"The Nature of Religion Memes"

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Aug 2005 10:53

Forgive me for chiming in, but this is a topic other than footbag that interests me and I'd like to define God if I could.

Disclaimer: This is only my opinion and by no means do I represent anyone other than myself on this issue.

God - The creator of heaven and earth. The omnicient one. Everything and nothing. Mano -from The Craft. All that is and all that isn't. Light and dark. Heaven and hell. Pure energy. The rock.

In my mind, heart and soul God is ALL. You are a part of God and he is apart of you. He is not a man with 2 eyes and arms and legs. These are leaps of faith to believe he is man and ease your heart that you are not some freak of nature but a planned individual. He is energy - he is all matter -he is all voided space. He is everywhere and everything ALL THE TIME. God is existance. Without him you are nothing. Scratch that, without him, there is no existance or lack there of. An opinion cannot be formed in his absense. The ability to reject him is a gift from him.

God gave man free will to choose. It is now your burden to bare or not. I choose to believe that I am not in control.

In science we try to explain things logically and with some level of proof. In that science we theorize until proven true, or proven false, or until the theory becomes another theory. It evolves as proof to the scientific tests are put forth.

Science has proven that there are things we cannot see that do indeed exist. There are bands of light for example that can be proven to exist yet cannot be seen with the naked eye. There are levels of sound that only dogs can hear and can be measured with scientific tools yet we humans cannot hear them.

It is foolish and dare I say arrogant to believe that anything of this world or this existance just happened one day or evolved from a single celled organism. We have no proof of this nor proof to the contrary. This does not make the argument right or wrong. Which is why religion is so controversal.

I believe that life is precious and a gift. If it were not we as humans would not care about murder regardless of religion. We would do as other animals do. Hell we wouldn't be human. Being human itself is a gift from God.

Next time you look in the mirror and then look at your neighbor imagine what he/she would look like had God not made man in his image.

~Sorry to rant
Damon

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 10 Aug 2005 11:02

professor wrote:Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean he's not there.

Just to chime in, just because you do believe in god doesn't mean s/he/it's there.

professor · Post by **professor** » 10 Aug 2005 11:34

I agree with you Flex. There's one part though that I'm iffy about. I believe that Jesus was God on earth. So I believe God was/is a man. At least part of him is man, now God as a whole is not a man, so I'm sure if that's what you meant or not.

bigdirtyfoot wrote:Just to chime in, just because you do believe in god doesn't mean s/he/it's there.

You're absolutely right. God's not there because I believe in him, he's there because he is. I don't have to believe in God to make him be there, he always was, is, and always will be.

Chema · Post by **Chema** » 10 Aug 2005 12:04

FlexThis wrote:I believe that life is precious and a gift. If it were not we as humans would not care about murder regardless of religion. We would do as other animals do. Hell we wouldn't be human. Being human itself is a gift from God.
Damon

I think what separates us from animals is that we have a conscience, we are able to look at our own actions and analyze ourselves. In my opinion that is no gift from God, it is just how we evolved. You say you don't believe in evolution, because you don't think we could have all evolved from a single celled organism, but you do think that it was just magically created by a supreme being who existed before there was even a universe, who do you think created God.
Listen my friend, Gods were a away of defining how we came to be before we were able to at least try scientifically. Remember the first scientists were really just Philosophers.
Gods were in all of the civilizations of the past, but they were all different. How can anyone possibly say that their God is the right one that exists that created the universe etc. Why would one random religion of the bunch be the right one?
Why is the Bible sexist? Because it was written way back, in a time where sexism was just a normal part of society. It was only written because it was the most current theory on the ultimate question, which is how and when did time begin. Then the writers threw in some laws on how to live (10 commandments etc.) because they needed an effective way to enforce laws, and if their theory was to be taken seriously it would have to make a little sense, and if God is this all-powerful creator he surly has a way of which he intended us to live.
The whole bible and all religions ever were just ways of making laws that people would follow and to have an answer to the unexplainable questions that haunt our curious, questioning, philosophising minds.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Aug 2005 12:13

To clarify:

Professor you are correct. That was indeed my intent.

Speaking of Jesus:

IMO Jesus as you stated was God on earth. Walking, talking, etc...He has also appeared as objects such as the burning bush. It is my belief that God can be and is everywhere and everything.

