Evolutionism

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.....

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 understand the statments but I don't understand your questions?

I think there is no difference because they're all one and the same.

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?

Hmm...You think they would have put that in there....As I recall, it was "Let there be light." , and there was.

I would also wonder why god had to name every component, and if he did, it should have been in there, in fact, that would have helped quite a bit.

I would think it would be just as tedious as the this person begot that person, etc,etc which they did.

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

No, which is my point.

Still, it seemed Jesus needed only to touch you, or some such and you were healed of your afflictions...I would think the father could work faster than the son.

Also, while I can agree with your pattern in science that the older something is, the slower it is, seldom does anything to do with god hold to scientific princibles, and as I said, he seems to be outside space, time, and matter, omnipotent,ve such omnipresent, etc, which would lead one to believe such rules wouldnt apply.

Which I consider another....hiccup.

Would God need evolution?

Only if you found out after the myth that certain things did and do happen and had to make it fit.

As for Force, well, I cant say my outlook on it has ever been that positive.

I think most religion has to do with peoples fear of death, and them trying to deal with it anyway they can...

I am of the mind that God,Gods were a combination of extreme ignorance(we really didnt know any better at the time) and simple fear, fear of the unknown, of which Death, is the biggest... That and I think it is moral and ethical software(oudated) that was used to transfer certain values and behavior to the next generation.

Most people cant seem to fathom that there consciousness, will not survive the bodies death. Most religions grant you some kind of....ego transference. A soul living in heaven,hell, a Force ghost, etc, lol.

Perhaps ther is simply nothing,and that transformation people speak of is simply your body decaying and returning to the earth, and eventually the cosmos, but that you, that voice inside you head, your soul, doesnt actually exist in any real way but as one of comfort.



Though I d disagree that we are the only species aware of its own mortality, I think we just lack communication skills with other species, and so make stupid assumptions.