Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ArtieE]

Where might the first thoughts as to there ever being anything like a god have come from?

The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

I was just asking cladking for his explanation (excuse).

I have basically the same view as the article - subscribing agency to the unknown, and possibly in promoting group cohesion - against other groups perhaps too.

 

[cladking]

I was just asking cladking for his explanation (excuse).

I have basically the same view as the article - subscribing agency to the unknown, and possibly in promoting group cohesion - against other groups perhaps too.

I believe the concept of a Creator "God" originated in the misunderstanding of ancient science. A great deal of writing in Ancient Language existed when the "tower of babel" fell. This language couldn't be translated because it was founded in science and science disappeared when the language collapsed.

People tried for centuries to translate it and these faulty understandings are the basis of a creator and of religion. The ancients had no beliefs so couldn't have even pondered whether a Creator existed or not. Certainly they knew they didn't understand how the first effect came to be but they had some limited understanding of how humans came to exist because they had history going back to the very beginning (~40,000 BC).

Even the story of "adam and eve" are likely based in this history but the reality would look somewhat different to modern eyes. I'm not suggesting everything in the Bible is based in science, history, or Ancient Language. It is merely based on ancient "holy books" many of which are based on a misinterpretation of Ancient Language. Some stories are recognizable but most are not. But the Bible and these holy books do present a sort of picture of ancient theory and our pre-history.

Really it was the dust of the tower of babel in which religion arose. When the language became confused so did the new species; homo omnisciencis. Modern science is beginning to help sort out the nature of reality so that we can understand some things. The ability to predict proves we understand. Technology is just a spin off and a sort of magic trick generated by the nature of the tool we use to study nature. It in no way shows understanding.

 

[cladking]

Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes.

Homo omnisciencis always assumes the conclusion and then always rolls out the circular arguments to get there.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe the concept of a Creator "God" originated in the misunderstanding of ancient science. A great deal of writing in Ancient Language existed when the "tower of babel" fell. This language couldn't be translated because it was founded in science and science disappeared when the language collapsed.

People tried for centuries to translate it and these faulty understandings are the basis of a creator and of religion. The ancients had no beliefs so couldn't have even pondered whether a Creator existed or not. Certainly they knew they didn't understand how the first effect came to be but they had some limited understanding of how humans came to exist because they had history going back to the very beginning (~40,000 BC).

Even the story of "adam and eve" are likely based in this history but the reality would look somewhat different to modern eyes. I'm not suggesting everything in the Bible is based in science, history, or Ancient Language. It is merely based on ancient "holy books" many of which are based on a misinterpretation of Ancient Language. Some stories are recognizable but most are not. But the Bible and these holy books do present a sort of picture of ancient theory and our pre-history.

Really it was the dust of the tower of babel in which religion arose. When the language became confused so did the new species; homo omnisciencis. Modern science is beginning to help sort out the nature of reality so that we can understand some things. The ability to predict proves we understand. Technology is just a spin off and a sort of magic trick generated by the nature of the tool we use to study nature. It in no way shows understanding.

But what about earlier? Do you believe the concept of some agency, as in the article cited by ArtieE, is where the origins began before anything else?

 

[cladking]

But what about earlier? Do you believe the concept of some agency, as in the article cited by ArtieE, is where the origins began before anything else?

Both hypotheses are baseless. There is no evidence there even was religion or belief before 2000 BC. It is illogical to assume either of these hypotheses carried any weight at all.

"You might think that raindrops aren't agents," Clark said. "They can't act of their own accord. They just fall. And clouds just form; they're not things that can act. But what human beings have done is to think that clouds are agents. They think [clouds] can act," Clark said of early humans."

The REALITY is that there actually is a record of rain in Ancient Language and it is merely misinterpreted in the same way the holy book writers misinterpreted it;

"(he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.

...

[The king] is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water; for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils"

We see "gods" like "isis", "horus", "the dead king" and "nehebkau". But there are no gods in this. Each of these represents theory and not consciousnesses. "Isis" is a type of conveyance. "Horus" is stone. "The dead king" becomes theory after death and conversion. "Nehebkau" is the hydraulic cycle.

