• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm fine with not making creationist arguments in schools - the problem is that they are practically a foundation of Darwinian teaching, as long as they are formed to explicitly support Darwinism.

e.g. the 'bad design' argument- the old laryngeal nerve in the Giraffe etc- are often held ups as 'proof' of unguided evolution. Teachers in many countries are forbidden to allow any counter argument- that's not in the best interest of science. In this case it means ignoring what science has learned about the elegant multi-functionality of that nerve since the argument was formulated- that's anti science

If Darwinism is scientifically sound, it should be able to compete on it's own merits, not by censorship and tilting the playing field to suit Victorian age science
Name one argument against evolution that is "scientifically sound'.

And your terrible ignorance about the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not help you. Of course it has secondary uses. Evolution finds ways of using existing structures. How does the fact that it has secondary traits help your claim in any way at all? All sorts of vestigial organs hang on because they pick up a new use. That does not mean that they are not vestigial. You appear to be a creationist grasping at the thinnest of straws.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Complaining that no one can take you seriously does not mean that anyone should take you seriously.

So you're ignoring evidence and ignoring the logic and then blaming me for it.

You should ask yourself why you and those whom you run with are not taken seriously

What new nonsense is this?

If you learn nothing else today, you can keep the day from being a complete waste by learning that the genus is always capitalized, the species is in lower case, and the entire term is either underlined or italicized, as in Homo omnisciencis.


This might actually be good advice but it has two problems; I don't think in italics or taxonomies. I don't believe in rabbits and if I did I'd not think of them as Rabbits. And, while I shouldn't need to point this out, I'm not much impressed by man's omniscience. I don't believe in "intelligence" and most of what we call knowledge is really belief.

Speaking of Homo omnisciencis, Graham Hancock has nothing meaningful to contribute save, perhaps, a good supply of recreational pharmaceuticals and a passel of unsupported extraordinary claims.

...And this is relevant, how?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
There is an enormous gulf between the state of the science and what many Darwinists believe it to be. Much of what is taught in school and pop-science TV shows is extremely simplistic, out of date and outright misleading- not necessarily on purpose, it's just that where Darwinism is accepted as truth, it's far easier to teach without covering the problems.

The state of the art in science tends to be closer to reality than 1890's science or 1940's science. As I said earlier I believe science will eventually approach a model that is reflective of reality. However we'll never really know any details of any of the significant changes of the past because without some understanding of consciousness and behavior there is no means to gather details.

Science education in school does many kids more harm than good. Metaphysics should be taught early and then emphasized throughout just to prevent the harm. Everyone should know that science doesn't really evolve, it is reinvented from time to time as old theory falls by the wayside or is amended by new experiment. "Learning" science in a vacuum of metaphysics in more akin to indoctrination than education. The sorry state of the world today can be laid at the feet of education and what people call "science". "Survival of the fittest" and the "id" killed more people in the 20th century than the Inquisition and all the holy wars ever fought put together.

"Science" is the most powerful force for peace and prosperity ever invented by any species but instead it is used largely to suppress people and invent new means to exterminate them.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The state of the art in science tends to be closer to reality than 1890's science or 1940's science. As I said earlier I believe science will eventually approach a model that is reflective of reality. However we'll never really know any details of any of the significant changes of the past because without some understanding of consciousness and behavior there is no means to gather details.

Science education in school does many kids more harm than good. Metaphysics should be taught early and then emphasized throughout just to prevent the harm. Everyone should know that science doesn't really evolve, it is reinvented from time to time as old theory falls by the wayside or is amended by new experiment. "Learning" science in a vacuum of metaphysics in more akin to indoctrination than education. The sorry state of the world today can be laid at the feet of education and what people call "science". "Survival of the fittest" and the "id" killed more people in the 20th century than the Inquisition and all the holy wars ever fought put together.

"Science" is the most powerful force for peace and prosperity ever invented by any species but instead it is used largely to suppress people and invent new means to exterminate them.


I think the problems with any belief begin when people reject faith and start claiming 'undeniable truth'.

