Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

History and archaeology showed that there were temples built for Inanna (Ishtar) and An (Anu), before the Sumerian civilisations, the earliest to Inanna (the Stone-Cone temple) being dated 3600 BCE.
History and archaeological evidences show that most of the Egyptian gods were mentioned in the pyramids of the 5th (Unas) and 6th dynasties (Teti, Pepi I and Pepi II, and a few other), inscribed on the walls of pyramids, written in hieroglyphs, known as the Pyramid Text.
Older pyramids (from the 3rd and 4 dynasties) have less writing inside the chambers.
But some of the Egyptian gods, such as Seth, Horus, Hathor, Neith, Nekhbet and Wadjet predated even the 1st dynasty, hence BEFORE 3100 BCE.
You are bad as other creationists here, who don't understand history, archaeological evidences and science. Why do you make positive assertions on things that you have no education in?

No, what you actually see here is the mass delusion we call pre-history. There is so little evidence it can't even be called "history" so they call it "archaeology" or "anthropology". These are all soft sciences that don't have experiment and rely on deduction and interpretation. Just calling a structure a "temple" does not magically turn it into a place to practice religion any more than praying to isis would make her real. It requires evidence to know what the ruins of 3600 BC were used for originally. We lack this evidence because we can't translate ancient writing. We assume if they used the word "Iaannan" or "isis" that it meant the exact same thing as in later times but there is nothing to prove it because the writing is unintelligible gobbledty gook. I know why it is unintelligible gobbledty gook. It is digital language and is formatted in a way that can't be translated into our analog language. "Inanna" and "isis" were not gods, they represented specific scientific theory. All words in Ancient Language were representative rather than symbolic.

Ancient Language had logical meaning. The interpretation of those words do not. The ancient "holy books", hermetic writings, etc, are interpretations of Ancient Language. Our entire culture to a very real extent is an interpretation of ancient science but this especially applies to religion and language.

Actually no one has made sense since the collapse of the tower of babel. I know I'm not either but I'm trying to communicate difficult concepts to grasp so I am speaking in absolutes. I try to use tautologies to force people to understand. I'm well aware it doesn't work.

 

[cladking]

The word "belief" simply didn't exist in Ancient Language. They spoke in a type of tautology which represented scientific theory. Everything they said was tied to nature and known science through vocabulary and grammar.

Our language works by symbolic presentation of an analog representation of what we're thinking. Each listener interprets the words as best they can. Their language was a representation of reality itself. Each listener recognized the intended reality or missed the meaning completely.

The two languages can't be reconciled. It is quite apparent by the nature of this language that it was their understanding of species change that allowed them to invent agriculture. Nothing complex on the face of the earth has probably ever been built by any species outside of scientific theory. Human scientific theory was far more complex than other animals and this allowed greater complexity such as the "temple" of inanna. To suggest anything can be built outside of theory is an appeal to superstition. To suggest that ancient people were superstitious is a superstition as well because they couldn't have survived to create homo omnisciencis without all the complex theory created by 40,000 years of ancient science whose metaphysics was Ancient Language.

We are still confused since the collapse of the tower. This is why science is defined by experiment and anything not experimentally supported is just guesses. ToE is merely guesswork that is not supported by actual observation.

 

[gnostic]

No, what you actually see here is the mass delusion we call pre-history. There is so little evidence it can't even be called "history" so they call it "archaeology" or "anthropology". These are all soft sciences that don't have experiment and rely on deduction and interpretation. Just calling a structure a "temple" does not magically turn it into a place to practice religion any more than praying to isis would make her real. It requires evidence to know what the ruins of 3600 BC were used for originally. We lack this evidence because we can't translate ancient writing. We assume if they used the word "Iaannan" or "isis" that it meant the exact same thing as in later times but there is nothing to prove it because the writing is unintelligible gobbledty gook. I know why it is unintelligible gobbledty gook. It is digital language and is formatted in a way that can't be translated into our analog language. "Inanna" and "isis" were not gods, they represented specific scientific theory. All words in Ancient Language were representative rather than symbolic.

