The "How did we get here Thread"

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
For a basic argument: The third(?) law of thermodynamics states that matter is in a constant state of decomposition, order to chaos, etc. An outside energy force is required to go the other way, which there isn't. People I've argued this with try to tell me lightning, or more specifically the passing of positive and negative charges, is an outside force, and that's how we came to be. Lightning didn't create the universe, there's nothing anybody has ever seen or can realistically theorize that would support that 'lightning' was able to form to cosmos.

From all this, and more that I won't bore you with, I beleive that God created everything. My family is something of a medical family (father owns surgical instrument business, brothers in college for medicine) I've become familiar with the utter compexity of the human body. Looking at it, it is the ultimate in complexity. I don't beleive that that kind of order came from a dense spinning mass of subatomic particles.

It's too bad that so many people misapply the laws of thermodynamics...
1. That law applies to closed systems...
the earth is NOT a closed system, and I'm not sure that the universe is either.

2. No scientist would ever claim that lightening had anything to do with the formation of the universe... That's absurd.

3. However, particles can AND DO pop into and out of existence from nothingness all the time. Like it or not, this has been proven.

4. It appears your belief in the lack of credibility of science is based on a VERY poor understanding of science.

That being said, I still believe in a supreme entity, not necessarily the Christian God, but my moral beliefs fall along Christianity. Part of the reason for this belief is my awe at the incredible fine tuning of the universe to be the way it is... all of the constants, characteristics, and properties that have made it possible for us, or anything, to have existed in the first place.

 

[Sahakiel]

Given: Complex systems are merely the sum of simple systems.
Given: All forms of matter and energy has an associated waveform that describes its behavior.
Given: Combining multiple waveforms results in a different waveform.
Given: Records are taken relative to a single observer.

(insert leap of faith)

Conclusion: God is at the very least the collective behaviors of everything in the universe.

Now somebody please create a philosophy forum and shove in this thread.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: Cawchy87
I watched a movie on this subject a few years back and it was interesting how he boiled it all down. He said that in the begginning there was God. Or, in the begginning there was a speck of rock/debrie, whatever. How did that debrie get there? There is no explination for it. So you must have faith that it was always there. Or have faith that God put it there. I choose the latter of the two.

The singularity, a dense ball of infinite density.

And how can a singularity be the beginning of creation? It must've been compressed somehow, but that's how scientists think the universe started.

I put my faith in God, who created the singularity and guided history from then til now. But I do hate him for creating such a vast universe for us to explore

Putting a cause before the Big Bang is impossible since the Big Bang wasn't the appearance of matter within spacetime, but the creation of spacetime itself. You can't have "before" without time.

As for the singularity, we're not sure if there was such a thing (and I suspect there wasn't) as the existence of a singularity relies on a mathematical extrapolation of general relativity that may be beyond its limits of applicability. One would expect quantum gravity effects at the Planck scale before a singularity is reached, and we don't yet have a good understanding of quantum gravity.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
IMO, science is just man's explaination of what is occuring around them, inside them, whatever. Science could not have created us because it is merely a 'way of thinking' - we created it. The creation cannot create the creator.

More accurately, your poll should be God vs: "the 'things' that science tries to explain/describe"

Religion answers this question for people who choose to believe. For areligious people, this question remains unanswered since they can only turn to science, and science is always changing - nothing has been proven (in terms of how we got here).

Unfortunately for religion, however, it has often explained things incorrectly, later to be refuted by science. Perhaps the best known example would be the flatness of the earth. (and a geocentric universe)
We now KNOW that the earth orbits the sun, and the earth is an oblate spheroid. Or are you now going to say that "well, most of the stuff religion explains is correct. There are a few places where I believe otherwise because of science."

And, by the way, where does religion explain this? The Bible? Ironically I just saw the Penn and Teller show that finally covered a lot of things wrong with the Bible. My apologies, but I cannot understand how anyone can take a literal view of the Bible. I don't know of any religion that actually believes in the entire Bible. (two obvious examples: Stoning children to death for not listening to their parents? Selling your daughter into slavery?) The Bible is meant to be allegorical - stories about how to live our lives. Not something to be taken literally.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: cquark

But I am a believer of God; I agree with your idea that the human body is way too complex for random luck/chaos to create.

Fortunately for science, the theories explaining evolution are called natural selection and sexual selection, not natural randomness or natural chaos.