Einstein's theory of relativity states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Once again IMO the reason this is so is because God is matter. Destroy matter or create a new and you disprove God.

Again this is only my opinion and I would wish to continue to post as long as opinions can be regarded as such without needless befuddlement.

~peace
Damon

Chema · Post by **Chema** » 10 Aug 2005 12:15

professor wrote:
bigdirtyfoot wrote:Just to chime in, just because you do believe in god doesn't mean s/he/it's there.
You're absolutely right. God's not there because I believe in him, he's there because he is. I don't have to believe in God to make him be there, he always was, is, and always will be.

That's the most foolish argument or comment or whatever that I've heard in this thread.

Look two can play at your game..
Like Jesus, I am the son of my God and was sent to tell the world that my God is right, it just is it always has been and it always will be. There is nothing more too it, you lnow how I know? Because I'm the son of God. Professor, you should be the first to write about me, you could start a cult that follows my teaching that you'll write down in a book. This will become a world renouned religion, and everyone will live by my morals because they're right.
No, really I'm serious we should try this, I'm just as eligible as Jesus was, except I'm right and Jesus was a phony.

Remember, everything I have written so far is just my opinion.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Aug 2005 13:03

I think what separates us from animals is that we have a conscience, we are able to look at our own actions and analyze ourselves. In my opinion that is no gift from God, it is just how we evolved.

I question the idea that we and we alone evolved to have a conscience. What makes us different from animals is the holy spirit born within. If you take a puppy or chimp from its mother and allow it to grow it will inherently survive from the gifts passed from its lineage (aka -its own genetics, or instinct to be scientific). However, if you take a human baby and allow it to grow without other human interaction it will adapt to its protector not its lineage.

I watched a special called "Wild Child" which is the story of ferrel children (children raised by animals). It showed through scientific methods that humans grow the most during early development and that once a period of time is reached our own brains if not stimulated will die off and leave gaping holes that can never be filled.

Very interesting. Animals on the other hand adapt but remain what they are. I witnessed a 13 year old boy crawling around on all fours and barking like a dog. He could literally communicate with dogs. He could not however communicate with humans nor understand words and phrases. Only grunts and body language from other dogs.

Ultimately it was decided that love and nuturing from birth rounds out our minds and shapes our species. Not evolution. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

You say you don't believe in evolution, because you don't think we could have all evolved from a single celled organism, but you do think that it was just magically created by a supreme being who existed before there was even a universe, who do you think created God.

I believe that evolution exists. We however did not evolve in the way in which you are describing. We did not come from a single cell.

God is the universe as I have stated he is everywhere and everything. He is matter and he is anti-matter. He is the believable and the unbelievable. He has always existed. Putting the chicken before the egg is a neat trick to help your argument. Unfortunately it doesn't apply here.

Listen my friend, Gods were a away of defining how we came to be before we were able to at least try scientifically. Remember the first scientists were really just Philosophers.

Correct! Indeed religion before the Bible was a way to explain the unexplainable. Like for example the fact that the sun rises everyday. In certain cultures it was believed that the sun would not rise if they did not pray. Obviously this is not so for the sun still rises today and that culture no longer exists.

I am not familar with the history of science, nor was I there when it was conceived (rebutting the remember that statement) but I will agree that YES scientists would have to be philosophers to question things in the first place.

However, science is evolving as well, and many things that were thought of as fact way back when have been proven wrong today. So science if flawed by its lack of information.

Gods were in all of the civilizations of the past, but they were all different. How can anyone possibly say that their God is the right one that exists that created the universe etc. Why would one random religion of the bunch be the right one?

I don't believe one is better or right over another, that would be arrogant as well. IMO (please believe me when I say IMO) there are many cause we are many. If the Hindus embraced Christianity and Hindu were to disappear their economy would colapse. So I feel that this is one of many reasons why we have more than one religion.

I stated that I am not in control. Interpret that as you will, but it does not endorse a religion, it endorses a higher power.

Why is the Bible sexist? Because it was written way back, in a time where sexism was just a normal part of society.

It is sexist because men can crush women and this is still true today. Sorry ladies, but if men and women were trully equal, we would all share the same restrooms, clothing, and professional sports. It is sexist because men are assholes who embrace their powers and see them in this way.

