Conquer Club

About evolutionism and creationism they're just the same thing, 6 days of work in creationism, 6 billion years on evolution, god creating light, endless flows of lava and fire for evolutionism, then huge amounts of rain on both accounts, then came the simple animals (on both accounts), then came us last (again on both accounts), it's silly how someone can argue over almost the same thing on how the world was created.

Evolution is a harder issue but i may be wrong but i never call on a time where god created animals and that's it, there is a purpose for everything in both sides and whether or not they die out is up to god and the elements of nature.

Btw Dawkins is a idiot. Don't get me started on that one.

brooksieb wrote:About evolutionism and creationism they're just the same thing, 6 days of work in creationism, 6 billion years on evolution, god creating light, endless flows of lava and fire for evolutionism, then huge amounts of rain on both accounts, then came the simple animals (on both accounts), then came us last (again on both accounts), it's silly how someone can argue over almost the same thing on how the world was created.

Evolution is a harder issue but i may be wrong but i never call on a time where god created animals and that's it, there is a purpose for everything in both sides and whether or not they die out is up to god and the elements of nature.

Btw Dawkins is a idiot. Don't get me started on that one.

wat

if you were to take a straw poll of evolutionary experts and creationist experts i doubt you would get very many answers that they are the same theory.

They really dont even attempt to argue the same thing. One of them seems to be primarily concerned with the how. The other seems interested in the how only as it pertains to providing evideence for the why.

It doesnt really need a whole lot of discussion i would think. Also, dawkins for whatever you would think about the man, is certainly not an idiot.

I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

I can't see why folks get worked up about it either. Evolution (whatever you may think of it, and even at it's most) doesn't remotely refute the existence of God. At best, it refutes one story in one book of one testament of the Holy Bible. Most people I've spoken to are of the opinion "So what, at worst it's a process that God uses to move things along".

CrazyAnglican wrote:I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

i suppose i should clarify...it certainly is possible for people to try to argue toward more theistic driven views of an evolutionary history. People do it all the time i would assume. But to claim the theories and the story are more or less the same is a bit of a stretch.

got tonkaed wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

i suppose i should clarify...it certainly is possible for people to try to argue toward more theistic driven views of an evolutionary history. People do it all the time i would assume. But to claim the theories and the story are more or less the same is a bit of a stretch.

If god was not in it it would still be the same plot...

brooksieb wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

i suppose i should clarify...it certainly is possible for people to try to argue toward more theistic driven views of an evolutionary history. People do it all the time i would assume. But to claim the theories and the story are more or less the same is a bit of a stretch.

If god was not in it it would still be the same plot...

its pretty hard to argue essentially that God created the earth in six days if there was no God to begin with.

i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

got tonkaed wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

i suppose i should clarify...it certainly is possible for people to try to argue toward more theistic driven views of an evolutionary history. People do it all the time i would assume. But to claim the theories and the story are more or less the same is a bit of a stretch.

If god was not in it it would still be the same plot...

its pretty hard to argue essentially that God created the earth in six days if there was no God to begin with.

ok, assuming it was both 6 billion years and there was no god in either, it would be roughly the same, perhaps to god 6 billion years is 6 days? maybe he uses a different calendar?

brooksieb wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I like it though, God said let there be light (and then....there was a really big bang...).

i suppose i should clarify...it certainly is possible for people to try to argue toward more theistic driven views of an evolutionary history. People do it all the time i would assume. But to claim the theories and the story are more or less the same is a bit of a stretch.

If god was not in it it would still be the same plot...

its pretty hard to argue essentially that God created the earth in six days if there was no God to begin with.

ok, assuming it was both 6 billion years and there was no god in either, it would be roughly the same, perhaps to god 6 billion years is 6 days? maybe he uses a different calendar lol.

black elk speaks wrote:i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

To an extent I guess. I certainly believe in the Christian view of God as a father helping his kids to grow and learn. I can see your point as well though, I think. God creates and then gives room for evolution. Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

brooksieb wrote: ok, assuming it was both 6 billion years and there was no god in either, it would be roughly the same, perhaps to god 6 billion years is 6 days? maybe he uses a different calendar?

