erickdan

Did you know that every state has laws that state that school books should contain only factual information?

Looking at a year 2000 science book, and I quote, "Evolution is fact, not a theory" Soudns like a mantra, keep telling yourself that long enough and you'll believe it I guess.

Other lies that have been disproven but are still taught as fact:

-Colorado River made the Grand Canyon. Couldnt be, if you look at the layers they run uphill. What river runs uphill?

-Pangea. Did you know that all pictures of teh pangea affect cut off 40% of Africa and don't show central america at all. This is the only way to make this theory work.

-Fossils and Layers. Go to a museum and ask them how they date there fossils and bones. THey will tell you that they date them by the rock layers they were found in. Ask them how they date the rock layer...they'll tell you they date them by the Fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning for those who have never thought this through. If they told you they used carbon dating for fossils they are lieing flat out.

-Carbon dating. This was never possible until the "geological cloumn" theory. This column, if it Did exist, would be 100 miles thick! Impossible.

-They say trilobites are 500-600 million year olds in teh text books and use them as key fossils. But they have found trilobite fossils in the same fossils as a man's footprint. Hmmmm

-The peppered moths theory. Did you know the picture of them moths in your textbooks is actually a bunch of dead moths placed on those trees to lie to you?

-Why are petrified trees found standing up and connecting several layers of rock? How can the rock be different ages? Some are even found upside down! Evolutionist can not explain this expcet for a Great Flood.

-Did you know Darwin's only degree was in Theology? He was no scientist.
Evolution has 6 definitions/types. I DO believe in one of them. Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the variation of types w/in kinds. Micro-evolution is the vary of types of kinds.
Variations do happen but are Limited. Evolutionist believe in no limits.

-For evolution to truly exist you would need an increase in genetic information. But genetic information is LOST not ADDED. Beneficial mutations do NOT exist.

It's time for a New Theory folks. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

The Bible states that end time scoffers will be willingly ignorant of the truth.
The schools are teaching Lies. You blindly follow. MY religion may not be able to be proven either, but At Least it cannot be disproven. Find the Truth.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

what do you guys believe. Big Bang? the earth is 40 billion years old?

if so, who made energy? who made matter?

- not 1 star ahs ever been proven to be created.

-look at the world's population trends. there were 1 billion people in 1810AD, and there are 6 billion today. there were 1/4 billion in 30 AD. If you look at that growth curve it shows that the human population began about 4,400 years ago. (wierd that's what Bible says too!)
-Scientists say man has been around for 3 million years. If this was true according to the growth curve there would be 150,000 people per square inch today.

-Scientists observe a supernova/nova approximately every 30 yrs. They can only find 300 supernova rings in the Heavens. How old does that make the universe?

-Jupiter's moon Ganamede still has strong magnetic field indicating hot molten core. Even atheists admit that it should have cooled billions years ago. Hmmm

-Saturn's rings are unstable, cant possibly be that old.

- Moon getting few inches farther from earth each year. According to this fact earth can ONLY be 1.2 million years old.

-And comet's prove that the earth cannot be more that 10,000 years old

----------------------------

See: www.vitaminb17.de
why has a good cure for cancer been hidden from us?

"Money is the root of ALL evil"

-drug companies dont make money when we are well. They treat symptons not the problems. I believe most any illness could be treated if we actually got the 80 vitamins and minerals and 3 oils that our bodies need each day.

The Bible says we were given all green things and the bread which strengthens our heart. Well nowadays bread is not good for your heart. What's up with that? Well I did some looking and found that about 200 years ago bread companies were tired of there bread going bad after a day or two. They found that 3 oils in the bread were causing the problem. I forget the names, one was omega something. anyways, they removed these three oils which did wonders for the heart in order to make more money. The Bible says stuff about our daily bread, and back then you had to make your bread daily....hmmmm

-Schools textbooks are teaching that coal took 250 million years to form, yet a brass bell, and a gold chain have been found inside undisturbed pieces of coal

-during the gold rush, miners found hammers and mortar & pestles under the undisterbed rock of the mountains that were supposed to be 55 million years old

-the smithsonian among other museums have publicly admitted that they covered up evidence that was against evolution. Other museum's employees ahve been Fired for revealing such evidence. HMMMM...So if you go against the theory/religion of evolution then your fired?? Can't have that now can we. This is science?