More seriously, where do people get this idea that evolution is a random process? I'd take a bet that I could flip ten quarters and get ten heads in a few dozen tries any day if I could use selection (keeping the heads from every flip, flipping the tails again) instead of flipping them all at once for a few dozen tries at the 1 in 1024 odds of getting them all at once.

Even probability is flawed. Unless you keep flipping an infinite number of times, you may stumble across some scenarios where you'll keep getting a single side. As the limit of the number of tosses goes to infinity, THEN does it become 50/50. Do not tell me that the "evolution" of single-cellular organisms is natural selection. Why? Because single-cellular organisms can't choose or select anything! LOL

Nor can randomness/chaos/probability produce an organism which can then evolve into what we are now. The chances of a single-cellular organism encompassing a mitochondria (please don't get into the whole mitochondria has its own RNA) and then encompassing more organisms to create the first organism with organelles is nill. It is probably like trying to plug a female-part adapter into another female-port; it was never intended to do it and never will. Single cellular organisms never intended to encompass other single cellular organisms and probably never did and never will.

Unfortunately, your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of natural selection. The selection refers to the environment selecting for fit organisms, not to conscious choices made by the organisms themselves.

As for your statements about organisms encompassing other simple organisms, what's far fetched about that? It happens every time you get a virus (or when a bacterium is infected by a virus.) The virus even encodes its RNA or DNA into your DNA. There's no incompatibility like your female/female port; we all use the same code: DNA. Btw, mitochondria have their own DNA (which can be used to produce RNA), which supports the endosymbiotic hypothesis, but the evidence for that method of forming eukaryotic cells isn't sufficient for everyone to accept yet.

 

[unipidity]

Good god, of course single celled organisms can be selected for.

Put it this way; one theoory about the creation of life was that MUD was selected for. Mud, and the organisational structure thereof. Evolution, by selection is a process that is untterly inevitable with the handing down of structural, or pretty much any, information from 'generation' to 'generation'. Had there been no Darwin, or Darwin analogue, evolution would have been the science of the 1950s, spurred on by the discovery of DNA.

Anyway. This is a very seperate arguement to God vs Not God.

To me; God created the universe. Okay. Origin of God? Useless. God could, in this sense, be considered a property of the universe- that of no set origin- rather than an anthropomorphic old man who likes humans. And Occam's Razor does for the doddery old man with a long beard and amazingly white skin considering his origins. *shrug*
And its not only science that cant prove anything about the universe... nothing can. Only in a set universe with certain axioms (axia?) can things be proven, but as to what the axioms of this universe is- they are unprovable. Even a ToE is axiomatic. To be proven it would have to be tested infinitely, obviously impossible. One of these induction problems.

Of course, humans are good at finding places where theories are most likely to break down, so we cover large proportions of the probability space despite only considering a few circumstances. Or so we hope.

 

[MalikChen]

Solution: P&N needs to be renamed P, R and N (politics, religion and news). Then this topic needs to be moved there.

 

[treadhed]

I spent 16 years growing up in church. I was the kid that always asked questions like, did all of the indians go to hell because they never heard about christianity, or what about the dinosaurs. You know, all of those questions that mainstream christianity just seems to conveniently ignore. That being said, I want to throw my two cents in on this debate.
As scientific evidence mounts I find it harder to believe that a benevolent being created humanity (self-aware, conscious organic life forms), especially just to put them here and give them certain traits and instincts and abilities and then inform them through a myriad of sketchy prophets and people "anointed by God to speak the word" that it is bad to fulfill humanly desires. That part really makes not a lot of sense, especially if you include the point that probably 1/4 of the population of humans that have walked the face of the earth were never exposed to this religion and were subsequently damned to burn in hell because of it. Archealogists are constantly uncovering human skulls that appear to be X generations away from monkeys. The human genome is barely different from that of a chimpanzee. I'm not saying we necessarily evolved from some super smart monkey but our lines of development are quite similar. At some point we developed the brain capacity to begin to develop into the humans we are today. We moved from simple packs into communities and tribes.
To go back further, I want to explain the theroy behind the lightning. Scientists have yet to explain how life first started, life in this case being the first organic molecules to appear on the surface of the young earth. Several theories abound. One popular theory is that the first organic molecules were brought here by a comet, which is why we are studying them so fiercly now. Another popular theory but more on the fringe is that lightning provided the spark that produced a chemical reaction in the primordial "soup" of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen and created the first organic compounds. The theory of evolution holds that the first compounds fromed organisms which evolved in several branches. Different areas could actually have produced different compounds and different organisms. Animal cells from one, plants from another and so on. There are at least three different regions where human civilizations first formed totally isolated for centuries in Asia, Africa, and Europe(hence blacks, whites and asians). So alot of clout can be given to arguments against those who like to say "life is too complicated to just appear out of nowhere". In theory it "randomly" happened at least three different times giving rise to three distinct races. I say in theory because of course nothing is proven but it rises from archaeological studies, fossil tables, etc, which in my mind hold a lot more clout than writings, sayings, songs, phrases, stories and myths from early humanity pieced together by a bunch of obscure radicals from early 100 BC to 400 BC.

