Creationism vs. Evolution

[gela]

Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that), then IMO that proves there is a God. Afterlife and evolution do have things to do with each other, if afterlife is real (which it is) then evolution can not be true. Why would evolution create an afterlife? It couldn't...and it wouldn't.

Actualy, buddhists believe in an afterlife; but they don't believe in any god.

I realy don't see how 'there is an afterlife' = 'there is a creator'

ok, back on topic.

Evolution has all the proof it needs. Creationism is just trying the religionise this perfect scientific explanation of creation.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Matt Since there is an afterlife (I don't think people can deny that), then IMO that proves there is a God. Afterlife and evolution do have things to do with each other, if afterlife is real (which it is) then evolution can not be true. Why would evolution create an afterlife? It couldn't...and it wouldn't.

Eh..? Two negatives.. "Afterlife" - yes, that's called "death" - also could call it evolution.. No deity involved. No "god(s)" to be had. The universe evolves.. and stars are 'born" & "die" - that is fact.

Entropy rules..!!


.

[Technosoul]

The thing is that science cannot disprove the God exsists anymore then religion can prove that God exsists.

Because science is not supposed to be into philosophy or into doing interpretations of some myth, that is for Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell to handle.

Science is also responsible to creating modern myths, they used physics to create the big bang myth.

Others might use the Bible or another idea collected form imagination to create the God-myth.

Both myths are myths because they are beyond our abilities to see, hear, smell, or touch. Or to detect with our technology aids.

How long has consciousness exsisted? We cannot know for sure. We can experience it here and now, but our experience does not reach back beyond the moment we became self-aware. Other then as an unknowable data base within out DNA. We know we have that data base but we cannot, with our thinking mind we do not hear a voice form our DNA telling us to be gay (or whatever).

Only thought can see thoughts. We can only detect brain waves.

The forth dimension is a good example of a modern myth that some scientists enjoy thinking about.

Sure it is possible, the same as afterlife is possible, but we cannot reach across that "line" between the known reality and the potential reaity. Reality is an opinon.

Evolution is somewhat different, we can test micro-organisms, observe them under micro-scopes, and then report those findings.

We can dig up fosils, test for their age, and with enough of them we can note patterns that are taking place in a progressive manner.

The earth is sort of like the rings in a tree, each ring represents an age, so we can tell by the rocks and materials in earth's rings just what age the earth is, and how old the fosil found in a ring is.

( this is written in a child like way )

Micro-organisms came first.

Now the Bible talks about a Creator using clay to mold life. Indeed there might be a tiny truth in that idea. Because the micro-organisms were (perhaps) influenced by water and soil ( and clay is water and soil). Or by muddy ponds so to speak.

However a simplistic answer for teachng children is not the same as a more complex version as understood by adults.

Now if God breathed life into beings then He must of done that via trees or other such plants. Tree OF life.

Converting symbolism into relative sccientific data is how a creationist should go about "doing their thing". In my opinon.

[gela]

Because science is not supposed to be into philosophy or into doing interpretations of some myth, that is for Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell to handle. Science is also responsible to creating modern myths, they used physics to create the big bang myth. Others might use the Bible or another idea collected form imagination to create the God-myth. Both myths are myths because they are beyond our abilities to see, hear, smell, or touch. Or to detect with our technology aids.

There is a very clear difference between theory and myth.

myth (mĭth) n. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) n., pl. -ries. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Matt No, but don't evolutionists believe there isn't a God? So an afterlife couldn't be there if there wasn't a God. I'm not off topic.

Oh man...
The world isn't an open field with christian creationists one one side and wicked atheist evolutionists on the other, never talking or looking at each other. Most of the religious people I know are evolutionists. They think God used evolution. Other are deists, they believe that God created the universe then stopped interacting with it. Other, like me, are pantheist, and believe nature to be God and thus that understanding nature (science) is like reading the Bible for Christian. So yes, some religious people are evolutionists, and some definition of God even reject the concept of afterworld.

[Matt]

Quote by: gela Actualy, buddhists believe in an afterlife; but they don't believe in any god. I realy don't see how 'there is an afterlife' = 'there is a creator' ok, back on topic. Evolution has all the proof it needs. Creationism is just trying the religionise this perfect scientific explanation of creation.

Well, I do. How could there be an afterlife if there isn't a creator? It wouldn't make sense and it wouldn't be possible.

IYO it does

Quote by: Century 25 Eh..? Two negatives.. "Afterlife" - yes, that's called "death" - also could call it evolution.. No deity involved. No "god(s)" to be had. The universe evolves.. and stars are 'born" & "die" - that is fact. Entropy rules..!!