Ancient Language had logical meaning. The interpretation of those words do not. The ancient "holy books", hermetic writings, etc, are interpretations of Ancient Language. Our entire culture to a very real extent is an interpretation of ancient science but this especially applies to religion and language.

Actually no one has made sense since the collapse of the tower of babel. I know I'm not either but I'm trying to communicate difficult concepts to grasp so I am speaking in absolutes. I try to use tautologies to force people to understand. I'm well aware it doesn't work.

You frequently speak of the “homo omnisciencis”, “Ancient Language”, and “Ancient Science”, that are older than 2000 BCE and older than 40,000 years, and you have presented no evidences since you have taken parts in this topic. All I see is that you making grand gestures

You have talk of the Tower of Babel as if it is real, and yet such a Tower have existed other than a fairytale.

You say that all modern science are nothing but gobbledty gook, and yet all I get you is a deluded gobbledty gook conspiracy theory.

I see that I have waste enough of time with your deranged ranting ancient science and ancient language that you cannot elaborate and cannot back up, except making up all sorts of baseless claims.

Thank you, you have waste my days.

 

[ArtieE]

You do realize that one of the mistakes that Jesus made was to declare that handwashing was unneeded. It may have been the reason that doctors resisted washing their hands in the west for so long. That was not the wisest example to use.

Mark 7:2
and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled--that is, unwashed.

Mark 7:5
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: "Why do Your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands."

Luke 11:38
But the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

 

[gnostic]

No one said we have to teach any religion to kids at school.....just don't teach them lies.

Too bad you cannot follow your own advice.

 

[gnostic]

I have a cynical view of evolution......but I love science and I incessantly take in knowledge about a lot of things...

Physics is the one that I have been taught the most, because of the courses I have done.

But the problem I see here, is that you really don’t understand some of the basic concept of science, like theory and evidences. So I don’t see how you love science, since there are things you don’t want to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mark 7:2
and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled--that is, unwashed.

Mark 7:5
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: "Why do Your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands."

Luke 11:38
But the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Aww, at least put "spoiler alert" on such posts

At least now I won't have to quote the verses for her.

 

[cladking]

You have talk of the Tower of Babel as if it is real, and yet such a Tower have existed other than a fairytale.

It is your belief that this story is fairy tale.

It is my belief that it is a confused version of the story of the change in language through fiat ~2000 BC.

I have support for my belief and am willing to change my belief if evidence or logic ever dictate it. Are you willing to change?

You say that all modern science are nothing but gobbledty gook, and yet all I get you is a deluded gobbledty gook conspiracy theory.

I said no such thing. I said anything that can't be backed by experiment is just guesswork based on modern understanding. Math and observation are not a substitute for experiment. No modern science is gobbledty gook, not even Egyptology. However, some of these sciences or theory that springs from them is wrong.

I see that I have waste enough of time with your deranged ranting ancient science and ancient language that you cannot elaborate and cannot back up, except making up all sorts of baseless claims.

My theories make accurate predictions and explain observation. These are the hallmarks of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is your belief that this story is fairy tale.

It is my belief that it is a confused version of the story of the change in language through fiat ~2000 BC.

I have support for my belief and am willing to change my belief if evidence or logic ever dictate it. Are you willing to change?

Of course those on the atheist side are willing to change. What evidence do you have for the tower of Babel myth? I do not know of any linguist that takes it seriously at all.

I said no such thing. I said anything that can't be backed by experiment is just guesswork based on modern understanding. Math and observation are not a substitute for experiment. No modern science is gobbledty gook, not even Egyptology. However, some of these sciences or theory that springs from them is wrong.

What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not based upon experiment?

My theories make accurate predictions and explain observation. These are the hallmarks of reality.

You have no theories, you have only handwaving. At best you could claim to have hypotheses. And you do not appear to have any of those either. The first thing that you need to have scientific evidence, the only kind of evidence that matters in a scientific debate is a testable hypothesis. That means you need a reasonable test that could possibly show your concept to be wrong. The theory of evolution has been tested countless times in that manner. Once you put your beliefs in the form of a testable concept then you can begin to claim to have evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

Aww, at least put "spoiler alert" on such posts

At least now I won't have to quote the verses for her.