 

[EvanB]

My take:

Religion is silly. Created because man is too insecure to just accept the way things are and desire knowledge of what will happen when they finish with the current life they lead.

There is something higher that created us.

Want proof? 5 easy ways to prove there is a higher power:

1) Fall in love
2) Observe the world from above 10000 ft
3) Understand the complexity of nature (Well, thats not quite feasable, but get an idea of how intricate and perfect it is)
4) Listen to Mozart
5) Have a child

I'm speculating on the last one, as I have yet to do that.

And one of the most important things to remember is that we really don't even know what we don't know.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: treadhed
The human genome is barely different from that of a chimpanzee.

We share 70% of our genetic code with bananas.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Tiamat
IMO, science is just man's explaination of what is occuring around them, inside them, whatever. Science could not have created us because it is merely a 'way of thinking' - we created it. The creation cannot create the creator.

More accurately, your poll should be God vs: "the 'things' that science tries to explain/describe"

Religion answers this question for people who choose to believe. For areligious people, this question remains unanswered since they can only turn to science, and science is always changing - nothing has been proven (in terms of how we got here).

Unfortunately for religion, however, it has often explained things incorrectly, later to be refuted by science. Perhaps the best known example would be the flatness of the earth. (and a geocentric universe)
We now KNOW that the earth orbits the sun, and the earth is an oblate spheroid. Or are you now going to say that "well, most of the stuff religion explains is correct. There are a few places where I believe otherwise because of science."

And, by the way, where does religion explain this? The Bible? Ironically I just saw the Penn and Teller show that finally covered a lot of things wrong with the Bible. My apologies, but I cannot understand how anyone can take a literal view of the Bible. I don't know of any religion that actually believes in the entire Bible. (two obvious examples: Stoning children to death for not listening to their parents? Selling your daughter into slavery?) The Bible is meant to be allegorical - stories about how to live our lives. Not something to be taken literally.

I am in no position to refute your claims. Lots of accuracy has been lost through translation. If I learn to read Hebrew, I may have a better insight, however until then...

 

[sao123]

AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHH...


I fail to see why everyone believes religion and science must be mutually exclusive or each other.

The science we know tried to put together the sequence of events to determine how things happen. Our sciences of today can neither prove or disprove there is a spiritual realm, simultaneously existing in the same time and space as our universe. (or outside of it)

the sequence of events we have pieced together about big bang, evolution and everything else...who is to say that isnt the way things happened. however my point would be they happened because God caused it, not because of a random spark event.

The bible gives little detail about creation, just that it happened because God spoke and it was so. It doesnt say they happened instantly, or give any of the details about how things happened or how long it took, or what it looked like during the process. The bible rarely tells us in the physical realm, how things happen or the precise order of events, it merely tells us why things happened (because God wanted it to happen.) There are many events depicted in the bible which there is archaelogical evidence to support that they indeed have happened. (IE, the flood, the day the sun stood still, jesus of nazerus, etc) So i find no fault with the bible or its texts there-in.

There are many portions of the bible which people dispute as being contrary to the other texts in the bible. However, most of these examples are a group of verses taken out of context. (IMHO) Something that most people dont understand is that the old testament was "the old law" laws that were supposed to keep the israels kingdom in relations with God . Thus being an failing system, the new testament laws were written to replace the failing system and to spread christianity beyond the culture of israel (because it failed) to the greeks, romans and all other peoples.

Back to the matter at hand:
I have to go...more to come later.

 

[imported_Nail]

I fail to see why everyone believes religion and science must be mutually exclusive or each other.