And that's where science; the method we all know and love, and science; the academic/political institution, are often at odds.

The ideal of always being open to questioning conclusions in the former, can label you a ' denier of truth' for the latter.- intellectually inferior, with beliefs that should be actively forbidden- that's crossing a dangerous line

e.g. Dawkins declares evolution 'undeniable fact' and so is compelled to believe:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked.... "



Obviously this can happen in religions also, but science- the institution, has an inherent tendency to claim such authority.


One thing I find that theists and atheists can usually agree on here, is that separation of church and state is a good thing- to prevent one from corrupting the other in either direction
Perhaps separation of science and state would be good also, for the same reasons?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Teachers in many countries are forbidden to allow any counter argument- that's not in the best interest of science. In this case it means ignoring what science has learned about the elegant multi-functionality of that nerve since the argument was formulated- that's anti science.

If Darwinism is scientifically sound, it should be able to compete on it's own merits, not by censorship and tilting the playing field to suit Victorian age science
On one side of the playing field we have EVOLUTION! On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct. One of my favorites is this one:

"In the Hymn to Atum, an ancient creation myth hymn, everything starts with this one god named Atum. There was nothing before him, and he willed himself into being, but felt that he had so much more to create and wanted to bring it all to fruition. So, here's where it gets weird. He then masturbated and ejaculated into his own mouth. From that point, he sneezed out the wind and spat out the semen in his mouth to create the rain. From both of those, the rest of life and the world eventually came into being."
https://www.ranker.com/list/weirdest-creation-myths/laura-allan?var=7&utm_expid=16418821-388.8yjUEguUSkGHvlaagyulMg.1&utm_referrer=https://www.google.no/

https://listverse.com/2014/01/11/10-creation-myths-as-strange-as-the-bible/
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Perhaps separation of science and state would be good also, for the same reasons?

"Science" the institution probably should be removed at least one layer from the state. This would be difficult to accomplish since there's very little difference between many scientists and the institution.

I think we might be headed to a second tower of babel event simply because the state is so intimately bound to the institution and there are too few individuals who understand how different processes and theories fit together. Throw in the existing law and their effect on processes as well as the central planning that has arisen in the last decades and we are highly dependent on the few individuals who understand the interconnectness. But machine intelligence might put the whole human race out of business before it matters much.

We really need to change our ways. And this is one of the reasons "evolution" has gotta go.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
On one side of the playing field we have EVOLUTION! On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct. One of my favorites is this one:

"In the Hymn to Atum, an ancient creation myth hymn, everything starts with this one god named Atum. There was nothing before him, and he willed himself into being, but felt that he had so much more to create and wanted to bring it all to fruition.

All the religions are saying essentially the same thing; life is about behavior. They are also describing ancient theory in other ways as well. They are almost all founded in this ancient theory.

The "Hymn to Atum" linked above is just another modern religion but this one can be traced directly back to ancient theory because the theory appears in Ancient Language as well. This early version was simply misinterpreted to create the religious version.

This is apparent in many ways if you actually investigate the reality. For one Egyptology simply translated and interpreted the original writing in later terms. For another even the later version says there was another "God" before Atum. This was the god "nun" which oversaw the "watery abyss". In the earlier version what is being described isn't creation but rather "zep tepi" which was the "first instance". This was a very different concept than creation.

The Pyramid Texts Index

The original version was written in an untranslatable language that had the same vocabulary. It was then misinterpreted to lay the foundation of knowledge in every modern language. It was only natural that when the original language was discovered in the 1880's that it was misinterpreted in the exact same way again.

