Evolutionism

Br. John wrote: Consider these statements.

God wasn't created.

The Force wasn't created.

The Universe wasn't created.

Is one reaching but not another? What's the difference? Why?

God was not created and The Force was not created.
I see them as equal.
In every thing . . everywhere in the universe as it is now known and beyond.
The Universe was not created.
There is no place where The Force is not, is the same to me as there is no place where God is not.
The Force/God is eternal and ever present.

I see a holographic view which is my own evolution from a tapestry and a grand designer.

No Khaos, and although cancer is becoming more prominent, it is not a "natural death" nor "average lifespan either"....

So, I would not say thats a fair comparison...

We measure "dog years" because they age in theircvery consistent manner...

But people like to assign human characteristics to animals, it helps us to identify, and catalog other things... What do we know better than ourselves?

IF a mayfly could be, aware, as we understand it, it would wonder why we never seem to die... Thousands of generations would land on us, write their graffiti, for future generations of course, lol, and die...

"TIME" is almost always percieved differently...

When you remove "TIME", and look at how things are, (time wise and just for the sake of discussion in this thread, being as mayflies are not "aware" as we are, so much as we can tell.. lol)

With no "TIME" involved:

We are eternal to a mayfly...

We are eternal to our pets...

Mountains are eternal to us...

So could be a creator... Nothing actually eternal, only by the understandings of our mind...



I hope that makes sense, I got interrupted and, I'm on my phone... lol... Makes things disjointed at times.... (not to mention my thought processes, hahaha)

+++++++++
Why would a creator have to be faster than us?

[/quote]From: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/snot/whats_the_oldest-living_animal_and_how_old_does_it_get.aspx

So why do they live so long, then? No-one knows for sure, but there are a few general patterns that give us clues. Size, for example, seems to be important. In general, the larger an animal is, the longer it lives. This helps to explain why giant whales and tortoises can live for over a century, while tiny mammals like shrews get less than three years, and tiny insects like mayflies less than a day.[/quote]

So, if we are but a bit in a builders set, there is the possibility that he is humongous...

++++++
The world was created in 6 days...

Well, since humans didn't exist, the "creator" must have told someone this was the case... Why would he have said it in "our" days, instead of his own?

Shoot, even if I build something, it takes me longer to plan it, than implement it...

Lol....

+++++++
As you said, moot point, becausecs dog or mayfly cannot answer our questions either...

And, lol, I don't believe in a creator...

But, these are just my thoughts in arriving to my current point....

I believe in, "something", a "force" like the talk about in Star Wars....

Hahaha....

Jestor wrote:

ren wrote: creation is the view that our world must have been created. And that the being that created it himself did not need to have been created. Such a being is therefore beyond time and space... And has no "workshop" and doesnt take any kind of time (days or years) to create anything.

Well, that sounds flawed... lol...

I could see where it would obviously mean the this is created by something, but to say that, that something wasn't created seems to be reaching, lol, never mind the workshop bit...

Interesting...

I think this is the only part of creation that makes any sense.
It's the belief that something which cannot possibly be like us is in fact a lot like us which makes no sense.
I myself can create a "being" of sorts, and control its time and its space... remove evidence of it ever existing and re-creating it out of "thin air".

ren wrote: creation is the view that our world must have been created. And that the being that created it himself did not need to have been created. Such a being is therefore beyond time and space... And has no "workshop" and doesnt take any kind of time (days or years) to create anything.

by itself: a simply harmless thought . . couldn't hurt a fly or rock

*****

"no workshop" equal to "no time"

another simply harmless thought

I don't want to quote everything jester said it's too long.

Fun stuff. Science tells us flies actually perceive time to be moving slower than we do ,but the point is we are assuming may flies wonder and in that case I would wonder why they are smart enough to understand age and dying ,but not smart enough to know creatures live different life spans.

Interestingly smaller animals have higher metabolisms for various reasons. As these cells work faster they divide faster and their DNA which is linear can only be replicated so many times before they stop producing the vital proteins they need. FUn Fact: Birds live longer than mammals with Pigeons living avg. 35 years and some parrots living longer than 100.