It seems that you do not have a strong grasp of either.
There are strong disagreements on many fundamentals levels, they cannot complement one another. And which denominaiton do you mean by "religion"?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Nail
It seems that you do not have a strong grasp of either.
There are strong disagreements on many fundamentals levels, they cannot complement one another. And which denominaiton do you mean by "religion"?

Perhaps you would like to state some of these fundamentals?

 

[Jeff7]

Terrorism and violence are the work of people. According to christianity, God gave people a choice to do their own bidding. Terrorism isnt his problem, its our problem.

And God punished us the first time we used our free will to obtain knowledge, right? Some choice.

Part of the reason for this belief is my awe at the incredible fine tuning of the universe to be the way it is... all of the constants, characteristics, and properties that have made it possible for us, or anything, to have existed in the first place.

I don't remember how it's phrased exactly; there's a good sentence that sums it up nicely, but since I can't remember it, I'll explain it:
The Universe isn't "tuned" per se. It's "tuned" to produce what we see here today. If it was different, we'd a) not exist at all, like if the laws of physics didn't permit molecular formation, or b) we'd be totally different beings, but we'd still ask "why is the Universe tuned so finely?"

I don't know of any religion that actually believes in the entire Bible. (two obvious examples: Stoning children to death for not listening to their parents? Selling your daughter into slavery?) The Bible is meant to be allegorical - stories about how to live our lives. Not something to be taken literally.

There are some groups out there that believe it is in fact the literal, direct word of God, to be taken as such. Two accounts of how the Universe was created? Then that's how it happened.

Nor can randomness/chaos/probability produce an organism which can then evolve into what we are now. The chances of a single-cellular organism encompassing a mitochondria (please don't get into the whole mitochondria has its own RNA) and then encompassing more organisms to create the first organism with organelles is nill. It is probably like trying to plug a female-part adapter into another female-port; it was never intended to do it and never will. Single cellular organisms never intended to encompass other single cellular organisms and probably never did and never will.

They don't intend to do anything. It's not like they set out with this goal. Slow progression, with many billions of iterations (lots of bacteria all over the world), over billions of years - you get a lot of chances. And of course, there are many many quadrillions of other planets out there - there's probably lots of them that are as lifeless as Mercury. Things just didn't make it there; maybe a key element wasn't present. Maybe the temperature was wrong. Maybe a star went supernova a few thousand light years away and fried the planet with radiation. What happens on this little planet is only a tiny part of what's going on everywhere.
And I wouldn't call it random either. There are a multitude of forces at work - gravity, heat, motion. I wouldn't call it pure chaos. An electron orbiting a proton - it's not necessarily chaotic. It has a certain order that is dictated by laws of physics.

1) Fall in love
2) Observe the world from above 10000 ft
3) Understand the complexity of nature (Well, thats not quite feasable, but get an idea of how intricate and perfect it is)
4) Listen to Mozart
5) Have a child

You offer these as proof of a higher being?
1) I view love as a progression of bonds formed during mating rituals. Some animals can form close bonds with mates. It helps propagate the species - those that form close bonds are more likely to have surviving offspring, which can then do the same for their offspring, and so on. They evolved over time to require this bonding. Humans, with their bizzarrely-large brains and higher degree of intelligence take this bonding a few steps further - what we call love. It's a close bond, and even dependance on others.

2) Similar to #3

3) Partially addressed above - it is complex and simple at the same time. Look really close, then try to place that idea over everything, well, it's a lot to think about. Billions of atoms in a drop of water? Impossible to visualize. But now visualize a planet orbiting a star. Just a simple circular orbit, expressable in a simple mathematical formula. It's comprised of an incredible number of atoms though - simple, yet complex.

4) A composer with a gift for creating series of frequencies that are quite pleasing to many people. Humans brains give them great creativity, and there are a variety of media upon which to express this.

5) Sex Ed 101. Sperm fertilizes egg, and a process that's had billions of years of R&D time begins. DNA instructs certain cells to take on certain functions, where to go, what to do.

There are many events depicted in the bible which there is archaelogical evidence to support that they indeed have happened. (IE, the flood, the day the sun stood still, jesus of nazerus, etc) So i find no fault with the bible or its texts there-in.

