how did man appear on earth

[darkendless]

Friend CCAP..,
There is no way to prove either god is there or evolution; AND still there are supporters of both creationist and evolutionist; in such a scenario whatever is happening globally is correct.
Buddha therefore never negated anything as truth is only in the eye of the beholder AND he went to to show that place of balance from where both are right in their own right and both are wrong in the others way. He spoke of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH which is to be understood and realized.
Love & rgds

But sir you are so wrong. To ignore evolution is to ignore so much interesting information about the creation and destruction of our environment. All that is missing is the initial stages. The spark that clicked it all into gear. Without theories of evolution we are nothing more than primitive God fearing sheep.

 

[zenzero]

Friend darklessend,

But sir you are so wrong. To ignore evolution is to ignore so much interesting information about the creation and destruction of our environment. All that is missing is the initial stages. The spark that clicked it all into gear. Without theories of evolution we are nothing more than primitive God fearing sheep.

Was trying to state that there is a point from where both are right.
Besides evolution starts after forms appeared but from where forms came out is something that can not be understood by the MIND [logic] it can only be realized.
That is a personal journey and noone can convince another about it as words are of no use but words are used in a limited way to point towards that direction only.
So, it is left to each individual.
Love & rgds

 

[S-word]

If you are referring to the ineffable name of God found in Exodus 3, and if you mean that He exists before all things, including time itself, then I agree. Also proving God exists from a finite mind like our own is a ridiculous proposition. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. An infinite God cannot be fully and completely comprehended by our finite minds.

Is that what you are trying to say?

I am referring to 'Who I Am,' who has existed for all time and I Am one with 'Who I Am.' For you see,

I Am Who I Am, may I never loose sight
Of the fact that 'I Am Who I Am,' day and night
I'm not 'Who I Was,' nor 'Who I Will Be,'
For 'Who I Am,' is the name that my God gave to me.

The fact that 'I AM,' proves that all that 'I AM,' always was and as long as I remain true to, and one with 'Who I Am,' (Not 'Who He Was' or 'Who He Will Be') , but to 'Who I Am,' who is joined to his origin by an eternal and unbroken genetic thread of life, and who is not under the penality of death, then I, will always be.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

By that logic everything in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and The Chronicles of Narnia and so on all actually happened as well. Just because authors use real life events as backdrops for fictional stories doesn't make the fictional stories any more true.

And by that logic, you can't take anything that anybody has ever written as truth...besides, you're assuming that the Bible was written by man. It wasn't; it was written by God.

Do you listen to yourself? You claim to reject scientific theories such as evolution, not really based on any flaw in the science, but simply because your faith tells you to. You will look for and see anything you can to be a flaw in the science because you have already convinced yourself that there must be because your faith says it is wrong...with nothing but that to back its stance up.

I'm not rejecting all science, only that which is based upon faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is based on faulty reasoning. Few people accept the fact that evolution is full of holes; it can't hold water.

Creationism is not more "intellectually honest". If anything it is intellectually dishonest for it requires people to pretty much chuck logic and reason and fact right out the window in favor of mythological allegories that have no real basis in reality at all.

...your not really listening. Try to think of this outside the box, outside of evolution. If you can at least acknowledge the fact that all this "logic and reason and fact" might be wrong, then you can see that we might not be chucking all that out.

Oh, and evolution doesn't "say" anything about faith. It doesn't "say" anything at all. Evolution just is and the theory of it is scientific explanation of observable facts. There is no mention of faith. Truly, the only faith that is required when it comes to understanding and accepting the ToE as the fact that it is is the faith you must have in your own mind to be able to comprehend the actual data.

Just splitting hairs here...you know what I meant. I wasn't saying that it literally says anything about faith, just that the whole theory does not allow for it.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Friend CCAP..,
There is no way to prove either god is there or evolution; AND still there are supporters of both creationist and evolutionist; in such a scenario whatever is happening globally is correct.
Buddha therefore never negated anything as truth is only in the eye of the beholder AND he went to to show that place of balance from where both are right in their own right and both are wrong in the others way. He spoke of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH which is to be understood and realized.
Love & rgds

Are you saying that whether or not there is a God who created man is dependent on a global consensus? Please say that's not what you're saying...

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

The difference is i can explain my work, and a lot of people with a PHD who have done a lot of good work for our society will agree with me regardless of their religious beliefs.
Im not dodging the question, i thought my answer was obvious. Evolution is everywhere, there are just people who are too dumb or too ignorant to acknowledge its existance. The same cannot be said about God, there is no evidence, and there never will be.

That, my friend, is called an "Ad Hominum" argument; it's a logical fallacy, mate.

