Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:59 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   I need an answer
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 58 (566749)
06-26-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 3:31 PM


Re: i understand
RyanVanGo writes:

The fact is that since man was able to think outside of the monkey mindset we have worship deities. why would this happen with no reason at all?


Oh, but there is a reason. Early man did not know what we know. He did not understand lightning, the tides, the day/night cycle, the seasons, anything you care to mention. In an effort to gain some control over it all, he invented gods/ghosts/sprites/fairies/whatever. Beings he could pray to, sacrifice to, appeal to, so that he could gain a measure of control over this nasty evil world out there that seemed bent on killing him, even if it was a fake control. Why do you think "The lord moves in mysterious ways"? Because it is a fake control and it doesn't always work ou the way people want it to.

I'm sure there are a few hypotheses as to why, but I'm taking it as evidence that there must have been witness of this, at some point and has been notably more refined as time goes on.

But if you think about it, it really hasn't has it? Every god concept so far (except perhaps the Deist/non intervening god) has been proven to be wrong. Lightning? Not from Thor, but from negative charges in clouds. Tides? Not Poseidon but the moon. And so on and so forth. Nothing has been refined, in fact, everything that was come up with was wrong.

this is small evidence, but enough, for me to ACKNOWLEDGE that there is a very real possibility, even though i'm not positive, i like to think so.

I like to think I'm Napoleon, that doesn't make it so. What might feel "nice" "cosy" and "right" might be completely wrong. The only way to tell is with evidence. So far, there is none for god, sorry to say.

now if you really did create everything 2 minutes ago, please let me win the lottery this week.

I don't tinker with creation anymore, all is as it should be.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 3:31 PM RyanVanGo has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 58 (566758)
06-26-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RyanVanGo
06-26-2010 3:31 PM


Re: i understand
however, i am basing my belief that there IS a god who did these things based on evidence, albeit very little. The fact is that since man was able to think outside of the monkey mindset we have worship deities. why would this happen with no reason at all? I'm sure there are a few hypotheses as to why, but I'm taking it as evidence that there must have been witness of this, at some point and has been notably more refined as time goes on.

If by "these things" you mean some sort of fiat creation as in the Book of Genesis, then it is worth pointing out that these "witnesses" conflict in just about every detail (just as would the "witnesses" to the Emperor's New Clothes).

Here, for example, is a Japanese creation myth:

Of old, Heaven and Earth were not yet separated, and the In and Yo not yet divided. They formed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits and contained germs. The purer and clearer part was thinly drawn out, and formed Heaven, while the heavier and grosser element settled down and became Earth. The finer element easily became a united body, but the consolidation of the heavy and gross element was accomplished with difficulty. Heaven was therefore formed first, and Earth was established subsequently. Thereafter divine beings were produced between them.

Hence it is said that when the world began to be created, the soil of which lands were composed floated about in a manner which might be compared to the floating of a fish sporting on the surface of the water.

At this time a certain thing was produced between Heaven and Earth. It was in form like a reed-shoot. Now this became transformed into a God, and was called Kuni-toko-tachi no Mikoto. Next there was Kuni no sa-tsuchi no Mikoto, and next Toyo-kumu-nu no Mikoto, in all three deities. These were pure males spontaneously developed by the operation of the principle of Heaven.

Note that it includes an account of the origin of deities.

And here's a Norse version:

Gangleri asked: "How were things wrought, ere the races were and the tribes of men increased?" Then said Hárr: "The streams called Ice-waves, those which were so long come from the fountain-heads that the yeasty venom upon them had hardened like the slag that runs out of the fire,--these then became ice; and when the ice halted and ceased to run, then it froze over above. But the drizzling rain that rose from the venom congealed to rime, and the rime increased, frost over frost, each over the other, even into Ginnungagap, the Yawning Void." Then spake Jafnhárr: "Ginnungagap, which faced toward the northern quarter, became filled with heaviness, and masses of ice and rime, and from within, drizzling rain and gusts; but the southern part of the Yawning Void was lighted by those sparks and glowing masses which flew out of Múspellheim." And Thridi said: "Just as cold arose out of Niflheim, and all terrible things, so also all that looked toward Múspellheim became hot and glowing; but Ginnungagap was as mild as windless air, and when the breath of heat met the rime, so that it melted and dripped, life was quickened from the yeast-drops, by the power of that which sent the heat, and became a man's form. And that man is named Ymir, but the Rime-Giants call him Aurgelimir; and thence are come the races of the Rime-Giants…

Then said Gangleri: "How did the races grow thence, or after what fashion was it brought to pass that more men came into being? Or do ye hold him God, of whom ye but now spake?" And Jafnhárr answered: "By no means do we acknowledge him God; he was evil and all his kindred: we call them Rime-Giants. Now it is said that when he slept, a sweat came upon him, and there grew under his left hand a man and a woman, and one of his feet begat a son with the other; and thus the races are come; these are the Rime-Giants. The old Rime-Giant, him we call Ymir."