News to me. The main incidence of mass extinction found around the world was from an asteroid impact; I believe it coated the planet with...damn mind, can't remember it. Iridium or yttrium, something like that. Anything like the sun, rather, Earth, standing still would have also likely killed everything on the planet - if it stopped quickly, everything not securely anchored would likely be launched into low orbit.

 

[treadhed]

Quote
Written by sao123
------------------------------------------
I fail to see why everyone believes religion and science must be mutually exclusive or each other. the sequence of events we have pieced together about big bang, evolution and everything else...who is to say that isnt the way things happened. however my point would be they happened because God caused it, not because of a random spark event.
------------------------------------------

It is very easy to say that. I said it for a while. It is also very easy to just say that maybe the forces of the universe are something beyond our comprehension and just enjoy life for what it is, surrounded by beauty (depending on where you live) and for the most part a wonderful humanity graced with an inner spirit that feels emotion, creates ideas and is capable of beautiful expression. You say God caused it, I say propability. The thing is, when I say propability I'm not giving rise to a silly religion that for the most part is run by sheisters that just want your money. Free your mind, free your soul, and you will find happiness while on this earth.

It's like the alcohol thing. I am in Germany right now where everyone drinks beer. They drink a beer whenever it suits them. Why? Because there is no stigma about it because they have not allowed radical Christianity to overtake their own moral reasoning. Intelligent and insightful people do not need a silly religion defining what is right and wrong. Maybe if you don't have the mind capacity to determine what is right and what is wrong to do then religion is right for you.


But it is exactly your reasoning (and every other Christian and various other faiths) that God did it that I find most dilusional about many religions. They just can't accept the random probability of life, one of the things I believe that makes it wonderful and tragic at the same time. They attribute everything great to God, and most hope one day to go to a heaven with nothing but eternal bliss, which also brings another hopeless idea of many religions; a place filled with happiness to reward those that followed the tenants of the faith while here on earth. How do you know what happiness is without pain? How do you know good if you don't know wrong? How do you know you will remember what is bad after a millenia, and what will you use to define what is good or bad? If everything is good, how do you know that it is? There are many concepts of Christianity that are just wrong and I'm not going to inhibit myself on this earth to conform to them.


Quote
Written by sao123

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

The bible gives little detail about creation, just that it happened because God spoke and it was so. There are many events depicted in the bible which there is archaelogical evidence to support that they indeed have happened. (IE, the flood, the day the sun stood still, jesus of nazerus, etc) So i find no fault with the bible or its texts there-in.

------------------------------
well yes, you are quite correct there, there are many various legends in several civilizations about a flood, but why do you say that the Bible originated those legends? Maybe the Bible added Noah's story FROM popular legend rather than being the originator? This ideal can be applied to many many secular stories, legends, myths and even holidays (i.e. christmas was adopted from several cultures that celebrated the Yule tide season, and they adopted the Yule to celebrate the birth of christ in order to absorb those cultures)

Christianity is for all sense and purposes the Borg of culture, because in order to spread they had to convince many cultures to drop their culture and adopt Christianity. Many times it was misconstrued, such as the trial by fires that sprang up in early German Christians. They burned or drowned suspected sinners or law breakers and if they died they were guilty and if they lived they were innocent. This was rationalized by the idea that if they were truly innocent then a benevolent Lord would not let them die.



Quote
Written by sao123

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

There are many portions of the bible which people dispute as being contrary to the other texts in the bible. However, most of these examples are a group of verses taken out of context. (IMHO) Something that most people dont understand is that the old testament was "the old law" laws that were supposed to keep the israels kingdom in relations with God . Thus being an failing system, the new testament laws were written to replace the failing system and to spread christianity beyond the culture of israel (because it failed) to the greeks, romans and all other peoples.

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


So why do you want to abide by a faith and the backwards rules that go with it that was written a long time ago by people who just could not live without someone telling the what to do

 

[treadhed]

Here something else to fuel the fire

Full Article(/w pic):

Click here for article


Monkey hits stride after near-death experience
Last Updated Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:41:23 EDT

JERUSALEM - A five-year-old monkey at an Israeli zoo started walking exclusively on her hind legs after recovering from a serious illness.


Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque walks at the Safari Park near Tel Aviv
(AP PHOTO)
Natasha, a black macaque, almost died of a severe stomach flu about two weeks ago, say officials at the Safari Park zoo near Tel Aviv. She had difficulty breathing and her heart wasn't functioning properly.