Basically I agree with you that men are sexist and that has been proven and it still exists today. So if it still exists today, does that make the bible sexist??? I think it proves that men are sexist not the bible.

It was only written because it was the most current theory on the ultimate question, which is how and when did time begin.

Are we talking solely about the Bible or all religions? The Bible is split into 2 testaments. Those before Jesus and those after Jesus. The Jews follow the old testament, while Christianity follows both. Not sure I agree that it was current theory though. The New testament is based on Jesus, not the origins of time. That book is called Genesis and it is but one book of many in the old testament.

[/quote]Then the writers threw in some laws on how to live (10 commandments etc.) because they needed an effective way to enforce laws, and if their theory was to be taken seriously it would have to make a little sense, and if God is this all-powerful creator he surly has a way of which he intended us to live.

Again there are 2 testaments in the Bible. The old testament laid down the law. The New embraced mans relationships with other men.

Both lay the framework for a Godly path to walk. But that is the Bible, how would you explain other religions with regard to murder, adultery, or laws in general. Did they see what other religions were doing and jump on the bandwagon??? Ofcourse not. Back in the day men didn't speak the same languages and often killed one another over basic misunderstandings. There could not possibly be some underlying methodology dictating religious laws. They would have had to conspire and then agree. They couldn't even understand each other. How could this be???

The whole bible and all religions ever were just ways of making laws that people would follow and to have an answer to the unexplainable questions that haunt our curious, questioning, philosophising minds.

Forget love, honor and trust I guess. What is the law with regard to these things??? And let me remind you that not all societies even have religions, yet they still know murder is wrong without being brainwashed into some religious meme. Where did these societies get their laws from if laws were laid out in religion? I don't buy the argument that the bible and ALL those religions are simply for people control. The pharoes didn't use the bible to keep people in line, they used whips.

~peace
Damon

professor · Post by **professor** » 10 Aug 2005 13:22

Have you ever heard of irreducible complexity? It's a concept that says to have something that works all of the parts of that object must be present and working. If we evolved slowly then we would've had to already had lungs, a heart, a brain, etc. to survive. But naturalists(evolutionists) believe that we came from the same cell as everything else. So all our necessary parts would have to instantly form because if you even change the slightest thing at the molecular level, the human body cannot function.

It's like a mouse trap. There are different parts of a mouse trap and without one of those parts, the mouse trap doesn't work. Can you take out the spring of a mouse trap and have it work? No. What about if you put in a smaller spring in a bigger mouse trap will that work properly? No.

People who believe in evolution think that it is a fact and that it is science whereas religions are just beliefs. Well if you believe in evolution, that's right I said believe, then you are believing in a "religion". You have to accept things on faith just as much as people of religion have to accept things on faith.

From a logical standpoint I find creationism much more practical and pheasable than evolution. Look around at how everything works together perfectly. Take out your liver, what happens? You die. You think nature could produce such a complex thing as DNA? I find it much easier to believe that a designer created the universe and made things work the way they do on purpose, than just an accident of nature.

Now let's think about the history of evolution for a second. What is the first law of thermodynamics? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, right? Ok so this is what led scientists to believe that the universe was always around. Since matter cannot be created then it must have always been around right? Ok so a while ago scientist came up with this new idea. It's called the big bang theory. The big bang theory states that the universe was created in a cosmic explosion.

Now, wait a second....

Matter cannot be created -> Big Bang created matter

So science changed their view of evolution? So they were wrong at first? How many times has the Bible been wrong? When has it been changed because people found out that it said something incorrect?

I have a question about the Big Bang theory. What caused the Big Bang? Something must of caused it because a universal law in science is that everything happens because something causes it to happen. Science can't answer this question. I think science just proved that God exists. Before they said the universe was around forever. Ok, the Bible says the universe was created in an instant by God. So science contradicted the Bible. But then scientist discovered that the universe was not around forever. This falls right in line with the Bible's teachings. Coincidence?

Then the writers threw in some laws on how to live (10 commandments etc.) because they needed an effective way to enforce laws, and if their theory was to be taken seriously it would have to make a little sense, and if God is this all-powerful creator he surly has a way of which he intended us to live.

