Is Evan Almighty taking it to far?

[Angmar_nite]

Except you can see many evidences in the Book of Genesis.



Pah! I breed horses all the time, there aint nothin UNnatural about it at all mister!



Sure we can! Right now! Look up your bible and go to the first part (its called the Ole Testament) and read the Book of Genesis and be prepared to receive salivation!



I dunno why youre talkin bout surrendering our asylems but I think you oughtta get back on topic now son.

How do you define unnatural? When a scientifically minded person defines it, it means the animals have a small group of other animals chosen for he/she to breed with he/she.

And your "ole" testament contradicts the New Testament on so many levels.

[Gary88]

dont bother yourself with the rev, he's an alt account just trying to get you wound up

[Luftwaffels]

Well, I just saw the movie and found something very interesting in it. I pmed Ozy about the possibility of me writing an editorial over it. So, if he agrees, keep your eyes on the Helios.

[Hjalmar]

It's pretty fair to say that "Evan Almighty" isn't really taking the American tradition of making amazingly stupid, boring, and socially nonredeemable movies. I would say that line was crossed a long time ago.

[Lord Bohemond]

When we humans breed animals toward a specific goal that is UN-natural selection. Natural Selection is aimless, has no goal.

The working theory is that the first life was more similar to the Viruses - RNA.
And viruses are not considered real life, they're considered the tie-in between non-life and life. Of course, we can't know for sure how it started, at least not yet.. but that doesn't mean we have to surrender our mental faculties and say "God did it" - because that answers absolutely nothing. It is a cop-out.

if anyone is "copping out", it is you. So viruses were the first form of life... that still doesn't answer how they originated.

And your "ole" testament contradicts the New Testament on so many levels.

Wow, really? Any other news bulletins you want to share with us?

[mongoose]

if anyone is "copping out", it is you. So viruses were the first form of life... that still doesn't answer how they originated.

Does it matter? We can't answer everything about phyiscs either, that doesn't mean that the field of phyiscs is as absurd as a bunch of ancient fairy tales.

[DisgruntledGoat]

if anyone is "copping out", it is you. So viruses were the first form of life... that still doesn't answer how they originated.

There aren't any answers however there are a good number of models on how life began on earth anyone of which could be correct. Simply typing in Origins of Life into Wikipedia will give you a BRIEF overview of the current models. Some excerps from the article

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.


Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.


The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

Thats the current model basically outlining the development of the building blocks of life from chemicals to actual proteins. This is what you have been demanding. Well there it is. I would suggest reading the whole article of course and if you are still unconvinced there are these things call libraries, check out some text books and get some real in depth knowledge.

[Chaigidel]

@ lord-- they think that the first cellular life could have occured on ocean shores, as the brine, and protiens naturally created "cellular" structures like a series of bubbling chemical pots, being hit by lightning and constantly washed by tides of protien filled seawater (protiens just being a natural state for "organic chemicals"--e.g. natural combinations of known elements into "organic compounds")--- viruses are tricky, but likely developed out of genes forming strong protein shells to protect highly tenacious chromosome/dna strains-- so the dna just kinda made itself a little house like a hermit crab and totes around shooting its dna into unsuspecting cellular entity.

god is not a silly craven Idol like the word "god" or the images of holy books-- these are all false idols :O

Do not deny the sum of human knowledge on the basis of faith , because trust me god does not care if you defend it or not

and plus what goat said :O

[Lord Bohemond]

Yes, I took high school biology. But thanks for the links. What I am asking for is a case where humans actually created life from inanimate, nonliving matter. Until this happens, this is nothing more than speculation.

And let's not forget the principle of the conservation of mass and energy. That original matter that formed the universe had to come from somewhere. Where?

[Chaigidel]

that is a good question--- and obviously approaches the edges of our ability to understand --what happened before the big bang? was anything before it? etc etc..

[Lord Bohemond]

Annd that's what religion is all about.

[Earl of Rochester]

that is a good question--- and obviously approaches the edges of our ability to understand --what happened before the big bang? was anything before it? etc etc..