However, her condition stabilized and she was released from the zoo's clinic.

Workers at the zoo say that's when she started walking upright exclusively. Monkeys usually alternate between upright walking and moving on all fours.

A zoo veterinarian says he's not sure why she has altered her behaviour, speculating that the illness could have caused brain damage.

Other than walking upright, the vet says Natasha's behaviour has returned to normal.

Written by CBC News Online staff

 

[unipidity]

Its doesnt really... fuel the fire. No one is really seriously debating the evolution of humans from a common human-chimp ancestor. Besides which, it is interesting, but not massivly revolutionary. If chimps were incapable to walking upright and one could, that would be amazing.

 

[Dinominant]

Can anybody prove that there is/are no god/gods? I don't think so.
Can anybody prove that there isn't/aren't a/any god/gods? I don't think so.

But here is the big one: If there was a god, what level would he/she operate at? Most people blame the things they don't understand on a god. But usually there is a perfectly sound scientific explanation.

Hypothetical example: "It's a miracle that that semi didn't kill him"
Answerer: he wore his seat belt, wasn't speeding, and headed for the ditch when he saw that truck roll.

 

[EvanB]

1) Fall in love
2) Observe the world from above 10000 ft
3) Understand the complexity of nature (Well, thats not quite feasable, but get an idea of how intricate and perfect it is)
4) Listen to Mozart
5) Have a child

You offer these as proof of a higher being?
1) I view love as a progression of bonds formed during mating rituals. Some animals can form close bonds with mates. It helps propagate the species - those that form close bonds are more likely to have surviving offspring, which can then do the same for their offspring, and so on. They evolved over time to require this bonding. Humans, with their bizzarrely-large brains and higher degree of intelligence take this bonding a few steps further - what we call love. It's a close bond, and even dependance on others.

2) Similar to #3

3) Partially addressed above - it is complex and simple at the same time. Look really close, then try to place that idea over everything, well, it's a lot to think about. Billions of atoms in a drop of water? Impossible to visualize. But now visualize a planet orbiting a star. Just a simple circular orbit, expressable in a simple mathematical formula. It's comprised of an incredible number of atoms though - simple, yet complex.

4) A composer with a gift for creating series of frequencies that are quite pleasing to many people. Humans brains give them great creativity, and there are a variety of media upon which to express this.

5) Sex Ed 101. Sperm fertilizes egg, and a process that's had billions of years of R&D time begins. DNA instructs certain cells to take on certain functions, where to go, what to do.

You've never truly fallen in love. Nor do you truly appreciate the difference between "a series of frfrequencies that are quite pleasing to many people" and Mozart. And you most certainly haven't had a child.

 

[Pulsar]

You're right.

Because if he'd listened to Mozart, he might hate it.
And if he'd had a kid, he might have put it up for adoption.
And if fallen in love, he might have gotten divorced.

If those are examples, then there are alot of people in this world who are godless. Pretty damn poor examples, if you ask me.

 

[EvanB]

There aren't very many people who listen to Mozart and cannot appreciate its beauty and complexity. And if he had truly been in love, then he wouldn't have gotten divorced.

And those are just a few of the things I see as testament to the fact that there is a higher power.

 

[eastvillager]

Does it have to be either one or the other? I'm quite comfortable with it being both, god and science. Any being with orders of magnitude more advanced science is going to appear godlike anyways...

Our planet could just be a very big game of the sims for somebody else.

 

[Dinominant]

A long time ago people said "bless you" when somebody sneezed because they believed your soul was made vulnerable. Nowadays, people say it just to avoid being rude. Now we know that a sneeze is nothing more then a way of eradicating micro-organisms/harmful particles from the human body. Interesting how science did that...

As for motzart, that is totaly unrelated. What makes him better then Tomcraft? And where is god in that argument? It appears to me that religious people assume that anything that they don't understand is a result of god.

 

[Wahsapa]

Originally posted by: Dinominant
A long time ago people said "bless you" when somebody sneezed because they believed your soul was made vulnerable. Nowadays, people say it just to avoid being rude. Now we know that a sneeze is nothing more then a way of eradicating micro-organisms/harmful particles from the human body. Interesting how science did that...

As for motzart, that is totaly unrelated. What makes him better then Tomcraft? And where is god in that argument? It appears to me that religious people assume that anything that they don't understand is a result of god.

+10 points for working in tom craft