I think not, think for yourselves!

poTCat

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this post.. at times it sounds preachy (don't believe the facts! you must have faith!), and at others, you point out to think for ourselves. I apologize if I missed the point you're trying to make, so I'll just deal..

I think you're wrong here. Evolution is just genetic mutation/genetic change. Some mutations are beneficial (the shrinking of the appendix) others are not (the loss of a tail).

Of course your religion can't be disproven. It's designed to be undisproveable. But inability to disprove something does not make it true. You can't disprove that I'm God no matter what you do, but that doesn't mean I am or am not God.

Before you start asking us to disprove something, why don't you first prove it? Here's a hint: You can't do it! Because once you prove it, it becomes fact, science would adapt appropriately, and you would no longer have faith, but are still left with science!

And I think us people here are a little bit better about finding things out on our own, instead of blindly believing what we're told, than most people.

I don't know, do you?

omg, that is teh weird! I guess all those people that study these things and understand these things more than us don't know what they're talking about. Either that or you think they're lying. Hmmmm. Read below.

Natural population control. It hasn't been until recent history that mankind has developed ways to prolong human life, which would in turn cause a spike in population growth.

That doesn't make the universe any age. No one said counting supernova rings is a way to measure the age of the universe. You measure the age by tracking stars in the night sky and then extrapolate the point in time when they all would have been in the same place (where the supposed big bang happened).

What does instability have to do with age?

I thought I remember hearing that this was debunked, that the moon isn't drifting away.

Umm.. does that mean pot proves I'm 24 years old?

Actually, a closer translation is, Money is a cause of evil and corruption. Some, but not all of it.

I think that means we discovered bread isn't all it's cracked up to be? Preservatives no doubt play a role, but nothing in this world is 100% safe for our body.

If that's true, then what's your theory?

PPOR (Post proof or retract). What is the evidence? If it's so earth-shattering, why hasn't it gotten around?

Sounds more like "Your science is wrong! Have faith in the bible!" to me. Hmm.....

ashej1

Hey man, just keep on keepin' on. Never stop believing that you are superior to everyone, all the while tricking yourself into thinking you are only trying to educate the infidels. You pulled a bunch of random pseudo-facts, maybe not from your own ass, but from the equally foul, rump of some other Christian Supremacist, and what was all that crap about the gold rush and 55 million yr old hammers supposed to be about anyway. And have you ever smoked bud in your life? I seriously doubt it, if you had maybe you'd be able to wedge the underwear out of the crack of your ass long enough to take a breath and relax.

Larmer

Creationists...

Alright, let's rock, I've got experience in this field...

Let's see the reference information for that book, because I don't believe it at all. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, in the scientific sense. In scientific terms, a theory is a concept that is supported by numerous repeatable observations.

Provide direct supporting evidence that erosion is not responsible for the grand canyon. Peer reviewed scientific journals only please, not answersingenisis.com or any other organizations that don't subscribe to the scientific peer review method.

Pangea

Wow. That's odd. Africa is full sized here, and clearly shows all present day continents. So much for your lie.

BS, plain and simple.

Relative dating is used to estimate the ages of fossils within a time scale, it does not give an absolute date. Numeric, or absolute, dating provides a specific geological age. By combining these two forms of dating, it's possible to deduce a specific age of the fossil in question.

Radiometric Dating



If you're going to come to a debate, come prepared.

C-14 dating is only accurate to a maximum of 50 000 years. It's never used to estimate fossils, or whatever it is you're trying to prove here.