So the writers of the Bible just threw some stuff in? First off there were not just a few writers of the Bible coming up with this stuff off the top of their heads. The historical accuracy of the Bible is not doubted. Nobody denies the Bible is a valid and truthful historical book. So people were not just making this stuff up.

The Bible spans over a couple thousand years. There were 40 different writers of the 66 books in the Bible. If nothing is historically wrong in the Bible, then why are the "spiritual" things discarded as garbage?

The whole bible and all religions ever were just ways of making laws that people would follow and to have an answer to the unexplainable questions that haunt our curious, questioning, philosophising minds.

Really? And science doesn't do this too?

Like Jesus, I am the son of my God and was sent to tell the world that my God is right, it just is it always has been and it always will be.

Jesus wasn't sent to tell the world that "his God" was right. The old testament was written before Jesus was born. They already knew that God was right. They didn't need Jesus to tell them that God was right.

No, really I'm serious we should try this, I'm just as eligible as Jesus was, except I'm right and Jesus was a phony.

Really, when's the last time you rose from the dead? How about walked on water? How about cured leoparsy? How about made a blind person see? How long have you been perfect?

Honestly you can believe whatever you would like. It's not my job to prove to you God exists. You must discover that on your own. Although I don't think I would be going around mocking people's religions, not for their sake, but for yours. I'm a forgiving person, but not all people are.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 10 Aug 2005 13:30

This thread went downhill.

Chema · Post by **Chema** » 10 Aug 2005 13:30

professor wrote:People who believe in evolution think that it is a fact and that it is science whereas religions are just beliefs. Well if you believe in evolution, that's right I said believe, then you are believing in a "religion". You have to accept things on faith just as much as people of religion have to accept things on faith.

I'll respond to all this later I have to go to drivers school, but I need to make one thing clear "Thinking" and "Believing" are two completely different things.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Aug 2005 13:34

This thread went downhill.

huh????

I think (not believe) things are on course. Things are being stated and defended. No one is flaming - good discussions all the way around. IMO this is the natural course for argument. We discuss, question, defend, and try to make as valid a points as we can.

Not sure what you mean by downhill.

professor · Post by **professor** » 10 Aug 2005 13:47

I agree, this thread has been going very well considering the topic.

No flamage going on yet.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 10 Aug 2005 17:18

good to see you back on the front lines of discussion, flamin'

i havent really read all of this thread, but seems...strangely remeniscent of about 5 other threads in the recent past. but similar to what damon was saying, but why arent apes continuing to evolve? shouldnt there be apes at all different levels of evolution towards complete human-like characteristics. so there should be some apes that can speak a few words, use some basic logic, some with external earlobes, growth in height...i mean, by all accounts, of course the process is EXTREMELY slow, but would still require some apes (especially in the wild, since captive apes require no evolution, by this theory, i suppose) to be at different levels of development. but i see no dramatic differences whatsoever in physical or mental abilities and characteristics.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 11 Aug 2005 11:58

Getting off topic a bit, but certainly pertains to your last question regarding apes?

In the show "Wild Child" as mentioned above, one scientist didn't buy the idea that humans alone would evolve to fit their protector. So he performed an experiment where he took a new born chimp (closest to humans) into his home to live as a "Human" child. To help with the experiment he allowed his 3 month old child to interact with the chimp.

After several months of study he noticed that the chimp evolved as it would have given a normal chimp > chimp relationship. What he also noticed was that his own child had begun to develope chimp like qualities and his speech was stunted. By 8 months (from what I recall, could be more or less) the child could not speak nor communicate like a healthy child should under normal circumstances. Instead he grunted and howled like the chimp.

The experiment was cancelled immediately to prevent any more damage to the child.

This is significant to your question about Apes evolution in that if Apes were our relatives then the experiment would have shown this. Instead it showed the opposite.

I am not a scientist but do regard myself to be analytical in nature. IMO the human mind is way more capable of learning all kinds of things and it is the sum total of experiences that shape our mind.

Another off topic example: This one scares me.

In the same show they witnessed a girl that had been locked away in her room in a cage for 13 years. 13 YEARS! No interaction with humnas other than the parents peeking in to throw her fish parts. Literally when they found this girl her room was littered with feces, urine, dead and decaying fish parts including skeletal heads and such. The girl was in diapers and appeared to have the mentality of a 3 month old.