Interesting poetry.

Quote by: Technosoul The thing is that science cannot disprove the God exsists anymore then religion can prove that God exsists. Because science is not supposed to be into philosophy or into doing interpretations of some myth, that is for Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell to handle. Science is also responsible to creating modern myths, they used physics to create the big bang myth. Others might use the Bible or another idea collected form imagination to create the God-myth. Both myths are myths because they are beyond our abilities to see, hear, smell, or touch. Or to detect with our technology aids. How long has consciousness exsisted? We cannot know for sure. We can experience it here and now, but our experience does not reach back beyond the moment we became self-aware. Other then as an unknowable data base within out DNA. We know we have that data base but we cannot, with our thinking mind we do not hear a voice form our DNA telling us to be gay (or whatever). Only thought can see thoughts. We can only detect brain waves. The forth dimension is a good example of a modern myth that some scientists enjoy thinking about. Sure it is possible, the same as afterlife is possible, but we cannot reach across that "line" between the known reality and the potential reaity. Reality is an opinon. Evolution is somewhat different, we can test micro-organisms, observe them under micro-scopes, and then report those findings. We can dig up fosils, test for their age, and with enough of them we can note patterns that are taking place in a progressive manner. The earth is sort of like the rings in a tree, each ring represents an age, so we can tell by the rocks and materials in earth's rings just what age the earth is, and how old the fosil found in a ring is. ( this is written in a child like way ) Micro-organisms came first. Now the Bible talks about a Creator using clay to mold life. Indeed there might be a tiny truth in that idea. Because the micro-organisms were (perhaps) influenced by water and soil ( and clay is water and soil). Or by muddy ponds so to speak. However a simplistic answer for teachng children is not the same as a more complex version as understood by adults. Now if God breathed life into beings then He must of done that via trees or other such plants. Tree OF life. Converting symbolism into relative sccientific data is how a creationist should go about "doing their thing". In my opinon.

I'm just not getting that post...

BTW, it is faith, not religion for me.

Quote by: nerdvincent Oh man... The world isn't an open field with christian creationists one one side and wicked atheist evolutionists on the other, never talking or looking at each other. Most of the religious people I know are evolutionists. They think God used evolution. Other are deists, they believe that God created the universe then stopped interacting with it. Other, like me, are pantheist, and believe nature to be God and thus that understanding nature (science) is like reading the Bible for Christian. So yes, some religious people are evolutionists, and some definition of God even reject the concept of afterworld.

To believe in evolution and believe in God is very contradicting, and truthfully doesn't make sense.

[gallo]

Quote by: Matt No, but don't evolutionists believe there isn't a God?

No. Emphatically not. Belief in a god has nothing to do with the study of evolutionary biology.

So an afterlife couldn't be there if there wasn't a God.

Not a valid conclusion. You have been asked before and failed to reply, why can't there be an afterlife without a god/gods?

I'm not off topic.

Yes, you are. Way off topic.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela There is a very clear difference between theory and myth.

One missundertanding is that a myth is just a fallacy, a fantasy. In his work Josephy Campbell showed how ancient myths have a seed of truth in them, and likewise how to apply them to our own life. Carl Jung also wrote a number of books about the symbolism employed in myths and their true meanings.

Those books are well respected resources.

A theroy can also activate speculations, just like when the anicents observed nature and speculated about the powers of nature as a god or great spirit.

It bowls down to who has the best imagination or reasoning abilities to interpret what they have observed or studied.

IF I wanted to imagine or deduct that the Big Bang is the power and glory of God, and IF I wanted to make use of your theory for that purpose, then that is just my imagination verses your imagination. The background data is the same.

[Matt]

Quote by: gallo No. Emphatically not. Belief in a god has nothing to do with the study of evolutionary biology. Not a valid conclusion. You have been asked before and failed to reply, why can't there be an afterlife without a god/gods? Yes, you are. Way off topic.

Because how could there be? Seriously, think about it. How could there be an afterlife with out God? If God didn't make an afterlife...who did? Afterlife (aka Heaven) can not be created by a big 'boom' or whatever other theories there are for what created the earth. Afterlife is something that evolution cannot make, plain and simple. Afterlife is something beyond what evolution could make.

Isn't this a debate about creationism and evolution? How am I off topic then? I think you may think I'm off topic because I'm not following your point of view

[Technosoul]

Take for example the biblical story about the 10 kings who would rule.

Our solar system is ruled by 10 objects, via gravity and what not.