Language is fundamental and we speak an analog language. Most religious ideas came from the original digital language that reflected the wiring of the brain.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
On one side of the playing field we have EVOLUTION! On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct. One of my favorites is this one:

"In the Hymn to Atum, an ancient creation myth hymn, everything starts with this one god named Atum. There was nothing before him, and he willed himself into being, but felt that he had so much more to create and wanted to bring it all to fruition. So, here's where it gets weird. He then masturbated and ejaculated into his own mouth. From that point, he sneezed out the wind and spat out the semen in his mouth to create the rain. From both of those, the rest of life and the world eventually came into being."
https://www.ranker.com/list/weirdest-creation-myths/laura-allan?var=7&utm_expid=16418821-388.8yjUEguUSkGHvlaagyulMg.1&utm_referrer=https://www.google.no/

https://listverse.com/2014/01/11/10-creation-myths-as-strange-as-the-bible/

forgive me for not clicking on those links! :confused: but- talking of empirical evidence- I'm going to go ahead and take your word for it this once!

and I think we agree, that's not one for the national curriculum!

But if my choices were Atum and complete chance, Atum is the slightly less improbable answer, because he has the will to create something, chance does not. Thankfully we have other possibilities!



On one side we have Darwinsm, on the other side 21st C science
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
All the religions are saying essentially the same thing; life is about behavior. They are also describing ancient theory in other ways as well. They are almost all founded in this ancient theory.

The "Hymn to Atum" linked above is just another modern religion but this one can be traced directly back to ancient theory because the theory appears in Ancient Language as well. This early version was simply misinterpreted to create the religious version.

This is apparent in many ways if you actually investigate the reality. For one Egyptology simply translated and interpreted the original writing in later terms. For another even the later version says there was another "God" before Atum. This was the god "nun" which oversaw the "watery abyss". In the earlier version what is being described isn't creation but rather "zep tepi" which was the "first instance". This was a very different concept than creation.

The Pyramid Texts Index

The original version was written in an untranslatable language that had the same vocabulary. It was then misinterpreted to lay the foundation of knowledge in every modern language. It was only natural that when the original language was discovered in the 1880's that it was misinterpreted in the exact same way again.

Language is fundamental and we speak an analog language. Most religious ideas came from the original digital language that reflected the wiring of the brain.
OK... I wrote "On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct." Are you on the side of the playing field with evolution or the other side...? Or do you have a side of your own?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
OK... I wrote "On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct."

Yeh, but there's a big drop off after #1!
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I wouldn't mind at all if 21st C science managed to somehow detect and capture a god. Any god. Or some of those aliens who keep on kidnapping people. It would possibly be one of the greatest things that have happened to humanity since the moon landing.

as great as finally finding those missing links? explaining the origin of life? or how about just a short necked Giraffe ancestor for starters?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
OK... I wrote "On the other side of the playing field we have... billions of different theists with different religions with different numbers of gods with different creation scenarios who can't agree on anything, not on how many gods there are, or which holy book is the correct one or which creation scenario is correct." Are you on the side of the playing field with evolution or the other side...? Or do you have a side of your own?

I have my own playing .

I can't elaborate or post further until tite amyuter makfrids again.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
And still not answered... you have no hope of convincing atheists that your particular god exists if you can give no reason why he would... that goes for every god of course...

Well then you have completely misunderstood my intentions. I do not post to convince atheists of anything. I post to give those who are undecided about this issue the other side of the story.

For too long atheism has fed the notion that only an uneducated moron would fail to recognise evolution as the only explanation for how life apparently changed on this planet over time. The likes of Dawkins and his ilk have strutted about like peacocks, looking down their learned noses at anyone who dared to challenge their theory (or perhaps more correctly, their ego) and relinquish all claim to an Intelligent Designer.

The reason it's still a theory and not proven fact is because science has no substantive evidence for what they claim, apart from the imaginitive musings of their fellow atheists from the weak findings of their so called evidence. I call them out on it and ask for something real, not imagined to back up what they say. No one to date has provided anything close to real evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone happened steadily over time to result in all that we see on this planet.

Science ignores the more important question....how did life originate?

Answer that one and it explains the rest. No mysteries, no unanswered questions....except the one you pose. We don't know what the Creator is because it is beyond man's present capacity to comprehend this incredible "first cause" of everything. But who knows, we may in the future, (as we regain lost mental capacity,) understand a lot more about this person we call "God".....?
I look forward to such a time.
 
Top