An answer

Let us first consider the value of science and religion. They BOTH try or claim to describe reality.

I'm afraid I am biased towards science that being my choice but I symapothise with religion. Famous experiments found that sub-atomic particles fed through a hole. Yet when two holes were introduced...these particles followed through less than would conventional logic allow. It is as if, said the scientists, they know where they are going. Others remarked: it is as if we conducting the experiment cannot seperate ourselves from the experiment. Optimism and pessimism seemed to dictate the outcome almost like in human behaviourism.

To cut a long story short...it is possible evolution and creationism can exist together...Science cannot trace to beyond 10-34 seconds. Scientists assume a singularity at which there is inifinite mass and this is very hot! not I didn't say place because spacetime didnt exist.

Now...if it all ends up going back that way or rather it is always a singularity but with different characteristics; does the phrase:

'I am the beginning and the end; the alpha and the omega' ring any bells?

But let us not lose sense of the value of science; it is this area which has allowed us to question so bringing in medicines to prevent major epidemics or pandemics like plague. Prayer alone did not stop it (this isn't a prayer but just to create the image):

Ring a ring of roses
A tissue a tissue
We all fall down

Medicine stopped it!

However there are other evils in this world that are not about
disease, famine and hunger. There are wars also...different personalities. Religion has its place; I just wish this phrase was altered:

Do as I say, not as i do!

We have along way to go on both religion and scientific fronts and it starts with our hearts.

i think your getting close. but you need some more. something that has some....well. simpleness to it. often tims the hardess words to deine are the smallest. good. funny. mad. done. anyway. keep workin its hardly an answer, just more unfinished questions.

heyjme1: that is not an answer; just reasons. The problem I see is that religion can only be fixed or further destructed. I don't think mainstream religions can further advance in providing valid answers or reasons in association to the 'unknown' of the future. Mainstream religions are based on set socially-constructed morals or 'rules'. Mainstrem religion can be extremely conservative and rather dogmatic. It is restrained in style and tends to oppose change. However science is relatively 'free' for exploring new realms. Science has firm potential to further advance.

quote:

---

it is possible evolution and creationism can exist together...

---

I disagree, and yes I am biased towards the ever expanding and successful scientific front. Your statement is too vague and is extremely debatable. Evolution and 'creationism' are two opposing beliefs. They are directed in opposite ways. I strongly believe evolution is valid, due to its solid foundation and extensive evidence. To justify whether both evolution and 'creationism' can exist symbiotically one must first consider the context. The context refers to individuals and societies; in reference to their values, attitudes, and reasons of 'truth' and 'reality'.

Adding in - remember that science as a whole is pretty much a huge set of theories and educated guesses. Science does not claim the concrete existance that some religions do (some of the reasons they resist change and grow conservative as summit pointed out). There are very few scientific facts, and those are simply agreed upon.
Turn the page, and you have groups stating that their belief system is the only legitimate system and how dare you question or even attempt to investigate the foundation of this system.
But by and far the most substantial issue is that most religions have some how become a political tool as a primary concern, and have lost some of their purpose on the way.

quote:

---

science as a whole is pretty much a huge set of theories

---

yes that is correct. scientific theories are not facts. religious theories are not facts. The word 'theory' refers to a speculative idea. theories are only explanations of observation and testings. They are not answers. They are simply reasons. The ultimate goal of science is to understand the natural world in terms of scientific theories, which are only concepts. One is entitled to their own opinions but one cannot claim fact as universal.

Simple: creation starts; evolution follows.

Its like creating a huge snowball then chucking it down a mountain slope.

No smoke without fire kinda stuff.

once again- vague

quote:

---

Simple: creation starts; evolution follows

---

care to explain your reasons? ie- how is it possible, and why you believe so.

God creates the Universe. Changes occur-processes, atoms, molecules, DNA, conciuosness. There could be more steps but evoution is just 'positive' changes, or more advanced changes, generally-but whatever its change. Whether there are thresholds of change along the way with flows well thats debatable-i.e. was man evolved or intoduced as somethhng markedly different from that before. Or just flows-with no beginning or end...then its pure evolution.