This is getting tiring. Show a specific source please....

Perhaps you're referring to the "Meister Print"?

Yup, move on, even creationists gave up on this one...

As pointed out here, most insect photographs are staged. Insects aren't that easy to convice to pose for a picture, they tend to not understand. Trust me, I worked with an entomologist first year, they don't have the patience.

You're 100 years late on this one...

Time to update

Uh oh. Isaac Newton majored in law and philosophy! There goes gravity!!!

He was a scientist just the same as I am a scientist, and any other person who follows the scientific method is a scientist; we examine evidence and use this to reach a conclusion, rather than evaluting based upon a preconceived notion. Attacking Darwin does no good, because Darwin is such a small aspect of the entire theory of evolution. He merely suggested natural selection as a mechanism, the theory of evolution predates him.

Also, get your definitions right. Macroevolution refers to changes above the species level, while microevolution refers to those within a species, or its phenotype.

What exactly is a "kind"? As far as I know, that's not one of the seven classifications used in taxology, it's a term from the bible. Please define "kind".

Alright. Put your beliefs to the test. Infect yourself with a harmful bacteria, then use Penicillin to treat it. Not Penicillin V, or any other modern derivatives, but the good old original type. You’re going to have a problem, because that bacteria mutated, and trust me, it was beneficial for the bacteria.

Read up…

I have a god, his name is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU). If you don’t believe in the IPU, you and all your relatives will burn in the Official Everlasting Furnace of the IPU, TM. Care to disprove that one? While you’re at it, disprove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and Ra, the Egyptian god.

Great, let’s just toss out the influence of modern medicine and all other factors that allow humans to live past the age of 34. If you do that, yeah, you get a pretty curve, but just like many other things, population growth isn’t steady…

Do you realize how big the universe is? Do you realize we can barely see out of our galaxy, let alone the entire frickin’ universe?!?! You can’t extrapolate current rates of scientific discovery to account for all types of astronomical phenomena.

Even atheists, eh? Odd, I thought atheism referred to a disbelief in a deity, rather than profound knowledge of astronomy.

To be honest, I couldn’t find anything on Ganymede. Give me a source, and I’ll take care of it.

So? Since when do rings around a planet indicate their age? Find me an astronomer who will suggest this, then we’ll talk.

Tiring…

Show me a source that suggests the earth is moving away a few inches a year. In fact, show me anyone who can measure earth-moon distance that accuately.

How so?

Note: strange drivel concerning bread and obscure bible prophesies removed.

Come on, catch up, here’s a source you can trust, 4th from the bottom.

Source please…

Sources, once again! Come on, you expect people to take you seriously?

There, a thorough thrashing, feel free to respond. Don’t give me bible quotes, this ain’t a theological discussion, it’s a scientific one.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

erickdan

Quote Larmer


If you're going to come to a debate, come prepared.

C-14 dating is only accurate to a maximum of 50 000 years. It's never used to estimate fossils, or whatever it is you're trying to prove here.

---
Carbon dating: Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

Refereneces Hmmm

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
--Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637


In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.

erickdan

[quote=Larmer]Creationists...

Alright, let's rock, I've got experience in this field...


-Great! Maybe you're someone who could answer my questions then

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

--------------------

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Larmer

Talk to me in scientific terms, not biblical. By "kind" do you mean, genus, species, kingdom, what?

"Kind" is not a word used by scientists, it's a word used by creationists to ignore speciation.

You simplify it, like most creationist arguments. Beneficial mutations do occur, and they've been observed. You're setting up a straw man with the letters BS.

There's no evidence for a creator. You cannot observe that, you cannot test it, you cannot hypothesize about it. I can do a card trick, and there's an explanation behind it. I could show you the method, reproduce it, and you'd still say it was magic, I couldn't prove you wrong. That's exactly what you're trying to do here.

Did you bother to read any of the previous links? I already pointed to where you can read up on genetics and mutation...