1. Pluto
2. Neptune.
3. Uranus.
4. Saturn.
5. Jupiter.
6. Mars.
7. Earth.
9. Venus.
10. Mercury.

Under the most powerful Sun.

The greeks gave each planet the name of a particular god, like they did in Egypt.

Here we see a "mythological" explaination of our solar system, which was confirmed by science.

One Sun and 10 planets.

One God and the 10 kings. (see Daniel in Bible).

So here we have a biblical story about 10 planets that science did not even know about until much later.

The number of planets (kings) then became the standard for math. Using 5 as a base the total unit would be 10. When you reach a count of 10 you start the cycle over with 11. (which is like 1). Our money system is based on this also. 10 cents makes 1 dollar, and 10 dollars make 100 dollars. ( a paper bill for each ).

If you add the sun and the moon you have a 12 count as the complete unit with 6 as the base. Which is our other counting system. ( a dozen eggs ). RE: the ten month calendar verses the 12 month calendar.

Jesus used the 12 month idea of the solar system as the complete unit, picking 12 diciples. Rather scientific of him eh? Remove the one bad disciple and you have 11 disciples orbiting aound his self. Like the moon and planets orbiting the sun ( the light).

On earth as in heaven.

As I so noted the earth is the 7th planet.

In our system of math we have a 12 month calendar which is sort of based on the orbits of the earth around the sun. and a week containing 7 days. The 7 day week would make up a "completed unit". Each day named after some mythological god.

The 7 day creation story was simply based on the idea that the universe was a "completed unit". Using 6 as the base for 12 the creation work would be 6 days and the 7th day "extra time" so the days would fit into a sun calendar arrangement.
Rather then the 10 month calendar arrangement which is based on moon cycles.

The ancient debate among Jews as to which calendar to use ( moon or sun ) resulted in the concepts about the debate between the children of darkness and the children of the light ). Because the moon is for night people and the sun is for day people. The moon is useful for fishermen and farmers, the sun calendar is useful for people who are interested in planning social or religious events.

Oh hum... I could sit here all day with these here scientific facts about religion.

[ShadowFox]

um, 9 planets actually. 8 if you don't think Pluto counts. Though we do have plenty of stuff out there

Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is errors in mathematics.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Halofan48 um, 9 planets actually. 8 if you don't think Pluto counts. Though we do have plenty of stuff out there Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is errors in mathematics.

Opps, typo error.

I forgot to add the asteroid belt .

1. pluto
2. Neptune.
3. uranus
4. Jupitor
5. Asteroid belt (hammerd bacelet was the biblical name )
6. mars
7. Earth
8. moon
9. venus
10 Mercury
11 Sun

That will account for everything.

If you count the earth - moon as one number the the total count is 10

I counted the asteroid belt as it could have been a planet in our solar system (now in tiny bits) before the final order was established, which distruction could have placed earth in it's current obital relationship with the sun so that life on earth is possible.

Suggesting the passing and possible return of a 12th planet which was named "Marduk" per anicent writings.

Marduk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Birth of Earth 3

NEW PHYSICS INSPIRED BY EINSTEIN'S FAMOUS THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I forgot to add the asteroid belt . 1. pluto 2. Neptune. 3. uranus 4. Jupitor 5. Asteroid belt (hammerd bacelet was the biblical name ) 6. mars 7. Earth 8. moon 9. venus 10 Mercury 11 Sun That will account for everything.

Really? What happened to Saturn. Not to mention the Kuiper Belt and the Ort Cloud. You do understand that there have been several tran-Neptunian objects that have been imaged that are larger than Pluto, don't you?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Really? What happened to Saturn. Not to mention the Kuiper Belt and the Ort Cloud. You do understand that there have been several tran-Neptunian objects that have been imaged that are larger than Pluto, don't you?

Ha, now you know why I am not a scientist.

Okay then add Saturn and drop the asteroid belt, the number of planets would still add up to what is needed to make the anology.

In addition to your notation many planets also have moons and one could ask why our moon is counted and not all the moons.

What is your opinon on the link The Birth of Earth 3

Some objects have been detected in or near the Kuiper Belt.

SPACE.com -- Discovery Hints at a Quadrillion Space Rocks Beyond Neptune

Trans-Neptunian Objects - Explore the Cosmos | The Planetary Society

I would venture to say that Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt with the other objects making up that "sea" of icy objects. Therefore counting Pluto and the Kuiper Belt as "one" thing. One influence.

As you know, even a theory can be re-interpreted due to addictional findings or data. I am not talking about absolutes here. And this idea has lots of room in it for debating - because of it's very nature.