There is that, if you're talking about the creation of the Universe, the Terran 24 hour day is pretty meaningless. God being an infinite being may have a different time clock. Not to mention that he's explaining this to a bunch of Bronze Age nomads. It seems like the story has plenty of elements that are echoed by current scientific theories. Which should speak well for said Bronze Age nomads.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

brooksieb wrote: ok, assuming it was both 6 billion years and there was no god in either, it would be roughly the same, perhaps to god 6 billion years is 6 days? maybe he uses a different calendar?

There is that, if you're talking about the creation of the Universe, the Terran 24 hour day is pretty meaningless. God being an infinite being may have a different time clock. Not to mention that he's explaining this to a bunch of Bronze Age nomads. It seems like the story has plenty of elements that are echoed by current scientific theories. Which should speak well for said Bronze Age nomads.

the pentatuch (sp?) was written by Moses. why would he put 6 days if it really meant 6 billion years, knowing full well that his intended audience was people (us) who would interpret the text to mean a literal 6 earthly days? i would think that it was written that way to express the grandeur of God, blessing him with fantastic creative power making him worthy of worship. i would think that once it had been discovered that it really took 6 billion years (or whatever) to create the earth as we know it now did this explanation of alternate time scales come to "explain" the discrepancy and in my opinion, since the explanation seems incredible to me, challenges the validity to the claim that God created the earth in 6 days.

CrazyAnglican wrote: Most people I've spoken to are of the opinion "So what, at worst it's a process that God uses to move things along".

Then you should get out more

jonesthecurl wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote: Most people I've spoken to are of the opinion "So what, at worst it's a process that God uses to move things along".

Then you should get out more

care to elaborate on that?

CrazyAnglican wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

To an extent I guess. I certainly believe in the Christian view of God as a father helping his kids to grow and learn. I can see your point as well though, I think. God creates and then gives room for evolution. Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Well, when you've not evolved thinking beings yet, there IS no "spiritual"...

jonesthecurl wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

To an extent I guess. I certainly believe in the Christian view of God as a father helping his kids to grow and learn. I can see your point as well though, I think. God creates and then gives room for evolution. Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Well, when you've not evolved thinking beings yet, there IS no "spiritual"...

Perhaps, if the existence of spiritual realms depends on sentience in the physical. But what you seem to be saying is about like arguing that there would be no light without the evolution of optical organs.

jonesthecurl wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

To an extent I guess. I certainly believe in the Christian view of God as a father helping his kids to grow and learn. I can see your point as well though, I think. God creates and then gives room for evolution. Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Well, when you've not evolved thinking beings yet, there IS no "spiritual"...

i have no idea what you are saying.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i tend to agree with CA, i think. I do not believe in god as a Cristian entity that has a will and a plan, but a force that creates. he created live, and let it go, let it be free to change, adapt and evolve.

To an extent I guess. I certainly believe in the Christian view of God as a father helping his kids to grow and learn. I can see your point as well though, I think. God creates and then gives room for evolution. Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Well, when you've not evolved thinking beings yet, there IS no "spiritual"...

Perhaps, if the existence of spiritual realms depends on sentience in the physical. But what you seem to be saying is about like arguing that there would be no light without the evolution of optical organs.

Not quite, without optical organs there's no perception of light, the physical processes will still be there, by contrast the process of thinking is a necessity for spirituality. Or can you show us differently?

Nice verbal slip, but spirituality and the spirtual are not the same thing.

(and this is certainly way off the original topic that when taking the other creation myths into account the Christian story seems to have a lot in common with the current theories).

but to continue what I said stands. The spiritual (that is spiritual realms and beings) are no more dependent on human sentience for existence than an tiger or Ottawa. They either exist or they dont. Human sentience has no part in determining their actual existence.