I'm not too sure. Explain the significance, we'll go from there.

Yup...

Speciation

No religion, I can look at the evidence objectively, then come up with a conclusion. Everything that I've shown to you closely follows the scientific method, and doesn't rely on supernatural occurences.

No faith. If I was presented with evidence that suggested evolution is dead wrong, very good evidence, I'd re-evaluate my conclusions. Personally, I feel that punctuated equilibrium best explains evolution, rather than traditional darwinism.

Yes, because it follows the scientific method, which is the basis for virtually all science classes.

The end result? Mapping the human genome, devising new antibiotics, evaluting species extinction. I could go on, evolution is applied in numerous fields, and is an important basis for many findings.

Come up with a better theory, that uses the scientific method, and doesn't involve supernatural explanations.

Fundamentalists are a minority you know? When I was in first year, one of my professors, a devoutly religious individual from the US Bible Belt congratulated me on a letter refuting creationism I submitted to the local paper. She was an organic chemist, a Christian, and she uses evolutionary theory every day.

Your type appears to be the only ones who insist this is impossible.

Tenure goes a long way my friend. If a professor wished to provide conclusive evidence that there is a better explanation than evolution, they're more than welcomed to. It could be peer reviewed, like all scientific research, and then go from there. Nothing stopping anyone.

Proud of what? You think I walk around every day thinking, "wow, damn glad I accept evolution. that shows everyone else!". Nobody owns it, it's not anyone's brainchild that will suddenly be torn apart someday. If improvements can be made, they will be.

I'm going to clue you in on something bucko.

You guys, yeah, you guys in the US. Yup, the fundamentalists. You're the only ones who think evolution is an evil atheist scheme. There's no movement anywhere else to include creationism in science cirriculums, it's an American thing.

Why are there no non-christian scientists in favour of creationism, or who support the dismissal of evolution? Do you honestly think that millions of scientists worldwide are sticking to this because they hate god or something? Are you that crazy? Seriously, I really want to know this. It would have to be a conspiracy of the largest scale, ever, in history, bigger than ****ing JFK, if you know what I mean.

Some supernatural being would have to be supporting the entire damn thing, making sure that any applications of evolution come out as expected. It's tinfoil hat time if you're gonna buy all that.

No, of course not! Piltdown man was an error, a lapse in the scientific method, which in turn was corrected by the scientific method. Many of the other items you've brought up aren't even outdated, disproved, whatever. Except to you and your merry band of whackos...

One more secret here bub. You know why you guys are still around, and people pay attention? It's fun, it really is. This type of debate is an excellent study tool, a way to learn about evolution. No rational scientist ever believes that we'll devolve (nice pun, eh?) back into the dark ages, where dogma was accepted over evidence. This is a game friend, and you guys are the party favours.

Not afraid, just don't want unscientific practices being discussed in a science class. Why can't creationists publish any peer reviewed documents, so that it could be used in class? The onus is on you guys, and you've neglected to do anything. Perhaps because there's no way that creationism can be scientifically explained?

Seriously though, respond to some of my stuff, don't just give me more of this copy and pasted babble from creation websites. Substance man, substance!!

Why not accept the love of Buddah? Or Allah? Or the IPU? I talked to him earlier, the IPU, he said some pretty nasty stuff about you, really wants you to accept his love and all. Wouldn't that be great?

Bet you can't disprove him...

HappyMan

This like is a cat owner going to a dog show and trying to convice them that cats are smarter...........which, any rational person knows is true.... except of course dog owners, who are just misguided.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

SystemsBuster

Absolutely stunning debate. Everyone appears well versed in their point of views. All should be commended. I pulled this off a front page article, and I'm copying and pasting it here. I thought is would offer some interesting contrast to the discussions.

Higher Self
Guest Posts: n/a

Conscious Creation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are the creators of their own realities. Period.

This is done individually and en masse.