None the less, if you ignore my clumsy way of presenting this idea, it is still evidence that perhaps religious stories are really based on scientific knowledge about the solar system, etc.

I must insert however that none of the Creationist oganizations took part in constructing this idea as I outlined. And most religions would reject the idea faster then would a scientific journal. And I doubt it scientists would see any point in adding such to a book about the history of science.

None the less, it works for me.

In other words, many myths and religious stories are a spin-off of discoveries known to ancient scientists. How then would they know? That would be another debate.

Now (more explaination) if a planet impacted earth at the location of the astroid belt and moved it into our current orbit, then that would account for why we have an astroid belt, and also, our moon would be a left over part of the other planet that impacted earth.
If that is the case then the moon would be made of slightly differenct kinds of rocks then what we have here on earth. You know the answer to that requirement.

[Technosoul]

Following what I wote above I would then question (myself) if there is anything in the Bible or world mythology that would symbolize evolution. Descent with modification.

There is a story about an angel that descended and then shape-shifted into a Serpent. That would be a rather big "modification". trying to suggest that such a story had anything to do with explaining evolution would not "sell well" to anyone.

But we are desendants of our forefathers (foremothers) and their DNA is pass "down" to us.

Evolution is often thought of as moving up on the "tree like charts" used. Realistically we are not going up or down via evolution or any other processes. We are just changing over generations if something causes such a change. But we use such words as "descent" also to discribe something like falling from grace or being lifted up into a state of higher consciousness. Etc. Overlapping meanings where it does not apply.

Being that the earth is a globe you cannot "jump up" because you are in fact moving away from the center point of the circular earth. You are jumping "outward". or falling "inwardly" in visa versa.

That is why we use the word "outerspace" instead of "upperspace".

None the less people cannot get over the notion that "what goes up must come down" (etc.). Or that the road they are diving down is flat, when in reality is is curved to fit the curvature of the earth.

Now check the Bible where it said "now they have become like us (gods or angels) knowing good form evil". It was knowledge that created man to be in the likeness of God (gods?). How long does it take to teach someone a standard about the difference between good and evil (life and death)? Not millions of years that is for sure. So... the gods molded man out of the clay of knowledge so that we could be in their likeness (image). Teaching is done with words, nothing magical about that. Learning by knowledge to change is a short cut to an experienced - induced evolution happening in nature.

It was a knowledge created image.

I think I am on to something here... is anyone following any of this?

[Matt]

Gallo, you are failing to answer my questions...

[Jack]

Afterlife is something that evolution cannot make, plain and simple. Afterlife is something beyond what evolution could make.

I don't accept the existence of an afterlife, but disregarding that for a moment, what would be the objection to a naturally occurring afterlife? I agree evolution couldn't account for it, as evolution is a natural process that works on living things. But what is the argument against an afterlife that is natural, not supernatural?

[Tycoon]

But what is the argument against an afterlife that is natural, not supernatural?

Well, the argument goes as follows:

Do you remember life as it was before birth? No, because you did not have a physical body and thus you did not have memory or a consciousness. You did not exist in any way imaginable. When you die you will once again cease to have a physical body and thus you will once again cease to have memory and a consciousness. You will not exist in any way imaginable.

I know that the idea of an afterlife is so easy to believe in, the assurance that you will continue to live after death. But there is no proof in an afterlife, there is no reason to believe one exists.

[Jack]

That, Tycoon, would be my honest attitude toward the subject as well.

But what I was trying to point out is that there's no practical reason to assume that an afterlife could not be a natural occurrence. The suggestion was that an afterlife would infer a god. I don't see the connection. The idea that an afterlife supposes a god is simply another case of god-of-gaps reasoning.

There's no irrefutable evidence of an afterlife. There's no reason to believe that even if one existed, it would be similar to any one of the many descriptions of it in various mythologies. And even if there was an afterlife, there's no reason to suppose it couldn't be just another natural process. Since nothing is known factually about it, anything can be imagined.

[leegao]

Even if we do take the premise that there is an afterlife, we can only conclude that existence continues after the death of the individual, meaning that there is no interference with evolution. Also, as Gela has pointed out before, an afterlife does not require a supreme being of any sort. Buddhism is a religion of merit which includes an afterlife but did not believe in a supreme being of any kind. Buddha himself asserted that he wasn't a divine being. Nor was the first religion that offered an afterlife monotheistic.

Also, assuming the mind operated on a materialistic model, if the body ceases to exist, like tycoon said, so will your consciousness.