I always try to back up what I say with documentation if needed and supply such if lacking.

 

[Deeje]

You said and I quote: "And this nicely demonstrates what happens when evidence is presented to those with a particular mindset that disagrees with their habitual practices. If it was clearly demonstrated that the simple act of washing hands saved lives, why was that a challenge to the medical profession? Was the simplicity of the remedy a blow to their egos? Why did people have to die unnecessarily because of their refusal to acknowledge the clear evidence that a simple procedure was saving lives?"

You say that the medical profession let people die unnecessarily, you theists do the same because of your beliefs. So you are hardly in any position to point a finger. Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ

I am not one of those "theists" OK? I do not refuse medical help for my kids and never have. The Gospel writer Luke was a physician. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything doctors say or do, knowing full well that the medical establishment is also governed by greedy commercial interests and can be as corrupt as any system that primarily concentrates on making money.

My direction comes from the Bible and as I always expect, it turns out to be the best advice despite what humans might think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always try to back up what I say with documentation if needed and supply such if lacking.

I am ready to but sometimes wait until asked. Either way no harm, no foul. Thanks for posting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not one of those "theists" OK? I do not refuse medical help for my kids and never have. The Gospel writer Luke was a physician. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything doctors say or do, knowing full well that the medical establishment is also governed by greedy commercial interests and can be as corrupt as any system that primarily concentrates on making money.

My direction comes from the Bible and as I always expect, it turns out to be the best advice despite what humans might think.

The author of "Luke" was anonymous. It is only religious tradition that puts Luke as the author, and Luke was probably not a physician. That idea came from Colossians a book not written by Paul, though ascribed to him. It may have been Luke, or it may have been other companions of Paul:


Who Wrote Luke and Acts?

 

[Deeje]

It does, since it is child abuse to teach children stuff that they are essentially unable to question due to lack of knowledge and/or maturity. And especially when it is just a 'faith' rather than being evidentially backed. And it is especially so in some schools and definitely faith schools. Ban the lot!

You appear to be very unbalanced in your approach to things here.
Do you think it is wrong to teach your children what you believe to be true? Should you have the freedom to do so? Is that child abuse?

No child remains a child. They grow up, and despite any efforts of parents, they turn into adults with a mind of their own. What we teach them can have a bearing on what direction they take, but kids are not stupid. They learn way more from our example than from anything we say. Regardless of whether we teach them religion or atheism (or anything in between) their hypocrisy meter will figure out if we practice what we preach.

Being raised in a household where faith in God is practised is no guarantee that children will follow in their parents footsteps, but at least they will have something to balance their school education which will be saturated with the teaching of evolution.

Balance is the key....not indoctrination. Give kids enough credit to work things out for themselves without fear of parents going ballistic if they choose a different path. We are all individuals, so the education we give our children must be balanced and most of all, based on love, not fear.

Since evolution is not "evidentially backed" in any real way, teaching children only one scenario, when there is no proof that it is even correct, is brainwashing.

What dreadful thing happens to people of faith? They are statistically happier and healthier than atheists who have no hope that anything will improve in their completely materialistic world. This life is all they have and if they have messed it up, they will never get a chance to do it better. God gives us that opportunity....but most people will throw it back in his face. Their choice.

I know what I chose and my children have chosen the same path....some even left that path only to find heartache and disappointment out there in the world, and have returned to the faith. They have vowed never to go back to that godless world. It is an empty and meaningless existence in our view. Without meaning and purpose, what are we really?

 

[ArtieE]

I am not one of those "theists" OK? I do not refuse medical help for my kids and never have. The Gospel writer Luke was a physician. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything doctors say or do, knowing full well that the medical establishment is also governed by greedy commercial interests and can be as corrupt as any system that primarily concentrates on making money.

My direction comes from the Bible and as I always expect, it turns out to be the best advice despite what humans might think.