Beliefs form realities. Period.

Beliefs are thoughts you keep thinking, habits, vibrational habits that create patterns of energy which coelese into physical life experience.

E-motions (your feelings) dictate the intensity of your thoughts, and how 'charged' an aspect of reality is, and how likely (fast) you will manifest a reality, no 'matter' how negative or positive the 'charge' is.

The sooner people start taking responcibilty for their realities, and quit blaming the 'devil'(lived spelled backwards, the past-tense of live) for aspects they don't like, and thanking 'God' for the aspects they do like, the better off everyone is going to be.

Congradulations, if your reading this, you've just had a lesson in conscious creation, and you are know completely responcible for your life experience. Personal value fulfillment is your life's purposes. Your 'inner being', that non-physical aspect of your 'soul' stuff which cannot be expressed in flesh, may have a fulfillment agenda that is conflict with your current 'self's' agenda. Its your responcibility to discover what your divine purpose for this incarnation is.

Individuals, as creators, are individuated, differentiated, divine sparks (limited-life godlets) of the Whole, woven into the fabric of ALL-THAT-IS forever more. Seek the aspects of the Christ Consciousness within you today, if this is your concern. Part of your 'purpose' is to discover 'who you really are', then become that grandest version of the highest vision of your SELF.

Do not buy into anyone/thing that sells your 'self' short, telling you that you are tainted, innately flawed, bound fall short of the glory of your 'God'. This is the greatest pitfall/scapegoat of christians today. See the divinity in everthing from the burger flipper to the garbage man, the christian and the muslim, or jew, or buddist, or hindu, or mormon, or whatever.

Realize what you do do another, you do to another aspect of yourself, this is why the Christ said to turn the other cheek and to do unto others as you would do unto yourself, or to love thy neighbor as thy self. There is no thought or being who is 'singular', it just appears that way, that is the function of your ego, to differientate between what is you, the 'individual' and everything else.

It's easy to screw other's when you know your 'tainted', and that your automatically 'forgiven' for having asked the Christ into your life.

So what of the indigenious populations of the Divine Lady Gaia, or the vast populations of the planet that are not Christians (the majority by far). Are you somehow better, one of the 'Chosen' one's, one of the 'lucky' few, smiled upon by the divine Grace of the Father, when your a Christian?

Religious tolerance is the key, know that there is more than one path to spiritual en(light)enment.

Light is energy, more specifically, light is electro-magnetic energy that behaves as both particles (as photons) and as a wave. So light is a bunch of little particles that have zero-mass, an indefinite 'life-time', that moves, or propogates through physical space-time as a wave.

While the Christ was upon the planet he said that He was the Light of the world, while in the world. Light is also information (just look at fiber-optic technology). Matter, energy, and consciousness are the same things. Stars, planets, rocks, precious cannabis plants all have consiousness and are divine. It may not be the specialized consciousness designed for (hue)mans, but it is consciousness none-the-less. Your pets, divine little feline/canine spirit-beings have specialized counsiousnesses too.

Guess I better light(en) up eh? Maybe it time for another smokeable prozac stick...So what do they mean when someone get's 'high'?

__________________
Are you a human being having a spiritual experience, or are you a spirit being having a human experience? - Serapis

HappyMan

Science is not contrary to the existance of a deity. All science does is try to explain the 'world' in depth. In doing so it has lead to the understanding of a vast and complex universe that may have been created by a diety beyond our current articulation. While I am Budhist leaning Agnostic I see nothing in my science studies that disprove the existence of a diety.
I also feel that the human mind, which created religion to answer our fundamental questions did so at a time when observations were limited to the human senses. These are far too limited to explain the universe in any but the most basic way. Now we have the techonology to observe the universe in far great detail and depth. This may lead to the undestanding of our true relationship with 'god', or maybe not. It is foolish to continue to bind ourselves to ancient understandings of the world. It restricts our develop, hinders our growth and causes conflict.