But seriously what is more likely the christian bible is made up and has various scientific things wrong with it because it was written by people who didn't know any better at the time.

or

God which clearly wrote the bible for humans didn't understand what the word "Day" actually means to humans. He created all of time and space and yet has no foresight as to how the word day might be perceived as meaning 24 hours. Why even bother then?

In closing I'm not arguing against a god there just no way to know ,but a literal creation christian god like it says in the bible is simple a myth.

Yeah, I knew about the smaller animals and there metabolism, but not about the fly.

Fun fact : There is a a species of rodent that has so much sex it essentially disintegrates.

Now, as for the bible, God didn't write it, but I understand your point. If it took eons of time, more than likely he explained it in such a way that people could comprehend. A day, being a day to man.

Of course, revelations reads like a bad acid trip. In fact, I believe it did come to him in a dream...which makes it less than a reliable source..

However many it seems, just want to jam a square peg into a round hole and say both work, or that both fit, instead of being able to say one doesn't.

As for mountains being eternal to me, there not.

Lol, and why would the creator work faster than us?

Its a fair assumption as God is to be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. We don't work as fast because we have limitations, like space,time, and matter.


If he is everywhere all the time,and has virtually no limitation to his authority or influence, then I would be surprised if he couldn't.

More so, I find saying a day to God is a million years an attempt to make that square peg fit.

I mean really, you could say a second to God is a million of our years, but why not would it work the other way? Say, a million years to God is a second to us?

Why would he/she not possess that ability? The creator of all that is?

Your talking about how long it takes you to plan, implement,etc...However you can't really make that comparison, or measurement against a deity, especially possessing limitations he claims(and his followers) to not have.

I mean, you say he's big...but existing outside of time,space, and matter....how exactly are you measuring it?

I mean, it's just as likely, hell, more than likely that if he is omnipotent, omnipresent, that he would be working at several times our speed. Not on par with, or even slower.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/meet-the-antechinus-a-mouselike-aussie-marsupial-that-kills-itself-by-having-too-much-sex/story-fn5fsgyc-1226734692653

I don't know, the entire "God's days are millions of years to us", to me sounds like an excuse to squeeze something in that is entirely superfluous and raises more questions than it answers (as evident from the high activity and discussion about it that would never occur without the assumption). If this deity is as slow as natural processes, we can't tell its existence from its non-existence and thus it remains only so: a superfluous assumption. Existence without relevance is equal to non-existence, or better - irrelevance.

Now, let's not give the god hypothesis any undeserved benefits of the doubt. We have to demonstrate there is something there first before we can phantasize on what it or its properties are.
Fine, let's assume all of cosmology and biology is false. Now, what evidence of creation do we have and what conclusions about a creator follow necessarily from that evidence?

I could of course join in and argue about, for, and against suggested properties of God, but entertaining that discussion technically means granting the premise that there is something to be learned about something despite the fact that we have no reason there is anything of the sort in the first place. Besides, with something so unestablished and fuzzy and with all those maybe's, any argument one would make can easily be dismissed with another "what if God is..." addition thus rendering the entire discussion mute, deaf and blind.

What is God, how could we tell it apart from all the other things, and what evidence is there suggesting its existence?

(Although this particular thread was about creationism and evolution, so we're having a massive digression either way)

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F87DyAsYQoI
Just shows why the God hypothesis is unnecessary even if it were not an argument from ignorance fallacy all along.

Vesha wrote: God which clearly wrote the bible for humans didn't understand what the word "Day" actually means to humans. He created all of time and space and yet has no foresight as to how the word day might be perceived as meaning 24 hours. Why even bother then?

In closing I'm not arguing against a god there just no way to know ,but a literal creation christian god like it says in the bible is simple a myth.