Across the board what they actually chiseled into stone is different than our interpretation based in the nature of modern languages. Ancient Language didn't even employ symbolic words like ours does. Their words were representative. Ancient Language only has meaning at all to modern languages speakers to the degree it is taken literally.

There is very little writing that survives in Ancient Language. But there was enough to solve by means of determination of word meaning in context. "Nehebkau" simply means "The Natural Phenomenon of the Hydraulic Cycle". Their science was different though so no exact translation is possible. The "hydraulic cycle" included all of its names in its metaphysics just as modern science includes all experiment in its metaphysics. We define terms but they named them just as "adam named the animals".

Our misinterpretation is total. We see stinky footed bumpkins but the actual people were all scientists. Most men were principally scientists and most women were principally metaphysicians but there was a lot of overlap.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Both hypotheses are baseless. There is no evidence there even was religion or belief before 2000 BC. It is illogical to assume either of these hypotheses carried any weight at all.

Lack of evidence? I would have thought that those farther back - 100,000 years perhaps - might have postulated something, even about the sun, volcanoes, lightning, etc., since I doubt we were that ignorant so far back. No evidence leaves a lot open.

 

[cladking]

Lack of evidence? I would have thought that those farther back - 100,000 years perhaps - might have postulated something, even about the sun, volcanoes, lightning, etc., since I doubt we were that ignorant so far back. No evidence leaves a lot open.

The evidence says they were scientists. Logic says they were scientists. This also supports the notion that ALL animals are scientific and explains how beavers learned to change their environment to suit their needs and termites invented cities, air conditioning, and agriculture. Animals are simpler so their science is simpler. Animals lack complex language as man has had for 40,000 years. We can pass knowledge down through the generations so our children can stand on the shoulders of giants. Animals have the bee's waggle dance and simple language.

There were no humans before 40,000 years ago. There was no analog language until 4000 years ago. But Ancient Language was a complex language made possible by a simple mutation that gave rise to homo sapiens who ruled the earth for 40,000 years. Now its homo omnisciencis' turn even though we are quickly devolving. We are the first species (on earth) which willed itself into existence and has some limited control over its destiny.

 

[Sapiens]

The evidence says they were scientists. Logic says they were scientists. This also supports the notion that ALL animals are scientific and explains how beavers learned to change their environment to suit their needs and termites invented cities, air conditioning, and agriculture. Animals are simpler so their science is simpler. Animals lack complex language as man has had for 40,000 years. We can pass knowledge down through the generations so our children can stand on the shoulders of giants. Animals have the bee's waggle dance and simple language.

There were no humans before 40,000 years ago. There was no analog language until 4000 years ago. But Ancient Language was a complex language made possible by a simple mutation that gave rise to homo sapiens who ruled the earth for 40,000 years. Now its homo omnisciencis' turn even though we are quickly devolving. We are the first species (on earth) which willed itself into existence and has some limited control over its destiny.

You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The evidence says they were scientists. Logic says they were scientists. This also supports the notion that ALL animals are scientific and explains how beavers learned to change their environment to suit their needs and termites invented cities, air conditioning, and agriculture. Animals are simpler so their science is simpler. Animals lack complex language as man has had for 40,000 years. We can pass knowledge down through the generations so our children can stand on the shoulders of giants. Animals have the bee's waggle dance and simple language.

There were no humans before 40,000 years ago. There was no analog language until 4000 years ago. But Ancient Language was a complex language made possible by a simple mutation that gave rise to homo sapiens who ruled the earth for 40,000 years. Now its homo omnisciencis' turn even though we are quickly devolving. We are the first species (on earth) which willed itself into existence and has some limited control over its destiny.

Well I'll agree they certainly knew a lot about their environment, but scientist stretches it a bit. Not sure we know what was what so far back - as to lifestyles and what they thought, understood, and how they communicated, for example. But even proto-humans might have conjectured about these momentous events in their life so as to suggest agency. You have your own personal time-machine?

 

[cladking]

You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The truly outlandish claims are made by traditionalists. Humans are intelligent but termites invented cities through trial and error. Species come into existence independently of individual consciousness or behavior. Ancient writing was superstitious gobbledty gook that couldn't be understood at all and is prima fascia evidence that people were superstitious. Physical evidence doesn't agree with modern theory but it is irrelevant because modern theory has built up over many generations.

