Miss Beverly Hills Thinks God Wants Gays Put to Death

[pirana 0]

Quote

Not to get into evolution verse creation thing and the supposed "science" of evolution but, . . .

It's too bad all those scientists over the generations that molecular and evolutionary biology has been around wasted their careers. We'll need to get a memo out to them ASAP informing them that all of their work was in vain, and that they need to start from scratch on a whole model.

It's amazing that the most resistance is met by the one field in biology that has been studied and scrutinized more than any other. A very strong indicator that people are arguing from emotion and a preconcieved notion of what they want the answer to be; not from observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[HHsurfer 0]

http://creation.com

The Other side.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

http://creation.com

The Other side.

Irony score - priceless.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

For this reason I sometimes wonder why we bother trying to argue about spirituality/religion at all on the Internet.

I don't know. I still find it amusing to read sometimes, but I've mostly lost interest in participating.

[quade 3]

Quote

For this reason I sometimes wonder why we bother trying to argue about spirituality/religion at all on the Internet.

Especially since the internet proves the existence of spontaneously generated dark matter with no single creator.

Of course, so does the outhouse behind the hanger.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,406]

>The Other side.

Sort of the Far Side of science.

[Airman1270 0]

...It's amazing that the most resistance is met by the one field in biology that has been studied and scrutinized more than any other. A very strong indicator that people are arguing from emotion and a preconcieved notion of what they want the answer to be; not from observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Perhaps some clarification would be in order. Few argue that there hasn't been any evolution of any kind, nor do they necesarily want the actual science
ignored. However. science has its limitations. At the end, it cannot explain how life began.

At this point we are dealing with two unproveable theories: One is that life began through some random process, the other is that there was a creator and that intelligent design was involved. This simple statement is factual, yet the secular humanist lobby will stop at nothing to censor this information because they do not want students accepting the possibility that God might exist.

When they steer students into accepting their random theory as fact, they are engaging in indoctrination, not education, as their theory does not meet serious scientific criteria, such as observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis.

Once again, the people who want one side taught claim to be open-minded, while the people who want students exposed to both sides are accused of evil motives.

Cheers,
Jon

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

...It's amazing that the most resistance is met by the one field in biology that has been studied and scrutinized more than any other. A very strong indicator that people are arguing from emotion and a preconcieved notion of what they want the answer to be; not from observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Perhaps some clarification would be in order. Few argue that there hasn't been any evolution of any kind, nor do they necesarily want the actual science
ignored. However. science has its limitations. At the end, it cannot explain how life began.

At this point we are dealing with two unproveable theories: One is that life began through some random process, the other is that there was a creator and that intelligent design was involved. This simple statement is factual, yet the secular humanist lobby will stop at nothing to censor this information because they do not want students accepting the possibility that God might exist.

When they steer students into accepting their random theory as fact, they are engaging in indoctrination, not education, as their theory does not meet serious scientific criteria, such as observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis.

Once again, the people who want one side taught claim to be open-minded, while the people who want students exposed to both sides are accused of evil motives.

Cheers,
Jon

Not exactly the whole truth.

Science should be taught in science class.

"Intelligent design" is not science and should be taught in religion class. No one suggests censoring it, just teach it in the correct classroom.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,406]

>However. science has its limitations. At the end, it cannot explain how life began.

Agreed; it can only give possibilities. Which is very akin to gravity - we don't know how it works, and can only give likely hypotheses to be tested. One of them is not "God pushes on your head" because there's no scientific evidence for that.

>At this point we are dealing with two unproveable theories: One is that life
>began through some random process, the other is that there was a creator
>and that intelligent design was involved.

Correct. Which is akin to saying that either gravity is a natural process, or an intelligent force is pushing down on us. One of them has scientific support; one does not. One should be taught in science class, the other in religion class.

>When they steer students into accepting their random theory as fact, they
>are engaging in indoctrination, not education, as their theory does not
>meet serious scientific criteria, such as observation, evidence,
>experimentation, and analysis.

Actually it does.

Observation - we see species evolve into new species.
Evidence - we have the fossil evidence for the origin of our (and many other) species evolving gradually over millennia.
Experimentation - we can 'force evolve' bacteria, insects and plants by simulating natural conditions.
Analysis - we can analyze the molecular clocks in all living things and determine how far back we diverged from a common ancestor.

If creationism had similar scientific support - rather than simple religious zeal - behind it, then it would be taught in science class. It does not. It is scientifically bankrupt; a theory based purely on incredulity. "I cannot understand evolution, therefore it did not happen."