 

[Sunstone]

It's obvious humans evolved from precursor species that were similar to ours.

 

[darkendless]

That, my friend, is called an "Ad Hominum" argument; it's a logical fallacy, mate.

Care to prove anything i say wrong? You seem to have all the answers so please do explain them to me. You can call my arguement what ever you want to but lets deal with facts instead,

Question: If evolution is false, the estimate of the earth being 4.5billion years old must be false. What explanation do you have for Ozone in the atmosphere?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Friend darklessend,
Was trying to state that there is a point from where both are right.
Besides evolution starts after forms appeared but from where forms came out is something that can not be understood by the MIND [logic] it can only be realized.
That is a personal journey and noone can convince another about it as words are of no use but words are used in a limited way to point towards that direction only.
So, it is left to each individual.
Love & rgds

If God is real, then the guy who believes in him will go to heaven, and the other guy won't. If you think both ways are right, I'd choose this way and not risk eternal death, eh what?

Here's Pascal's Wager. A bit long, but it should make the point clearer:

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite."

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

I am referring to 'Who I Am,' who has existed for all time and I Am one with 'Who I Am.' For you see,

I Am Who I Am, may I never loose sight
Of the fact that 'I Am Who I Am,' day and night
I'm not 'Who I Was,' nor 'Who I Will Be,'
For 'Who I Am,' is the name that my God gave to me.

The fact that 'I AM,' proves that all that 'I AM,' always was and as long as I remain true to, and one with 'Who I Am,' (Not 'Who He Was' or 'Who He Will Be') , but to 'Who I Am,' who is joined to his origin by an eternal and unbroken genetic thread of life, and who is not under the penality of death, then I, will always be.

Then you think you're God...well, if I were God, I wouldn't be discussing this. I'd be off doing more important things. Hop to it!

 

[Draka]

And by that logic, you can't take anything that anybody has ever written as truth...besides, you're assuming that the Bible was written by man. It wasn't; it was written by God.

There's a difference between writing history and writing fiction.

and god wrote the bible??? Wow, he must use an awful lot of pen names.
Men wrote the bible...not any god. Men held the pens. Men decided what to write and how to phrase things. Even if not meant to be fiction men can only write what they can understand and perceive. Which is why we get different accounts in different books. If god wrote the bible then why would there be more than one perpective?

I'm not rejecting all science, only that which is based upon faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution is based on faulty reasoning. Few people accept the fact that evolution is full of holes; it can't hold water.

No, you're not rejecting all science, just science that covers information that your religion has a different explanation for. You're fine with accepting scientific explanations for other things...then science is fine, but if it goes against your beliefs suddenly it is faulty. You may not pick and choose what you believe in the bible but you certainly pick and choose what science can be right about and that is still hypocrisy.

...your not really listening. Try to think of this outside the box, outside of evolution. If you can at least acknowledge the fact that all this "logic and reason and fact" might be wrong, then you can see that we might not be chucking all that out.

Hmm, so, if "logic and reason and fact" are wrong...that makes religious based speculation right? I don't think so.

Try as I might to "think outside the box" I simply cannot chuck out all the valid evidence of evolution simply because some mythology has another idea of where we came from. I just cannot bring myself to throw away truth for fiction.

Just splitting hairs here...you know what I meant. I wasn't saying that it literally says anything about faith, just that the whole theory does not allow for it.

Why does accepting the theory of evolution as fact not allow someone to have any religious faith?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Care to prove anything i say wrong? You seem to have all the answers so please do explain them to me. You can call my arguement what ever you want to but lets deal with facts instead,

Question: If evolution is false, the estimate of the earth being 4.5 billion years old must be false. What explanation do you have for Ozone in the atmosphere?

I don't think I fully understand what you're asking...what exactly does ozone have to do with the earths age? If you can tell me that, I might be able to answer it.

Also, if it does, read this. Age has nothing to do with ozone...

Identification of terrestrial sources and mechanisms in the atmospheric ozone

 

[zenzero]

Friend CCAP...,

Sorry brother, you MISSED the point was trying to make.
Talking about a middle PATH like the center of a storm or the middle point of a pendulum where both the pendulum is at rest and not swinging or stressed.
Take a magnet there will always be two poles even if you try cutting one pole from the other a thousand times still the piece you get will have both the poles, so it is for one to take it as a WHOLE where both poles are there but still there is a point which is in the middle where it is neither of the poles and from where both the poles starts.
That is the point on which one has to wager; if any.
Love & rgds

 

[darkendless]

I don't think I fully understand what you're asking...what exactly does ozone have to do with the earths age? If you can tell me that, I might be able to answer it.