Spirituality, on the other hand, is a function of thought and does rely on sentience. What you have said is true, but irrelevant, since we were speaking of spiritual beings and not spirituality.

So the appearance of human beings, through evolution, is irrelevant to the spiritual realms?

CrazyAnglican wrote:Nice verbal slip, but spirituality and the spirtual are not the same thing.

(and this is certainly way off the original topic that when taking the other creation myths into account the Christian story seems to have a lot in common with the current theories).

but to continue what I said stands. The spiritual (that is spiritual realms and beings) are no more dependent on human sentience for existence than an tiger or Ottawa. They either exist or they dont. Human sentience has no part in determining their actual existence.


Spirituality, on the other hand, is a function of thought and does rely on sentience. What you have said is true, but irrelevant, since we were speaking of spiritual beings and not spirituality.

perhaps then, you can explain how it is that without the human brain, it is not possible for people, spirits encased within a physical body, are unable to process thought. take for example people with Alzheimer's. their physical brain deteriorates to the point where they are incapable of memory first, then slowly, the rest of their mental faculty fades over time.

i think of the physical body as a chance for the spiritual self to experience. not sure why other than to say that existence would be pretty boring without the chance to experience. but whether the spirit 'remembers' what it experienced after the body has died, i cannot say.

jonesthecurl wrote:So the appearance of human beings, through evolution, is irrelevant to the spiritual realms?

I neither said not implied that humans were irrelevant. I merely stated that if spiritual worlds and beings (other than humans) exists, it can hardly be stated that their existence relies on human sentience.

The existence of any separate place or being (be it the land we know as China or an ocelot)would not rely on human sentience for it's existence. You asserted that there was no spiritual (realms or beings) without the evolution of human thought. I'm merely stating that isn't so.

CrazyAnglican wrote: Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Again:if evolution has no bearing on the spiritual, then the evolution of human beings is unimportant?

Well, actually Ottawa (and China, too) is dependent on humans in order to exist, the geography you find there might not be, but in order for the geography to be Ottawa you need humans (or at least some sentient beings) that define it as such, but that's just by the by.


I think you might be talking about different things. I think jones first meant spiritual as in describing a kind of processes of thought, while you, CA, are actually talking about a different plane of existence or something with ghosts and non-corporeal beings?

If that is truly the case I can only say: Well, show me one of those beings that do not consist of anything physical.

MeDeFe wrote:Well, actually Ottawa (and China, too) is dependent on humans in order to exist, the geography you find there might not be, but in order for the geography to be Ottawa you need humans (or at least some sentient beings) that define it as such, but that's just by the by.

You're right in the case of Ottawa. Hence the "the land we know as China" in the second post. Tigers and ocelots keep going happily on though.

MeDeFe wrote:I think you might be talking about different things. I think jones first meant spiritual as in describing a kind of processes of thought, while you, CA, are actually talking about a different plane of existence or something with ghosts and non-corporeal beings?

Jonesy's statment was that there is no spiritual. If he wants to conceed the possibility of spiritual places and beings I'll happily conceed (in fact I already did) that human spirituality depends on human sentience.

MeDeFe wrote:If that is truly the case I can only say: Well, show me one of those beings that do not consist of anything physical.

Give me a physical instrument that measures spiritual things and I'll get right on it.

jonesthecurl wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote: Either way evolution is a physical process that has no real bearing on the spiritual?

Again:if evolution has no bearing on the spiritual, then the evolution of human beings is unimportant?

Again: regardless of how important the evolution of human beings is to humans, how important is it to any other creature? If spiritual beings exist (I think they do; you think they don't, and I'm okay with that), that existence is probably unaffected by humanity's origins. It isn't that human evolution is unimportant or any physical evolution is unimportant, just that it has no bearing on the existence of spiritual beings.