Not only did she not evolve, her brain was riddled with holes. Her speech centers destroyed, her motor skills unavailable.

When released from the cage she couldn't even walk. She crawled on all fours like a baby. She was taken in by a group of scientists for rehabilitation. After years of speech therapy, motor skill training, and human interaction she was only capable of understand the most basic of things. Food, water, and shelter. Eventually she was placed back into her cage for this is where whe was most comfortable.

It was trully sad watching her try to be human. She would stand next to a wall and bang her body against it, over and over for hours. Leave horrific bruises on her arms, torso and legs. She will never be human like you or I are human.

These experiences lead me to believe (IMO) that humans are special creatures created with a purpose. If that purpose goes unfulfilled then the gift of being human is taken away by normal human development.

Scary!!!

~peace
Damon

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 17 Aug 2005 10:50

We are so primitive.

Chema · Post by **Chema** » 17 Aug 2005 20:41

FlexThis wrote:This is significant to your question about Apes evolution in that if Apes were our relatives then the experiment would have shown this. Instead it showed the opposite.

That's not necessarily true you could see it as, the human began to act like a chip because its genetics (through evolution of many thousands of generation) came from a chimp, but the chimp didn't act like a human, because chimps didn't evolve from humans.

FlexThis wrote:Not only did she not evolve, her brain was riddled with holes.

Just to make it clear, one human cannot evolve, that is impossible. Evolution takes millions of years, and even micro evolution (which can happen very quickly, common among bacteria and viruses) still only happens in large groups.

Slapdash21 wrote:why arent apes continuing to evolve? shouldnt there be apes at all different levels of evolution towards complete human-like characteristics. so there should be some apes that can speak a few words, use some basic logic, some with external earlobes, growth in height...i mean, by all accounts, of course the process is EXTREMELY slow, but would still require some apes (especially in the wild, since captive apes require no evolution, by this theory, i suppose) to be at different levels of development. but i see no dramatic differences whatsoever in physical or mental abilities and characteristics.

The reason you don't notice apes evolving is because, it happens over millions of years, and who knows maybe 5000 years ago apes couldn't do half the things they can do know (I don't think that, but you never know)

The other thing is that evolution and natural selection go hand in hand. If the apes are living fine how they are they won't evolve but if you put apes in a different environment (say; colder) then the ones more fit to survive (say; more fat) will live on spreading genes, eventually the entire population of apes will be fit for living in the cold, Now picture that process over millions, and millions of years. I think that there's a good chance the theory of evolution is true, and that could have evolved (not came) from apes.

You can even see evolution in the human race they've proved that we're getting taller, they think that we're getting smarter. I'm talking in the past 1000 years. There's plenty of stuff that show direct examples of evolution (I do understand though, that those examples don't prove the theory of evolution, but at least there are good examples).

I've read a good portion of the Bible and other things along those lines, and I've also read a lot of Darwin stuff, and I find darwin's theories to make more sense, even though I was raised believing in God and such.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 18 Aug 2005 07:13

You can even see evolution in the human race they've proved that we're getting taller, they think that we're getting smarter. I'm talking in the past 1000 years. There's plenty of stuff that show direct examples of evolution (I do understand though, that those examples don't prove the theory of evolution, but at least there are good examples).

I'd call that improvements in medication, technology and social development, but not evolution. If say we had an extra nose, I'd call that evolution.

FlexThis wrote:
This is significant to your question about Apes evolution in that if Apes were our relatives then the experiment would have shown this. Instead it showed the opposite.

That's not necessarily true you could see it as, the human began to act like a chip because its genetics (through evolution of many thousands of generation) came from a chimp, but the chimp didn't act like a human, because chimps didn't evolve from humans.

If this were true then why would the children raised by dogs not act like Chimps??? My point is that humans have the capacity to learn all kinds of things apart from other animals and my explanination for this is the devine within. God is in us.

I've read a good portion of the Bible and other things along those lines, and I've also read a lot of Darwin stuff, and I find darwin's theories to make more sense, even though I was raised believing in God and such.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Darwin stuff is based mostly on fenches in the Galapagos Islands. While the Bible is the center of a religion. I don't feel Darwinian Theory qualifies as religion, it is based in science.