One theory says the universe is eternal, with no beginning or end. Big bang followed by a big crunch then start the process all over again.

[Lord Bohemond]

I've heard of that. But is it really any better than the God created it theory?

[Rush Limbaugh]

One theory says the universe is eternal, with no beginning or end. Big bang followed by a big crunch then start the process all over again.

Did it start with a bang or a crunch? You have no more idea than you do in the existence of god. It has no more validity than the bible or any other religious text. Its just a guess.

There aren't any answers however there are a good number of models on how life began on earth anyone of which could be correct. Simply typing in Origins of Life into Wikipedia will give you a BRIEF overview of the current models. Some excerps from the article

And all could be wrong and even if one is correct that doesnt mean it wasnt created that way by god.


Besides I though this was about a comedy? Whats the problem here?

I saw Bruce Almighty and thought they were skating on thin ice, but this Evan Almighty movie looks like it could overstep some boundaries. I think it is despicable to make a comedy out of peoples beliefs, anyone else agree?

Is it worse than The life of Brian? That was hilarious

[Juggernaut]

Annd that's what religion is all about.

Then the obvious question would be "where did God comes from"?
And "where did the thing that created God comes from"?
And ad infinitum.
Of course the "explanation" would be "God always existed", but whats the fundamental difference between saying "God always existed who created matters" and "Matters always existed"?

[Rhinosaur]

Matter and the Universe we enjoy need a rational explanation, God does not. YAY GapGod!!

[Rush Limbaugh]

Matter and the Universe we enjoy need a rational explanation, God does not. YAY GapGod

It seems more rational than it just was, The big question then becomes who created god. I find it easier to make a god than a universe I guess. Maybe theres a whole other universe we cant see of gods

[mightyfenrir]

of course not. But this is a commonly accepted understanding of scripture and Christian afterlife.

Indeed, Christian afterlife, I don't believe there is a hell, so in your mind I may go there, but because I don't believe in it, I will never go there because even were I to end up in what you call hell I would not acknowledge that it was in fact hell... unless there was a sign, like now entering Hell, Texas... home of the best chili on this plane of existence... Then I'd be quite happy actually, I like chili. And if hell is me not getting that great chili I'd be okay with that too, because it probably has beef, and I don't eat beef so it makes me vomit.

It seems more rational than it just was, The big question then becomes who created god. I find it easier to make a god than a universe I guess. Maybe theres a whole other universe we cant see of gods

Man created god so he wouldn't feel so alone in the world and to make him feel as though his miniscule life, in comparison to say, a tortoise's life, had a reason and purpose. If man hadn't created something more powerful than himself he would have never had hope during dark times or felt comforted when things were going badly for him and his family/clan/nation. So I think.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Man created god so he wouldn't feel so alone in the world and to make him feel as though his miniscule life, in comparison to say, a tortoise's life, had a reason and purpose

Its a very reasonable theory. But that does not rule out the fact that there still may be a god. It dosent matter if you imagine him or not if hes real. You just are incapable if imaging anything in reality that powerful .

Theres a good book by Frank Herbert about a planet where all the gods live. They live and they die there. When enough beings around the universe believe in a god its born on that planet. When the faith dies the god dies.

Besides there is no god without me.

[Gary88]

its more acceptable to say the big bang just happened or that it was always there than it is to say god just happened or was always there, this is mostly because we know things like the big bang happened or if you wont accept that we know that the effects caused by the big bang exist. this point was well made by Richard Dawkins who to paraphrase basically says that it goes ever so slightly beyond our diminutive human understandings of probabiltiy or acceptance that RNA or DNA happened spontaneously so instead we assume that it was done for us by an omnipoten omnipresent being who created the universe and everything within it. which is more believeable?

Theres a good book by Frank Herbert about a planet where all the gods live. They live and they die there. When enough beings around the universe believe in a god its born on that planet. When the faith dies the god dies.

that reminds me both of the plot of the game Black and White and tinkerbelle in Peter Pan, i might look that book up though