Well, I learned to wash my hands before eating and I think that is better than taking after Jesus and the disciples.

Mark 7:2
and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled--that is, unwashed.

Mark 7:5
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: "Why do Your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands."

Luke 11:38
But the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

 

[cladking]

Of course those on the atheist side are willing to change. What evidence do you have for the tower of Babel myth? I do not know of any linguist that takes it seriously at all.

I doubt many people are willing to change. Most major change is demographic in nature because the older folks have to die and be replaced by younger ones with new ideas. It's always been this way for our species.

The fact that Ancient Language appears be logical, internally consistent, and in agreement with what you call the "laws of nature" suggests that anyone who believes it is superstitious gobbledty gook is wrong.

What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not based upon experiment?

No experiment has shown a gradual change in species. No experiment has shown "evolution". You have interpretation not experiment.

The first thing that you need to have scientific evidence, the only kind of evidence that matters in a scientific debate is a testable hypothesis.

How do you test gradual evolution? You continue to act as though you have science and no one else does.

You continue to dismiss every single argument that doesn't agree with your conclusions. My evidence has hardly even been recognized far less addressed. You continue to act as though consensus opinion is reality itself.

Once you put your beliefs in the form of a testable concept then you can begin to claim to have evidence.

I predicted the thermal anomaly on the east side of the Great Pyramid based on my understanding of Ancient Language! I predicted every single observation we've made about "evolution" on the basis of ancient scientific theory (I believe).

 

[Deeje]

Physics is the one that I have been taught the most, because of the courses I have done.

When you have been educated by a system with strong beliefs, those beliefs become ingrained in your thinking, affecting your attitude towards anything that conflicts with it....whether science or religion, the process is the same. It's called indoctrination for a reason......science "beliefs" can be indoctrinated just as much as religious beliefs because it is basically the same process. Minds are being fed a constant, reinforced series of ideas that are accepted and acted upon. The subject matter isn't important...it's the process.

But the problem I see here, is that you really don’t understand some of the basic concept of science, like theory and evidences. So I don’t see how you love science, since there are things you don’t want to understand.

When I say I love science, I mean that I love what science studies....nature and the mechanics of living organisms. There is a lifetime of study in each creature and mechanism of their existence and their placement in their respective habitats. It is fascinating to compare and wonder at the way they live and function in completely different environments and how they reproduce (some in the most hostile environments on earth) and sustain their existence for thousands of years despite man's mismanagement of the planet in the last 100 years.

Don't confuse my "refusal to accept" your "beliefs" as not understanding science. It is because I understand science that I refuse to accept what you have been taught. You reflect the concepts of your teachers....I reflect the concepts of mine, because they make logical sense to me.

The difference between a physical person (a materialist) as opposed to a spiritual person (a believer in ID) is experience IMO. Most non-spiritual people have never experienced "God". They do not have 'spirituality' as a natural part of their personality. Having an explanation for nature and all the amazing processes that it encompasses, without the need for a Creator is like putting a round peg in a round hole. It just 'fits'. It satisfies a need. But try to fit that round peg into a square hole and there is space around it that is empty. Nothing fills that space but God. He gives us believers a square hole that fits perfectly.

There is no point arguing about who is right when we are each validating our own belief system. You don't fit in mine, and I don't fit in yours. That is not too hard to understand is it?

Only when those who support evolution, (which has no real evidence to support its validity) recognise that they do indeed only have a belief in what scientists are claiming, rather than a substantiated provable truth, will they understand why they cling to it with a 'religious' passion and why they believe that people must subscribe to it.
Why is that so important? Because it validates their own position and makes them feel less threatened about not believing in a Creator to whom they might be accountable. There is safety in numbers...or so many people think.

Believing something doesn't make it true.....but not believing in something doesn't either. It is a sobering thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt many people are willing to change. Most major change is demographic in nature because the older folks have to die and be replaced by younger ones with new ideas. It's always been this way for our species.

That is often the case, but not so much with atheists. A huge proportion are former theists. But there is something to be said about the changes over generations.