All in all, I agree that humans are indeed evolving. But not from apes, more rather from themselves. We still do not have a link that proves this theory, which is why it is a theory.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 Aug 2005 08:53

To begin with, I'm sorry to say but I haven't read this whole thread. I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to read three pages. But I wanted to address this:

Slapdash21 wrote:

why arent apes continuing to evolve? shouldnt there be apes at all different levels of evolution towards complete human-like characteristics.

The mistake you are making here is to believe that evolution has an end-goal in mind. Evolution doesn't work like that. The only goal of evolution is survival and reproduction. Animals with characteristics that help them survive and reproduce at a rate greater than their competition will leave more offspring. Those offspring are likely to inherit the traits that allowed their parents to survive and multiply, and these same traits should help them survive and reproduce in greater numbers than their competitors too. Over time, these traits are magnified by these pressures to survive and reproduce. Evolution doesn't have a particular idea in mind of what it would like a creature to come out as in the end. Evolution doesn't want chimps to become like humans. Evolution doesn't "want" anything at all, except for survival and reproduction. If developing a larger brain and the ability to walk upright aided in the survival and reproduction of chimps, than they might start to evolve to be more like us. However, this would demand environmental conditions in the chimps habitat that favored the smarter chimps and/or those more prone to upright walking. On the other hand, if environmental conditions in the chimp habitat were such that chimps who had a tendancy to lose all their hair were more likely to survive and reproduce, than that is how they might begin to evolve. Nature and evolution don't "want" chimps to be smarter unless the smarter chimps were living longer and having more babies. If the current chimp environment doesn't favor this, developing a larger brain might actually be a liability for chimps (brains use alot of energy, in the form of calories consumed, and this might not be available in the chimp environment, so having a bigger brain that took more food-energy to maintain might make a chimp less likely to survive and reproduce).

One more thing: humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from some other distant common ancestor. Some of these distant ancestors of ours, the theory goes, lived in a jungle environment that gradually dried and turned to savannah. The primarily tree-dwelling animals that could more quickly and safely move from tree to tree in an ever-thinning forest had a survival advantage, so our ancestors very gradually developed a tendancy to walk on two legs. Chimps, on the other hand, were decendants of this common ancestor who lived in a jungle environment that didn't dry up and disappear over a million years. They evolved to better fit their jungle environment. They did not need to evolve to walk from tree to tree because trees where usually close enought that they could swing from one to another. Our bipedalism comes at a cost, and one of the things that we sacraficed was an improved ability to climb into and live in trees. As long as chimps still have jungle to live in, they are not going to begin walking upright because they would then probably be worse at climbing and living in trees. They don't need to walk as much as they need to climb well, and a chimp that was better at walking than climbing would probably not survive long, or might survive okay be produce less offspring (because potential mates would see that this individual was less "fit" and would be less likely to mate with this walking chimp, or because the extra effort it took this chimp to climb trees and gather its food left it less time and energy to reproduce, effectively leaving it less fertile), and thus not result in an increased number of upright walking chimps.

Anyway, thats my lesson on evolution for today. Any questions?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 18 Aug 2005 10:15

professor wrote: Well if you believe in evolution, that's right I said believe, then you are believing in a "religion".

Believing in evolution makes as much sense as believing in gravity. Both are theories that have small gaps, and neither are going to be replaced anytime soon. I personall think intelligent falling is more plausible than gravity, and it doesn't require any of the fancy schmancy math to figure it out.

cd · Post by cd » 18 Aug 2005 12:46

professor wrote:I agree, this thread has been going very well considering the topic.

No flamage going on yet.

Yeah. There have been many topics similar to this one, but it would be awesome if this could remain civil discussion. I'm enjoying reading this.

And one correction to a couple posts made on this page. Matter CAN be created and destroyed.

Pair production and annihiliation (ie. a massless photon becoming a electron and positron, or conversely an electron and positron colliding and becoming a massless photon) is entirely possible and has been experimentally verified. The first law of thermodynamics is actually an application of conservation of energy (the only two things universally conserved are energy and momentum).

Hence mass and energy are interchangable and in fact the same thing, and the Big Bang is a completely possible scenario, professor.