That's why we keep religious zealots bent on converting children to their religion out of science classes - because neither missionary work nor theories based on ignorance have any place in a science classroom. Heck, the Discovery Institute, the core of the creationism movement, even admits that their goal is to indoctrinate children with their own beliefs:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Which is akin to saying that either gravity is a natural process, or an intelligent force is pushing down on us.

Thats a bit of a s t r e t c h Bill.

Quote

we see species evolve into new species

We also see 180 degree changes in perception. Science may refuse to see that as testable evidence, but it doesnt mean it is not taking place. Science is VERY limited without faith (I dont mean faith in God necessarily), contrary to what people believe.

Quote

we have the fossil evidence for the origin of our (and many other) species evolving gradually over millennia.

The evidence in fossils prove that life exists with time, so what? Dont completely underestimate that life is a miracle based on fossils and scientific "evidence" to the "contrary". So close, yet so far away.

Quote

common ancestor.

Just a fancy scientific name for life.

Quote

If creationism had similar scientific support - rather than simple religious zeal - behind it, then it would be taught in science class.

Sorry, I dont beieve that one. Your dealing with the heart of man, even evidence will and can be denied by those who refuse to believe in a creator. Take the miracles of Jesus. There are people who still did not believe they were miracles. "There must be a scientific explanation for the raising of the dead". It is funny to me you consider zeal a simple process though. One that stems from a revelation that some never get to experience... must not be that simple. It most certainly wasnt for me.

Quote

It is scientifically bankrup----"I cannot understand evolution, therefore it did not happen." t

How exactly is faith considered scientifically bankrupt? Perhaps because it is not understood? Must be false. That is, "I cannot understand faith, must be false"

Quote

nor theories based on ignorance have any place in a science classroom

Yup, dont believe that is true either. What is your definition of a theory? Im not arguing with you, I just dont believe what your saying is true.

Quote

Heck, the Discovery Institute, the core of the creationism movement, even admits that their goal is to indoctrinate children with their own beliefs:

I dont know if thats the same as the discovery channel? But I saw just the other day on TV a origin of the Universe show. It was teaching the creation of the earth, the scientific view that is, as pure truth. Sure, they didnt say with 100 percent certainty (otherwise it would be front page on Yahoo), but anyone, especially young children would not have even come close to seeing objectivity. It was, "this is without a doubt how the world and life began". His quote, an MIT scientist or something was "We came from the scum of the earth". I get pretty pissed when you guys say its okay to teach theory as truth in our science classes while at the same time confronting us on the issue of keeping God out, when most spiritually connected Christians could care less. Its the hypocrisy that makes me mad, not the protocol.

You see it as evidence will lead us to the truth. You dont see it as truth leads us to evidence. If one is accepted as scientific truth, so also should the other one be.

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 2,406]

>Thats a bit of a s t r e t c h Bill.

Why? We don't know how gravity works. How do you know it's not a divine force?

>The evidence in fossils prove that life exists with time, so what?

The evidence proves that life exists - and changes - with time. Over short intervals we see minor changes. Over long intervals we see major changes.

> Dont completely underestimate that life is a miracle based on fossils
>and scientific "evidence" to the "contrary"

Life is indeed a miracle; so are the people discovered alive days (even weeks) after earthquakes buried in rubble. Doesn't prove divine intervention in any of those cases, miraculous though they may be.

>How exactly is faith considered scientifically bankrupt?

It's not! It's just not a basis for science. You can believe with all your heart, mind and soul that 2+2=5; it doesn't mean that it's literally true.

Faith can get people through hard times in their lives, can help them make themselves a better person, and can bring them peace and solace. And that's a great thing to teach in a religion class. It's just not science.

> But I saw just the other day on TV a origin of the Universe show. It was
>teaching the creation of the earth, the scientific view that is, as pure truth.
>Sure, they didnt say with 100 percent certainty . . .

OK, so that was - what? - 90% certainty? Sounds about right, based on our understanding of the solar system.

> His quote, an MIT scientist or something was "We came from the
>scum of the earth"

And Christianity teaches us men came from dirt, and women came from a man's rib. I don't see a huge difference there.

> get pretty pissed when you guys say its okay to teach theory as truth
>in our science classes . . . .

We teach the best our science has been able to demonstrate so far. That's why we teach kids about gravity, even though its operation is (at best) a weak theory.

>while at the same time confronting us on the issue
>of keeping God out . . .

I don't think we should keep God out. I'd be all for a religion class covering the world's religions (provided we can cover the basics - reading, writing etc) first.

>You see it as evidence will lead us to the truth.

Right, that's science. Science sees truth as a goal to be attained, a goal that can be achieved only through examination of hypotheses, experiment, study of evidence and long review.

