it's the same thing. Really don't depend on anything, it's a given. Our methods of cognition only allow you to learn a piece of reality that is reality. Not always accurately and completely, by the way.
Hmm... Yes, it is.
In light of this, again, your eternal claim to the evolutionary theory became even more confusing.
why neponyatnogo see.

We have a scientific method of knowledge, - not perfect, but the only truly reliable one available.
Therefore, for a better life to live according to the picture of the world that is revealed through it.
And this same method applied to wildlife, nedvosmisleno indicates its evolution, and nothing else.

Suddenly you come and start revealing doubt in this part of the world. Well, if that is indeed the question, and not a blind denial in the style of I don't like to come from monkeys, you are right. But doubt it is necessary at all, but I don't see you doubted his alternative explanation of the diversity of living forms.
JetRanger wrote:
The question is, what does the new types

Perhaps if that is not the fact that they appeared now thanks to the evolution.
So you were, I thought were talking about the new types, not new. Something about insects, the depths of the ocean...
From the point of view of materialism only one explanation *adequately*: the theory of evolution ^_^
True. So you deny evolution because you don't like your theism allows you to explain biodiversity differently?
But the question was not about ancestor apes, and about the almost-human. Well, Australopithecus common ancestor, right? And where did he go?
From monkeys among their ancestors. And those already from a common ancestor of monkeys - Arizona or his close relative. Specific fossil from avstralopiteka don't remember, I briefly read somewhere a long time ago. Could Google specifically for you, but I'm not sure whether it makes sense. What you want to say to these questions?
Or again Bang and came out as? )
Lol, what do you mean again? )) Not pointing any fingers, but I'm not here insist on the theory of Magic Respawn.
And they went well, just all other mammals. Bears, tigers, elephants...
...And initially all generally unicellular goes.

If you knew the device of living creatures, is incredible you would have seen a slender pattern and even the inevitability of the gradual changes accumulate.

How cute.
That is really cute, so is outsider challenging the experts: I am a creationist, I'm smarter than all the biologists in the world!
However, *believe* in it everyone has a right )
Again, in the evolution of life believe has as well as in the evolution of languages. That is no way. Everything (and I mean literally, absolutely, absolutely EVERYTHING) what do we know about the living world, inexorably points to the origin of one species from other. Other logical options is not stupid, even if you're a believer, even an atheist.

JetRanger wrote:
That is really cute, so is outsider challenging the experts: I am a creationist, I'm smarter than all the biologists in the world!
Stuff you wouldn't believe, but it happens. Rebate better in other topics, not here ) You know exactly what I presented to scientists and experts, I do not consider myself smarter than all that nonsense? )

JetRanger wrote:
And that ignorance in itself is not bad. The bad thing is that God (if there is one) allows us in it, because such attitude to us does not correspond to what we call love.
Well, your opinion I noted, I have another and I gave it ;]

JetRanger wrote:
So in fact the answer is know does not remove the question.
This is your answer, I said otherwise. But in General, Yes, we don't know where did the Creator not know, believers this question do not need to worry due to the lack of sense in it (the answer is no and will not be the same, so you have to ask? besides, you need to ask Him, not me, so 8))...
Now the rhetoric in your address (eye for eye): where did the point of singularity and why she was exploded and begin the process of building the Universe?

JetRanger wrote:
Been to Australia? I don't. I read about it in books and seen in films, learned about it through other people's feelings
You don't know Australia until you've been there in person. Read all you want, it doesn't change the fact that *you were not there and did not personally seen*. Or do you have the audacity, let's say, reading about Australia books and watching that *you know Australia*? ))

JetRanger wrote:
And this same method applied to wildlife, nedvosmisleno indicates its evolution, and nothing else.
Points - Yes, proves - not. Recognizing this, the problem will be solved.

JetRanger wrote:
and I don't see you doubted his alternative explanation of the diversity of living forms.
Right, I am a believer in God. And? 8)

JetRanger wrote:
talked about the new types, not new
A fine line, obviously. New species may be new to us, and suddenly it appeared just now? It is not known how )

JetRanger wrote:
you deny evolution
Not quite, I deny the conclusion that all subsequent species evolved from previous, as the conclusions are evidence. I repeat: learn the bones and the molecules of the blood of extinct animals as you like, this will never prove that one evolved from that. This is an assumption and nothing more.

JetRanger wrote:
your theism allows you to explain biodiversity differently?
You know that, why ask ) God created - here is a brief if. Well, Yes, I disagree with versions seven days or seven thousand years, the scientific method is accurate enough to determine the age of rocks, no problems here I see.

JetRanger wrote:
From monkeys among their ancestors.
Yes, I know, but from whom exactly were the Australopithecus that? Everyone is trying to get an answer, seems to be just for the theory of evolution, no? )

JetRanger wrote:
...And initially all generally unicellular goes.
Well, what are we talking about the same nonsense...))

A. Soldier of Light
I propose to continue here:
http://forums.playground.ru/talk/society/teoriya_darvina_8212_lozh-936042/

And then almost the same thing in two topics you write.

I also don't like that the two topics are one and the same. The meaning of life, life itself and its development, faith in God - all this is intertwined with the theme of evolution, that is the scientific side of the issue...
But I know who to blame. JetRanger ^_^ It at us fiercely defends evolution. Unlike some others, however, it does it adequately. But more about that in another topic...