The fact that Ancient Language appears be logical, internally consistent, and in agreement with what you call the "laws of nature" suggests that anyone who believes it is superstitious gobbledty gook is wrong.

How are languages in agreement with the laws of nature? That appears to be a nonsensical statement. How are you going to support your claims? You need evidence, not hand waving.

No experiment has shown a gradual change in species. No experiment has shown "evolution". You have interpretation not experiment.

That is simply ignorance on your part. You do not understand the nature of evidence or experimentation. When the fossil record is unknown new discoveries count as an experiment if one takes the correct approach. And here is just one example of that sort of "experiment":

Species Duration and Evolution: Benthic Foraminifera on the Atlantic Continental Margin of North America

How do you test gradual evolution? You continue to act as though you have science and no one else does.

No, countless scientists know how to do this. You simply do not know and assume that no one else does. Again, a new stretch of fossil record is an experiment. Experiments are not limited to the laboratory. Your definition is unrealistically shallow.

You continue to dismiss every single argument that doesn't agree with your conclusions. My evidence has hardly even been recognized far less addressed. You continue to act as though consensus opinion is reality itself.

I dismiss all arguments presented without evidence. That is perfectly reasonable. You do not appear to understand the nature of evidence. As the saying goes, claims made without presenting any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence. You really need to learn what is and what is not evidence if you want others to take you seriously.

I predicted the thermal anomaly on the east side of the Great Pyramid based on my understanding of Ancient Language! I predicted every single observation we've made about "evolution" on the basis of ancient scientific theory (I believe).

Really? Please link the publications. Claiming that you made a prediction after the fact is not very impressive.

 

[ArtieE]

You appear to be very unbalanced in your approach to things here.
Do you think it is wrong to teach your children what you believe to be true? Should you have the freedom to do so? Is that child abuse?

Yes. You are supposed to teach your children to think for themselves and not indoctrinate them with your own beliefs.

Being raised in a household where faith in God is practised is no guarantee that children will follow in their parents footsteps, but at least they will have something to balance their school education which will be saturated with the teaching of evolution.

And here we go again Deeje. How many times do we have to explain that you can have faith in God and believe in evolution at the same time Deeje?! Good grief...

Since evolution is not "evidentially backed" in any real way, teaching children only one scenario, when there is no proof that it is even correct, is brainwashing.

Yepp. I agree. We should teach them all creation myths and all religions along with evolution and Raëlism and all other possibilities. Not only what you believe to be true.

What dreadful thing happens to people of faith? They are statistically happier and healthier than atheists who have no hope that anything will improve in their completely materialistic world.

Well of course they are. Religion is the opium of the people and your belief is your happy pill. I'm not on drugs.

I know what I chose and my children have chosen the same path....some even left that path only to find heartache and disappointment out there in the world, and have returned to the faith. They have vowed never to go back to that godless world. It is an empty and meaningless existence in our view. Without meaning and purpose, what are we really?

Hope for a happy life after death is not a cure for depression Deeje. If you think your life is without meaning and purpose get professional help.

 

[Deeje]

Well, I learned to wash my hands before eating and I think that is better than taking after Jesus and the disciples.

Mark 7:2
and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled--that is, unwashed.

Mark 7:5
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: "Why do Your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands."

Luke 11:38
But the Pharisee was astonished to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

Scripture quoted without understanding of the context is easily twisted.

Why did the Pharisees complain that Jesus and his apostles did not wash their hands before eating? It was because of the elaborate ritual that hand washing had become. It was another public display of their supposed piety, taking the law to extremes is what they did and why Jesus took them to task over it. By not washing their hands in a ritualistic fashion, Jesus was teaching his disciples that taking the law to extremes was not what it was all about. Washing hands was a good thing but failure to wash especially in a ritualistic fashion to impress others, was not a big deal.

The Pharisees also accused them of harvesting on the Sabbath because they walked through a grain field and grabbed a few grains to satisfy their hunger. Balance is what Jesus taught. Your approach to the Bible is typical of the fault finder. If you want to find fault, God will let you find as many as you desire.