Evolutionism

God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

Rickie The Grey wrote: God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

I too thought in "god years"...

I ask my father, who studied in a seminary, this "6/7" day creation...

He responded with "How long is a day to God?"

Since then, and becoming a Jedi, this thought has recurred many times on trying to understand things....

How long is a day to god?

How long is eternity to a a mayfly?

Sorry, taking a hard turn from the OP at this point, haven't we? :lol:

I know when I write instructions I like to write the measurements in my own interpretation. Yesterday I guy asked for directions and I told him it was a mile North, but to me one mile North is five miles west.

I loaned this guy money and told him I'd pay him back in four days and he comes to me thursday and I'm like to me a day is 300 million years.

I was reading the side of my pancake batter yesterday and I was thinking wow this totally describes the creation of the universe. The flower is the stars and the eggs well that's the cambrian explosion. The frying pan is the heat from the sun adding energy to the earth. Of course it does seem like I'm just twisting things to make it seem like I'm trying to make it fight with something that has nothing to do with baking pancakes ,but hey that's what I believe.

Honestly though I'm glad christianity isn't true it would be really scary to know there is some sort of prankster god running around trying to fool people into thinking he might not be real.

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.

Rickie The Grey wrote: God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

Is that like dog years?

Creation or not, creationism (as I looked up in both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries) supposes quite specifically that the the theory of evolution is incorrect. In fact, both definitions mentioned specifically the biblical creation mith and not others, although the first point in itself is enough to say the creationist position is wrong.

However, my comment was going to be about the biblical creation story that depicts rather explicitly on which day which thing is created and all of those are more or less spoken into existence and specially created. So while one can have a vague creation notion that includes modern findings of cosmology and evolutionary biology, suffice it to say that to that end the actual creation myth as it is being told must be disregarded or bent and twisted to make it sound like something it doesn't say, as Vesha illustrated. And of course there is also the problem that several cores of the Christian doctrine can only be logically explained and justified if a literal understanding of the Genesis accounts of creation and early history is being accepted. But, of course, for every event depicted in there we either have no way of verifying it as a part of actual history or we have every way to falsify.
But yes, that is creationism by definition. If we want to switch the topic and go on to talk about just believing in any creation notion that has been proposed, the superfluous and complicating assumption that they require to be taken on nil evidence is not a sufficient but a good reason to refrain from belief for the time being. The reason there is not a great (public) debate between the notion of any creation and science as much as creationism and science is that belief in just some sort of creation doesn't in itself carry the baggage of e.g. stories or conclusions we know to be false. So the opposition against creationism is mainly concerned with people who use their beliefs to make people or teach children to feel miserable about themselves or that since the earth was created to the disposal of our special position within creation, environmental politics should be no worthy talking matter. Of course teaching people to have faith rather than evidence also has other very very dangerous implications, too, but creationism as a movement is not unique in its promoting the values of certainty over curiosity.

So yes, creation (as an idea) and creationism are not the same and hardly even close to being the same. I think we ought to decide on what it is we are discussing here (beside evolution, that is) and not confuse ourselves or each other more than we need to.

Yes Vesha, I tell time in my own way....

"A few minutes ago" could have been an hour or more, even a day...

"Just the other day" is sometime within the last three weeks...

"Last week" could be anywhere in the last month or two...

Etc, etc...

My family realizes this, and has discussions accordingly...

Khaos wrote:

Rickie The Grey wrote: God years. That's an interesting veiw to take. I like it.

Is that like dog years?

I think you may be teasing, but, yea, a bit... lol...

Look at a dog...

We are there for there birth, and their death, to them, we are eternal... I used the mayfly because they can live and die in a few hours... Or as long as a day or two...

To a mayfly, if it has/had the consciousness to understand we exist, how would we appear? Several thousands of generations would appear and die and we would still be here... Eternal....

If we had/learn the consciousness to understand the force/god, it may not appear so... appear so mysterious... lol...

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...

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?

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?

I personally believe The universe has always existed in one form or another and the force is movement/change. The concept of a god seems like a conductor in an orchestra. The problem to me is the music of life will play the same without the conductor. We are tiny spec in a otherwise lifeless cosmos. I would expect far more if this was a grand design.

We are there for there birth, and their death, to them, we are eternal

Or were just older... There is a chance that they dont percieve time differently, so much as just dont live as long.

My mother didnt percieve time differently from my father, she just got cancer and died sooner.

Now, we could argue that a dog or a mayfly doesnt measure time, but I am arguing that they do percieve it, and can understand it in regards to there own biology, such I can percieve the differences at 32 from 22.

A mayfly doesnt know it only has two days, as in 24 hours, etc, but I dont think that means it sees us( if if it even contemplates us at all) as eternal.

All conjecture though, as I cant question the dog, or the mayfly.

I would expect God, if he is God, to not need a million years to create, chances are, he would need less than a second.

Now, you might say thats a million years to us, but then, as I measure time, thats pretty slow for a deity.

I speak pretty fast, and apparently the Christian God spoke the world into being.

Now, I have to assume a deity can think, act,process, and even create on a timeline much,much shorter than me.

If he is working on roughly the same timeline that it took us to get to where we are, not only do I find that just a tad to convenient, but, I have to question the ability, and mental processes, of said deity.

Sucks we apparently got the one with ADD. :lol:

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.....