One solution is that there is a matrix of infinite possibility and this is God.

your opinion heyjme1 is still a little too vague to understand how your connecting creationism and evolution. For creationists 'God' didn't just create the universe and then pull out and let evolution take over.

quote:

---

was man evolved or intoduced as somethhng markedly different from that before. Or just flows-with no beginning or end...then its pure evolution

---

.
Evolutionary changes fall into two categoires: microevolution and macroevolution. Every living organism existing today and every organism that has ever lived has evolved from a source of life. The beginning of life were prokaryote cells dated around 3.5 billion years old. Organisms didn't just 'magically' appear. They have needed an evolution to become as advanced as they are presently. As for humans- our evolution will be ceased once we become extinct. Extinction will be either a natural cause or our own human-induced causes; and therefore there will be an end to our evolution.

What exists betweeb the ticks from the tocks in clocks?
An infinity of periods
What makes your eye see me when I'm 99.9999% empty space?
Why can your eye not see nature flows?
your eye feeds information at about 60 fps.
Blurring simulates fluidity, sharpness simulates stuttering.
Humans categorise and fail to match nature-simply independent laws break down where systems interact and we're frced nto quantum mechanics.

What I'm trying to say is science categoriss the macro and the micro but it fails to rpresent the cross-over the blur in-between. Creationists are different from creationism; the end of human evolution is not the end of evolution. There is only change. Question is how or did it start and how or does it end. Maybe the concept of God needs broadening or maybe science needs to. Maybe truth is God?

quote:

---

science categoriss the macro and the micro but it fails to represent the cross-over the blur in-between.

---

The whole fundamental concept of evolutionary study is the representation of evolutionary changes and processes that occur in-between. I'm not sure if you knew what I was refering to about micro and macro evolution. Microevolution, is a gradual change in gene pools, often over long evolutionary time periods. This is the Darwinian theory of natural selection plus the theory of random genetic drift. Macroevolution, refers to evolutionary change at or above the species' level. The division of a single species into two new species (speciation) represents a macroevolutionary event.

Yes the end of human evolution is not the end of evolution.

quote:

---

Question is how or did it start and how or does it end

---

Evolution started life (my opinion). Life will cease to exist on earth one day; its part of the evolutionary process. How will human evolution end; we are currently in the sixth great wave of extinction, which is totally human-induced.

I undrstand micro and macroevolution. My point is every macro is composed of infinite micro's it is he essence of change. Did apes blend into humans or was there a threshold; every threshold is still in essence a process; in fact is everything not a process?

Evolution is a fact. But natural selection, etc. are theories to describe the mechanism.

Consider the rainbow; we are taught it consists of 7 colours. In truth there are as many as you wish to see. Science, for rationality, classifies.

If all subatomic particles are vibrating bundles of energy ; what makes these cohere into familiar substances. Is the energy possibly information? where has this info been ascribed?

The evolutionary process of humans has been laid out quite well. Everything is a process. The mechanism of evolution involving population excess, natural selection, variations between species, and even mutations ultimately allows a continual evolutionary process, rather than a threshold. I am not too sure whether thresholds exist, as it seems it goes against the ideology of species which evolve on a continuim.

Yes, science can be rational. Science can be a reductionist approach, but so is 'creationism'. The concept of colour that you pointed out is a good example. Theories are socially constructed. We only perceive the ROGYBIV colours, however science classifies them into categories.

Yes, when subatomic particles cohere into familiar substances they ultimately form particle energy. As you probably already know heyjme1 this is outlined in the principles of quantum mechanics including electron spins and electrochemical charges. Where has this 'info' been ascribed? well the source and cause of it is the subatomic particles themselves, because they are the smallest units of all matter.

well my ultimate point is this. It is often believed thought is a product of matter. Is it not possible, or even probable, mass is a product of thought?

very very good question. Thank you heyjme1, you have striked a nerve in me, because I was thinking exactly the same thing last night.
To me yes, thought is a form of matter. All matter is physical. Thought is a form of electroechemical energy processing in the brain. Neurons transmit these electrochemical signals as pulses as they receive both internal and external stimuli. Yes it is debatable because many people believe that pyschological processes like thought, emotions, and other social processes are social mechanisms rather than biological functions. Do you think thought is matter Heyjme1?
In terms of mass; I am not too sure what you refer to as 'mass being a product of thought'.