Where traditional arguments are extraordinary and lack support my hypotheses are backed by observation, logic, physical evidence, and modern theory.

I keep citing facts and logic to support them (much like Deeje does) and people simply dismiss it without comment in most cases. I can get to the "extraordinary" physical evidence but I know from experience it will just be dismissed as irrelevancies by those who already have all the answers. There's really nothing very extraordinary about any of the facts and logic except that nothing agrees with traditional explanations that are illogical and metaexperimental. People don't seem to realize that science not based in experiment is not really science at all. This applies to the infinite number of planets created by God where stones were dragged up ramps by evolved bumpkins to build pyramids and every other infinitude of earths.

If you addressed some of the existing evidence and logic I've already presented more and more convincing evidence would flow from the discussion. But just going on showing the evidence will have no effect because it will be dismissed as well.

Logic is butchered by language. Any nonsense can be supported with circular argument. All nonsense is supported with circular argument. It is this assumption of the conclusion that defines "homo omnisciencis".

 

[cladking]

You have your own personal time-machine?

Yes, in a sense I have exactly that.

I can understand the writing that scientists call gobbledty gook and use as proof the people were superstitious.

I am transported back in time right to the intent of the author.

I did this with logic and tens of thousands of google searches.

Once you understand how they thought it provides a different perspective to see everything but more importantly it makes suggestions about the nature of humanity, language, and history. It makes suggestions about the meaning of experiment and its interpretation.

 

[cladking]

You have your own personal time-machine?

Remember I said earlier that writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 2000 BC. This is because the language changed and that history recorded the first 1200 years was lost. Since I can understand this writing I can see some of this history.

This is the nature of my time machine. Powered by google operated by logic.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Remember I said earlier that writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 2000 BC. This is because the language changed and that history recorded the first 1200 years was lost. Since I can understand this writing I can see some of this history.

This is the nature of my time machine. Powered by google operated by logic.

All I get from Google is some rather explicit images when all I wanted was some nice-looking females.

 

[ArtieE]

Homo omnisciencis always assumes the conclusion and then always rolls out the circular arguments to get there.

No, they assume living organisms are due to natural causes because in spite of belief in thousands and thousands of gods over thousands and thousands of years theists haven't been able to produce a single specimen of a god.

 

[Deeje]

You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims.

Science makes some very outlandish claims about macro-evolution too....yet there is no real evidence that it ever happened outside of the imagination of scientists. Diagrams, graphs and computer generated images are not real evidence.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So where is science's extraordinary evidence that adaptation can go so far outside of science's ability to substantiate it? We know it's really guesswork run amok. There is no real evidence that adaptation can produce what scientists claim it has. (amoebas to dinosaurs to man) It is suggested that it "might have" or "could have" taken place. We are suggesting from the same evidence, a completely different scenario that could also be the reason for the complex living world that is all around us.

We can't prove that an Intelligent Designer exists....but you can't prove that he doesn't. We are free to choose where the actual evidence takes us.

 

[Deeje]

No you don't. You even claim your designer wasn't designed but exists just because of a fluke... or do you have a third alternative... did your designer evolve?

Is gravity a fluke? Is magnetism a fluke? Can you explain what they are, and where they came from? Just these two forces in the universe are vital for earth's continued existence....did they evolve?

 

[cladking]

All I get from Google is some rather explicit images when all I wanted was some nice-looking females.

Always include the word "bikini" in your search.

 

[ArtieE]

Is gravity a fluke? Is magnetism a fluke?

Are you a fluke? Yes. The chances of you existing by accident is practically zero. And yet here you are. By accident and not designed by a god. You can of course be a fluke but not gravity or magnetism?

 

[cladking]

No, they assume living organisms are due to natural causes because in spite of belief in thousands and thousands of gods over thousands and thousands of years theists haven't been able to produce a single specimen of a god.

But "consciousness" and individuals aren't "natural"?

Behavior isn't natural?

Where is your evidence of belief in thousands and thousands of gods? The only evidence of "gods" before 2000 BC is writing that makes no sense. If writing isn't understood then it isn't understood. It's illogical to say it isn't understood because it contains too many "gods".