I am not picking on Vesha at all. In fact, I think that Vesha has really hit on the key to the argument. I believe that the bible is comprised of stories that were meant to teach a lesson. And it was primarily written so that people of that time could understand the lesson being taught. But the lessons are pretty universal across the span of time.

The issue I see is that some want to take the Bible figuratively and some want to interpret it literally. And as rude as it sounds, I am starting to be of the impression that not many understand the difference between the two.

People can come up with all kinds of justifications to explain how things could be one way or another. And that’s fine. If they want to waste their time saying it could be this or that, it doesn’t really hurt anyone. Some might find it annoying, but “that” is not hurting them. And until we can go back in time and witness what actually occurred, arguing the point is totally mute in my opinion.

Gisteron wrote: I don't know, the entire "God's days are millions of years to us", to me sounds like an excuse to squeeze something in that is entirely superfluous and raises more questions than it answers (as evident from the high activity and discussion about it that would never occur without the assumption). If this deity is as slow as natural processes, we can't tell its existence from its non-existence and thus it remains only so: a superfluous assumption. Existence without relevance is equal to non-existence, or better - irrelevance.

Just an exercise... Mental flexibility...

So are most discoveries of our species...

"I wonder if ...." has lead to some great discoveries...

In this case, we will probably never have an answer, but, I find the conversations fun...

Gisteron wrote: Now, let's not give the god hypothesis any undeserved benefits of the doubt. We have to demonstrate there is something there first before we can phantasize on what it or its properties are.
Fine, let's assume all of cosmology and biology is false. Now, what evidence of creation do we have and what conclusions about a creator follow necessarily from that evidence?

I could of course join in and argue about, for, and against suggested properties of God, but entertaining that discussion technically means granting the premise that there is something to be learned about something despite the fact that we have no reason there is anything of the sort in the first place. Besides, with something so unestablished and fuzzy and with all those maybe's, any argument one would make can easily be dismissed with another "what if God is..." addition thus rendering the entire discussion mute, deaf and blind.

Yes, you have proven you are not a fan of supposition...

You do have the option to avoid reading and joining in, lol...

++++++++++++++++++
I am taking the 'creationist' side for this discussion, however, as I have stated, I dont subscribe to it any longer...

But I have spent many hours pondering this, both sober, and 'chemically enhanced(?), lol...

I was taught 'God', then like my spaghetti comment in Elizabeth's journal (basically I continue to test my theories), I can only discuss this from this point of view...

Substitute Allah, the force, Gaia, master tinkerer, whatever you like for ever time I have said "God"...

Khaos wrote: As for mountains being eternal to me, there not.

Yea... Me either...

They arent anymore to any of us, well most of us...

Those of us who place faith in science...

To a mayfly, who buzzes us while we sit in a chair in the backyard, and recognizes we are something, and buzzes us, looking for food, or mates, or harborage, and if that particular mayfly lives for 30 minutes, it would appear to that individual we are eternal...

Khaos wrote: I mean really, you could say a second to God is a million of our years, but why not would it work the other way? Say, a million years to God is a second to us?

Just the pattern I observed as I see it...

But I am no scientist... lol...

Same for:

Khaos wrote: I mean, you say he's big...but existing outside of time,space, and matter....how exactly are you measuring it?

Going off of my earlier post, the older a organism, the larger it generally is, and the slower it appears to move...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-largest-organism-is-fungus

ANd fungus moves slow... Or so it appears at our level... lol...

And, if we say the planet earth is an organism, it is even older, and larger, than the fungus I just quoted...

You speaking fast is no comparison, how fast could you name the components to the making of existence? Every cell (and smaller) of every thing in existence?

Naming every 'quark' (whatever that is, lol) and such, because to create, you have to touch, yes? At least, acknowledge its existence to have created it?

Could you name and create ever particle as fast as a celestial being?

Just playing with words and ideas, but as I said, I have been having this internal conversation for a long, long time...

I am at the point where I see it as a non-intelligent being, merely a 'force', and 'energy' that well, who am I to quote the great Obi Won?



hahahahahaha.....