Then said Gangleri: "Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?" Hárr answered: "Straightway after the rime dripped, there sprang from it the cow called Audumla; four streams of milk ran from her udders, and she nourished Ymir." Then asked Gangleri: "Wherewithal was the cow nourished?" And Hárr made answer:

"She licked the ice-blocks, which were salty; and the first day that she licked the blocks, there came forth from the blocks in the evening a man's hair; the second day, a man's head; the third day the whole man was there. He is named Búri: he was fair of feature, great and mighty. He begat a son called Borr, who wedded the woman named Bestla, daughter of Bölthorn the giant; and they had three sons: one was Odin, the second Vili, the third Vé. And this is my belief, that he, Odin, with his brothers, must be ruler of heaven and earth; we hold that he must be so called; so is that man called whom we know to be mightiest and most worthy of honor, and ye do well to let him be so called.

this is small evidence, but enough, for me to ACKNOWLEDGE that there is a very real possibility, even though i'm not positive, i like to think so.

I guess there's a small possibility of everything, for reasons I explained in my previous post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-26-2010 3:31 PM RyanVanGo has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 58 (567873)
07-02-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RyanVanGo
06-16-2010 11:34 AM


RyanVanGo writes:

Evolution: Here's our proof, here's what we know so far, there's a few holes, but we're working on it.

Creation: There's too many holes in evolution, it must be creation.

What you need to understand is that when evolution first reared itself back in the late 18th century (and even earlier in ancient times amongst the greek philosophers) the idea that was presented was that life was not created but rather evolved from nonliving matter.

That is why there has been a 'evolution/creation' debate raging because we creationists have always beleived that God created living things.

However, at some point down the track, the evolutionists began to realise that the 'origin' of life itself is a different topic to the evolution that they were studying. They have since separated the two subjects into
1. Evolution - 'the changes we see in populations over time'
&
2. Abiogenesis - 'the origin of the first living things'

Now evolution is quite true in the current context of 'changes in populations' because we can see it happening and when evolutionists claim that evolution is no longer a theory but rather a 'fact' its because they can actually show how living things change over time. Just look at the human race as an example...how many different looking races do we see? And look at the number of different dog breeds, or horse breeds ect animals do change over time and new breeds appear. So there is evidence that 'evolution' happens.
However, creationists stop at the point where evolutionists say that mankind came from other apelike creatures. The bible is very clear that humans were a special creation unlike any of the animals because they were endowed with Gods thinking.

But is there any evidence as to how No.2 Abiogenesis happened? No.
They cannot generate life from non liivng matter in their labs because life only comes from God...we creationists have always maintained that. Creationism is really the concept that God created the first living things and they were allowed to populate the earth over millions of years.

RyanVanGo writes:

Instead i need to see proof that the earth WAS formed 10000 years ago, and not only that, but that God is the one who formed it, with his hands, in 6 days. WITHOUT saying that our theories are wrong, but proposing new ones. please. my sanity and spirituality are on the line here.

The earth was not formed 10,000 years ago and the bible does not say that it was.

If you read Genesis 1:1 it says that 'God created the heavens & the earth'
then Vs 2 says 'The earth was formless and waste and there was waters upon its surface'

So basically the way to understand this is that vs 2 is speaking about an 'existing planet' that was created in the beginning along with the rest of the universe/heavens.

The remainder of genesis speaks of how God prepared the earth for life to inhabit it.

Also with regard to the '6 days'
these are not literal 24 hour days for the hebrew word used is 'Yom' and it is used in the bible in many figurative ways including 'long periods of time' and 'ages of time' and 'a persons lifetime'

So we do not need to veiw the earth as being created in 6 literal days but rather, in line with the physical evidence, we can accep that the 'yom' in genesis must be refering to '6 ages' of time. Each day represents a new and very differnt 'age' in the earths creation. We dont know how long each age is, but the physical evidence tells us that it was certainly a very long time...many hundreds of thousands of years perhaps more perhaps less.

So my advice to you is not to be confused over evolution or creation because they are not at odds with each other, they are completely different and they have both been proved true in that, animals change over time and life does not generate spontaneously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RyanVanGo, posted 06-16-2010 11:34 AM RyanVanGo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:01 PM Peg has responded
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 07-02-2010 11:55 PM Peg has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 34 of 58 (567874)
07-02-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
07-02-2010 10:51 PM


Peg writes:
However, at some point down the track, the evolutionists began to realise that the 'origin' of life itself is a different topic to the evolution that they were studying. They have since separated the two subjects into
1. Evolution - 'the changes we see in populations over time'
&
2. Abiogenesis - 'the origin of the first living things'

As far as I know, Darwin called his book "The Origin of Species". He did not call it "The Origin of Life." So it seems that evolution was already understood to be changes in populations over time. The "separation" you describe appears to be mistaken.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 07-02-2010 10:51 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 2:43 AM nwr has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 35 of 58 (567881)
07-02-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
07-02-2010 10:51 PM


However, at some point down the track, the evolutionists began to realise that the 'origin' of life itself is a different topic to the evolution that they were studying. They have since separated the two subjects into
1. Evolution - 'the changes we see in populations over time'
&
2. Abiogenesis - 'the origin of the first living things'

They have always been separated. They are in no way related . Whether life stated by Abiogenesis or not, has no effect on evolution.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 07-02-2010 10:51 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 3:02 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 58 (567893)
07-03-2010 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
07-02-2010 11:01 PM


nwr writes:

As far as I know, Darwin called his book "The Origin of Species". He did not call it "The Origin of Life." So it seems that evolution was already understood to be changes in populations over time. The "separation" you describe appears to be mistaken.