Also, if it does, read this. Age has nothing to do with ozone...

Identification of terrestrial sources and mechanisms in the atmospheric ozone

The Ozone is a result of excess oxygen in the atmosphere caused by reduction reactions by us on the ground when we were a lot different to what we are now. Now this happened billions of years ago, almost wiping out life forms on earth because they lived without respiration. Now that is a simple explanation for our respitory systems, as well as the Ozone layer which protects us. This has come from university learning materials (minus chemical formulas). This is an example of the ToE and how we came to be. Age doesn't really matter although given your "creation" timeline of 40,000 years its almost impossible for this to have occured. Then again, you could take my question as 2 questions. One being prove the age of the earth is not what most scientists agree upon and 2 prove that God created ozone.

BTW your article speaks about the existance of the ozone, not the formation of the ozone. The ozone didnt suddenly appear.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

There's a difference between writing history and writing fiction.

What do you say about Herodotus? He wrote that rather large book, The Histories, about the Greek and Persian War. Has the story about the 300 in it. Do you accept that as fact? Because its got all sorts of stories about dog headed men and flying snakes.

The Bible has way more historical attestations than Herodotus, yet people take Herodotus at face value, ignoring the Bible as just a set of myths.

and god wrote the bible??? Wow, he must use an awful lot of pen names.
Men wrote the bible...not any god. Men held the pens. Men decided what to write and how to phrase things. Even if not meant to be fiction men can only write what they can understand and perceive. Which is why we get different accounts in different books. If god wrote the bible then why would there be more than one perpective?

Splitting hairs again lol...he didn't physically write it! He divinely inspired certain men to write it.

No, you're not rejecting all science, just science that covers information that your religion has a different explanation for. You're fine with accepting scientific explanations for other things...then science is fine, but if it goes against your beliefs suddenly it is faulty. You may not pick and choose what you believe in the bible but you certainly pick and choose what science can be right about and that is still hypocrisy.

No no! Science, by its nature, is skeptical. A good scientist never accepts what other scientists have to say until they themselves have done the work and the research to back it up. I'm just doing what every scientist ought to do.

Hmm, so, if "logic and reason and fact" are wrong...that makes religious based speculation right? I don't think so.
Try as I might to "think outside the box" I simply cannot chuck out all the valid evidence of evolution simply because some mythology has another idea of where we came from. I just cannot bring myself to throw away truth for fiction.

If you try, what may seem to be impossible fiction to you can be seen to be truth. Did not the ancients believe that the earth was flat? It seemed impossible that it could be round! But it is. They didn't have the understanding to see that, they didn't have the information. But when people circumnavigated it, they saw that it was indeed spherical. They say that not all that glitters is gold, but I would say that not all that is gold glitters (if that makes sense...)

Why does accepting the theory of evolution as fact not allow someone to have any religious faith?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just trying to be consistent in my beliefs, regardless of whether or not it sounds good. Trust me, evolution sounds great (it would end all this ceaseless argument, eh?). It goes the other way too. A lot of stuff in the Bible is really very challenging and makes me uncomfortable, but that doesn't make me any less obligated to believe it.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

The Ozone is a result of excess oxygen in the atmosphere caused by reduction reactions by us on the ground when we were a lot different to what we are now. Now this happened billions of years ago, almost wiping out life forms on earth because they lived without respiration. Now that is a simple explanation for our respitory systems, as well as the Ozone layer which protects us. This has come from university learning materials (minus chemical formulas). This is an example of the ToE and how we came to be. Age doesn't really matter although given your "creation" timeline of 40,000 years its almost impossible for this to have occured. Then again, you could take my question as 2 questions. One being prove the age of the earth is not what most scientists agree upon and 2 prove that God created ozone.

BTW your article speaks about the existance of the ozone, not the formation of the ozone. The ozone didnt suddenly appear.

Gotcha. Ok, might as well take in two...

1) I can't prove the age of the earth. But then, neither can you.

2) I can't prove that God made ozone (or how) but neither can you prove that he did'nt.

Thats the point: Both Creationism and Evolution RELY on faith. You can't prove it.

 

[Draka]

Of all you said the thing that struck me the most is your last statement. WHY do you feel you are obligated to believe it? I realize this may be entirely off-topic, but I am interested in continuing this discussion with you. So if you would prefer we can take this to a one-on-one debate or simply a seperate discussion thread.

 

[Draka]

I'm just going to start another thread over in Biblical Debates. This has me thinking.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

No problem. But It's getting late here, and I'm pretty tired lol. But I will be there tomorrow, and we can pick this back up then. That alright with you?

 

[Draka]

no problem. goodnight