>You dont see it as truth leads us to evidence.

Right, that's religion. Religion starts from a truth and uses that truth to filter the evidence. Thousands die in an earthquake? That's just a tragedy, no evidence of a missing, apathetic or sadistic God. Thousands miraculously survive? That's evidence of a kind and loving God! Since you have started from an unassailable truth (i.e. God exists and he loves all men) you then filter the evidence through that truth, and discard the evidence that does not fit that truth.

And there's nothing wrong with that, if it leads you to be at peace with yourself. It's just not science. Scientists do not have the luxury of discarding inconvenient evidence that does not fit their theory.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

>Thats a bit of a s t r e t c h Bill.

Why? We don't know how gravity works. How do you know it's not a divine force?

Gravity is all part of God's grand plan. We defy God when we use parachutes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Gravity is all part of God's grand plan. We defy God when we use parachutes.

More like enjoy the goodness of his sky. Unless you skydive for defiance rather than enjoyment that is? I have seen some plane stickers that say "Because your mother told you not to" however.

"We didn't start the fire"

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

>Why? We don't know how gravity works. How do you know it's not a divine force?

Because your previous statement seems to assume that God is separate of nature. I for one see increasing parallels to what we know about science and what we know about God. If I mis-read your previous post then of course it wouldnt be the first time.

Quote

The evidence proves that life exists - and changes - with time. Over short intervals we see minor changes. Over long intervals we see major changes.

To me, fossils dont prove anything about lifes purpose, yet, plenty of people sincerely believe they do. To me, survival seems connected to revelation, many dont accept that based purely on what they know about fossils. For example, If a bone of Jesus was fossilized and dug up a million years later, would it prove he wasn't God? Nevertheless, change is inevitable. The only thing that doesnt change is God, and he is an eternal revelation. Again, I may have mis-read your post though.

Quote

Doesn't prove divine intervention in any of those cases, miraculous though they may be.

No it wouldnt would it. A miracle by nature is not provable. Besides, I dont believe God intervenes. His will is set and his revelation is the purpose for what can be percieved as intervention. Others of course believe differntly.

Quote

Faith can get people through hard times in their lives, can help them make themselves a better person, and can bring them peace and solace. And that's a great thing to teach in a religion class. It's just not science.

I believe there is a very strong connection between science and faith. Of course not religious faith, but faith in general. I believe it takes faith to overcome the countless "failings" needed to persevere into the ultimate belief in the idea or theory that is being studied or pursued.

Quote

OK, so that was - what? - 90% certainty? Sounds about right, based on our understanding of the solar system.

The point was that the discovery channel taught that 90 percent as 100 percent truth. It is very clear that what they taught left absolutely no room for creationism. So, if this is what they teach in science class, im just going to assume they teach it as truth (to the easily influencial mind who believes everything their teacher says). This is dangerous in many ways. The biggest way is the amount of hypocrisy involved. Science claims to operate merely on facts and evidence, yet has no problem putting out 90 percent as 100 percent truth. This is dangerous.

Quote

And Christianity teaches us men came from dirt, and women came from a man's rib. I don't see a huge difference there.

Fair enough. Only he didnt say it with any doubt in the program. Christianity teaches we came from God, the how is not as important as the where. yet again, I didnt hear any of that in so much as a hint.

Quote

you then filter the evidence through that truth, and discard the evidence that does not fit that truth.

Not quite. I dont discard evidence that is true. In fact, im trying to make an attempt to explain how I see extreme parallels between God and science. Rather than try and explain why the "evidence" leads us to believe in only science.

Quote

Scientists do not have the luxury of discarding inconvenient evidence that does not fit their theory.

Well they are still human. I guess we'll just have to hope they are being truthful with all their findings wont we? Coincidentally, what is your defintion of a scientist? I would sincerely like to know. In that thought process you may see parallels in the fundamental qualities of a scientist and the fundamental qualities of a spiritual believer. I dont at all think God didnt intend us to find what we found in any spectrum of the minds limitations... or lack of. (wonder)

For example, both a scientist and a believer are inspired by truth. Curious to say the least.

"We didn't start the fire"

[billvon 2,406]

>To me, fossils dont prove anything about lifes purpose, yet, plenty
>of people sincerely believe they do.

I don't think they prove anything about life's purpose, any more than someone's genes determine who they are. They're just the roadmap that took us from an earlier form to this one.

> For example, If a bone of Jesus was fossilized and dug up a million
>years later, would it prove he wasn't God?

I don't think it would prove he was or was not divine. It would just be a bone of a man. Sequencing his DNA wouldn't mean we have "God's DNA" and creating a clone wouldn't be reproducing God.