Charles Darwin wrote in his conclusion on Page 484

"I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype....Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

He clearly did not believe in 'special creation' which is basically that God created the first of each of the different kinds of animals/plants but rather that they had evolved from "one primoridal form"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-02-2010 11:01 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:23 AM Peg has responded
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 8:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 58 (567894)
07-03-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluescat48
07-02-2010 11:55 PM


bluescat writes:

They have always been separated. They are in no way related . Whether life stated by Abiogenesis or not, has no effect on evolution.

Well not always, lets be honest about that. Spontaneous Generation preceeded the current term 'abiogenesis' by many centuries...that is that flies are produced from rotten meat for example....Louis pasteurs experiements put the belief to rest until 1924 when Alexander Oparin revived the spontaneous generation argument by speculating on earths primitive conditions and the primordial soup.

Now i'm well aware that they are different subjects, but even evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins holds to the spontaneous generation view as the beginning of life....and he puts that view in his evolution books.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 07-02-2010 11:55 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:28 AM Peg has responded
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 07-03-2010 11:02 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6319
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 38 of 58 (567896)
07-03-2010 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
07-03-2010 2:43 AM


And where in this section you quoted does Darwin say anything about abiogenesis or the origin of life?

Saying that he believed there was one primordial form is not in any way implying that he had an theory or idea for the origin of life.

You seem to have gone off the rails on this one. The quote you supply does not in any way support your argument.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 2:43 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 4:29 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6319
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 39 of 58 (567897)
07-03-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peg
07-03-2010 3:02 AM


Now i'm well aware that they are different subjects, but even evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins holds to the spontaneous generation view as the beginning of life....and he puts that view in his evolution books.

Again you seem to be off the rails on this. You have provided no evidence they are related and have not shown that evolution depends on abiogenesis. It wouldn't matter if Richard Dawkins declared support of your view, it would still be wrong.

Please provide a source where Dawkins states that spontaneous generation was the source of life.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 3:02 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 4:25 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 58 (567899)
07-03-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 3:28 AM


Theodoric writes:

Please provide a source where Dawkins states that spontaneous generation was the source of life.

The Selfish Gene 1976 page 16.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:28 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 8:46 AM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 41 of 58 (567900)
07-03-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Theodoric
07-03-2010 3:23 AM


[qs=Theodoric]

Darwins states that he believes that all living things descended from "one prototype"

i think that explains full well his belief and why the religous community objected to his theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2010 3:23 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 4:50 AM Peg has responded
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 07-03-2010 8:54 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 58 (567901)
07-03-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peg
07-03-2010 4:29 AM


Peg writes:

i think that explains full well his belief and why the religous community objected to his theory.


The "religious community" objected to his theory because it didn't fit in with their precious little book.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 4:29 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 5:25 AM Huntard has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3103 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 43 of 58 (567904)
07-03-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Huntard
07-03-2010 4:50 AM


Huntard writes:

The "religious community" objected to his theory because it didn't fit in with their precious little book.

thats not the point

the OP is asking a very pertinent question and it deserves to be taken for what it is. I am attempting to explain WHY creationists are opposed to evolution and to show that there is no need to oppose it because evolution and abiogenesis are different topics as people such as yourself once (maybe a few more times then once) explained to me.

Creationists still have the two subjects linked which is why they still object to evolution. If they/we separate the two then there is no issue with evolution in terms of 'descent with modification' and changes over time in species. I've come to understand that and i hope the opening poster will also see that.

However, we still dont agree on all the points, but at least we can agree that animals do change over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 4:50 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 7:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 44 of 58 (567910)
07-03-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
07-03-2010 5:25 AM


Peg writes:

thats not the point.


'Tis the truth, however.

the OP is asking a very pertinent question and it deserves to be taken for what it is. I am attempting to explain WHY creationists are opposed to evolution and to show that there is no need to oppose it because evolution and abiogenesis are different topics as people such as yourself once (maybe a few more times then once) explained to me.

Fair enough.

Creationists still have the two subjects linked which is why they still object to evolution. If they/we separate the two then there is no issue with evolution in terms of 'descent with modification' and changes over time in species. I've come to understand that and i hope the opening poster will also see that.

But they're still opposed to evolution when it comes to "making" new species.

However, we still dont agree on all the points, but at least we can agree that animals do change over time.

Well yes, denying such an obvious reality is one step to far, even for creationist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 5:25 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6319
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 45 of 58 (567918)
07-03-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
07-03-2010 4:25 AM


Theodoric writes:

Please provide a source where Dawkins states that spontaneous generation was the source of life.

The Selfish Gene 1976 page 16.

Care to provide the quote? I do not own the book.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 4:25 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 07-03-2010 9:44 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019