>The point was that the discovery channel taught that 90 percent as 100
>percent truth. It is very clear that what they taught left absolutely no room
>for creationism.

Well, you said they didn't say "100% certainty" so it sounds like they were doing their jobs. And science has no room for creationism because it's not a scientific topic. I mean, if you went to a mass and they asked you to pray for astronauts on the Space Station who were having some sort of crisis, and they never mentioned orbital mechanics, does that mean that "religion has no room for science?" Of course not. They were there to pray for them, not expound on orbital mechanics.

>Christianity teaches we came from God, the how is not as important as
>the where. yet again, I didnt hear any of that in so much as a hint.

Again, that makes complete sense, because it was a science program and not a religion program.

>Well they are still human. I guess we'll just have to hope they are
>being truthful with all their findings wont we?

No, we don't! Because other scientists can make a name for themselves by proving them wrong. It's how science works. That stands in opposition to religion, where someone who attempts to prove something wrong is often excommunicated or (earlier in history) executed. There is a canon that cannot be violated no matter how important the new facts uncovered.

That being said, there are religious leaders who realize that they have to be flexible, and have been to some degree. The same church that had Giordano Bruno burned at the stake and Galileo imprisoned apologized for their behavior. (Centuries later, but they still apologized.) Even John Paul II accepted evolution as a valid scientific principle, and began to move towards "God created the soul, not the body."

However, this process is long and lags significantly behind scientific advancements; there are religious types who believe that their faith is threatened by the idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the stars are suns just like ours, or that natural selection instead of a divine sculptor created humankind. They feel that any acceptance of new theories of space, time or biology threaten their faith, and thus want to slow acceptance of new discoveries in science, astronomy, geology, medicine etc.

And there is nothing wrong with living your life that way - PROVIDED that no one mistakes religious fervor for science.

>Coincidentally, what is your defintion of a scientist?

Scientists (formerly called natural philosophers) study the workings of the natural world. They do so using the scientific principle, which is a framework upon hypotheses can be formed, tested and discarded or promoted based on the results of those tests. I'm an engineer, which is sort of a limited version of an applied scientist - I design things, test them to see if they work, improve them if they don't. In the end, if I do my job right, I have a device/system that works well over a range of conditions, and I can prove that it will continue to do so given those conditions. I don't get a chance to test basic laws of nature, but I do use them every day - and I base my work on the work of others, work I can duplicate if I have to.

Faith does indeed play a role, but the role it plays is in my motivation to do something. I have faith I can get something done, but my faith in whether it will work or not does not matter. It will work, or not work, based purely on the laws of nature that the device is based on. To put it another way, I can pray all I want, but if I want that power amplifier to work, I'm going to have to understand the environment it will work in, design a good amplifier and test the heck out of it.

>In that thought process you may see parallels in the fundamental
>qualities of a scientist and the fundamental qualities of a spiritual
>believer.

Of that I have no doubt. Thomas Aquinas was surely as brilliant as many a scientist and applied a similar level of discipline. But he was not operating in the scientific world and his work cannot be viewed as science. The opposite is true as well; Oppenheimer was a brilliant scientist, but to draw any moral conclusions about how to live your life from his work would surely be a mistake.

[Airman1270 0]

...Science should be taught in science class...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Claiming that life began in some random manner we cannot understand is not science.

Teaching kids that something came from nothing is not science.

Acknowledging that there are two unproven, unproveable theories as to how life may have begun does not contradict the information taught in science class.

Cheers,
Jon

[billvon 2,406]

>Claiming that life began in some random manner we cannot understand
>is not science.

Actually. it is. Gravity operates in some random manner we cannot understand, but we still teach it.

>Teaching kids that something came from nothing is not science.

Correct. Fortunately no one teaches that.

>Acknowledging that there are two unproven, unproveable theories as
>to how life may have begun does not contradict the information taught in
>science class.

Only two? There are dozens of creation theories out there. Why would you want to force only your theory down kid's throats? Why not teach them the Islamic creation myth too, and let kids choose for themselves?

[redlegphi 0]

Science isn't about what's provable, it's about what's testable. The cornerstone of science isn't the theory, it's the experiment. And experiments have to be able to show the opposite of what your thesis is trying to claim. So, for example, for an experiment about the existence of a deity to be valid, it'd have to be possible for the experiment to also show that no deity exists. Given the nature of "God", there's no way you could design such an experiment. Therefore, everything related to deities belongs someplace other than a science classroom.
The science of evolution, on the other hand, is entirely testable. We can construct experiments and make predictions to test how we believe evolution works. In fact, biologists do so all the time, which is why our understanding of how evolution works has evolved since Darwin first wrote his books.
Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith. The strength of science is that it is so anti-dogmatic, leading to constant questioning and constant improvement of our understanding of our universe.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Perhaps some clarification would be in order. Few argue that there hasn't been any evolution of any kind, nor do they necesarily want the actual science
ignored. However. science has its limitations. At the end, it cannot explain how life began.

Some clarification is in order.

How life began is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. If you can't even get that right, where's your credibility in the discussion?

Also, there are proposed mechanisms for abiogenesis that have been shown to be workable. We don't know how it actually happened, but we know about ways that it could have happened.

Quote

When they steer students into accepting their random theory as fact, they are engaging in indoctrination, not education, as their theory does not meet serious scientific criteria, such as observation, evidence, experimentation, and analysis.

Accepting which theory as fact?

Evolution? Evolution does happen, and in that respect it is fact.

Abiogenesis? I'd be surprised if any schools taught a particular theory of abiogenesis as fact.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

To me, fossils dont prove anything about lifes purpose,

It's not that you're having a disagreement wih Bill, it's that you're trying to have a conversation about a completely different subject.

Purpose? Who said anything about purpose? Why are you talking about purpose? We're talking about evolution.

Quote

So, if this is what they teach in science class, im just going to assume they teach it as truth (to the easily influencial mind who believes everything their teacher says). This is dangerous in many ways. The biggest way is the amount of hypocrisy involved.

There is no hypocrisy. You only think there is hypocrisy because you are ignorant of both the science and the teaching methods.

Quote

Christianity teaches we came from God, the how is not as important as the where. yet again, I didnt hear any of that in so much as a hint.

Because it was a program about science, not about fairy stories. Find some scientific evidence that what Christianity teaches is correct, then you can have a bitch about it.

Quote

In fact, im trying to make an attempt to explain how I see extreme parallels between God and science.

How are you going to do that? You don't know anything about science.

Quote

For example, both a scientist and a believer are inspired by truth.

Only if you assume that the believer is correct.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Airman1270 0]

...Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation? That a lightning strike triggered the creation of some single-cell thingy, which crawled out of pond scum and set up camp on the shore, etc.? I suppose this could have happened, but there is no evidence/proof that it did. So why do so many college graduates believe this to be fact and defend their (religious) belief by crying "science?"

As an aside, Christianity does not rely solely on dogma or speculation. There is a solid body of evidence to back up the claims, but it is near impossible to offer explanation without the conversation being derailed by accusations of "prosyletizing." It has been my experience that many in the atheist/secular camp have never actually examined the evidence, and have little interest in discussing the issue rationally with people who have.

Cheers,
Jon

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation?

If you have to misrepresent a position in order to argue against it - a classic tactic of creationists (as well as, for example, asshole politicians and pundits) - you've already lost the argument.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation?

There is no such dogma, and no such claim that this is what happened.

Quote

That a lightning strike triggered the creation of some single-cell thingy, which crawled out of pond scum and set up camp on the shore, etc.?

There is no such dogma and no such claim that this happened.

Quote

So why do so many college graduates believe this to be fact and defend their (religious) belief by crying "science?

There are extremely few college graduates who believe the above to be fact, and almost certainly none who majored in Biology.

Quote

It has been my experience that many in the atheist/secular camp have never actually examined the evidence, and have little interest in discussing the issue rationally with people who have.

Some have, some haven't.

Regardless, since it is painfully, painfully apparent that you have spent precisely zero time studying the actual science of evolution (and are therefore making some rather irrational claims about it) it would be hypocritical of you to use that argument.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

...Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation? That a lightning strike triggered the creation of some single-cell thingy, which crawled out of pond scum and set up camp on the shore, etc.? I suppose this could have happened, but there is no evidence/proof that it did. So why do so many college graduates believe this to be fact and defend their (religious) belief by crying "science?"

As compared to the belief that 'life' was created by some supernatural being that, what... just spontaneously came into being all knowing, all doing, from nowt.... Who created God? (probably answer) - Well Man did.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

...Religion relies on dogma to sustain faith...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Such as the dogma that believes that life just appeared out of nowhere, with no rational explanation? That a lightning strike triggered the creation of some single-cell thingy, which crawled out of pond scum and set up camp on the shore, etc.? I suppose this could have happened, but there is no evidence/proof that it did. So why do so many college graduates believe this to be fact and defend their (religious) belief by crying "science?"

As compared to the belief that 'life' was created by some supernatural being that, what... just spontaneously came into being all knowing, all doing, from nowt.... Who created God? (probably answer) - Well Man did.

Oh come on.. its much more sane to believe in revealed truth as set down by goat herders thousands of years ago.