- James Zediana
- Haverhill, MA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Where did we come from?
I started several debates in TED and results are evolution can't be proven. SHORT OF CREATION and EVOLUTION is there another option?
I believe this is a fundamental question to be answered.
Topics:
creation evolution intelligent design
Andres Aullet 10+
It is interesting that the same question keeps popping up, isn't it? Whether the results are as explained, or the question remains unanswered is debatable too.
But I have asked several times and I have not yet heard from you, what is your personal opinion on the matter? Would you care to elaborate?
all the best
Anuraman Sinha
simple web video url( click2homepage.com/theoryofpresent/).....kindly
spend a thoughtfull time to watch this video ,hope it could throw an angle that is worth to contemplate how we evolve
Anuraman Sinha
tell us the starting point of our generation ,but taking this simple
consideration and with simple yet unsolvable calculation you might forced
to contemplate my argument supporting my belive of how we actually get
started or may be we never ever find that point.......any way I designed a
simple web video url( click2homepage.com/theoryofpresent/).....kindly
spend a thoughtfull time to watch this video ,
Juliette Zahn 50+
daniel hehir 20+
Farrukh kind of lost me in that last corner. I fell off the wagon. Burried in the hail.....
Blown out on the trail....
What did you find of interest with "permutation"
Entropy Driven 10+
Of course, if the knowledgeable person comes and asks, I will ignore such person. Others who just insist how come gravitation can't be proven, I will say that this is not the question here. Nobody gave me any evidence or proof that looked like common sense (see my standards?). Easy! Let's get rid of all science in exchange for nonsense while ignoring answers.
James Zediana
Entropy Driven 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am being serious. And I know this is not about the original question. But why isn't dark energy/dark matter considered as an explanation of gravity? So I am saying that dark energy/dark matter and gravity are one and the same.
Entropy Driven 10+
Dark Matter and dark energy might be pretty much related. I am no physicist though. But matter and energy and exchangeable. Maybe in large quantities, like those required for the phenomena that made physicists think of their existence, it does not matter which "form" it has, and they are thus one and the same. Anyway, dark matter was originally proposed to explain gravitational effects, dark energy to explain what drives the acceleration of the universe's expansion. Since I am no physicist, I do not know if there's further confirmation or if we are talking about something akin to phlogiston or ether. So, maybe it is better to ask some physicist about it.
Random Chance 30+
Meaning, right angles that are not seen as results in geological activities?
There are structures, it appears are true and real, on Mars that WE recognize, because that is how humans build and have for a long time.
Perhaps, these structures look similar to ours because that is where we came from in our planet-hopping journey for survival.
After all,we are looking for other places/planets today, since we are destroying this planet and those who will or might be able to travel, will leave, in order to survive and as a side-note, keep the human species alive.
There may have been other planet stops along the way to earth, preceding Mars and since going into space is going back in time, why not?
James Zediana
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Is the agenda here a religious one, Christian?
James wrote at another discussion: "There were 40 different authors of the bible, who wrote over hundreds of years. Each was inspired by God to write the words. This is proven by several ways."
James Zediana
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
James Zediana
Entropy Driven 10+
James Zediana
Entropy Driven 10+
daniel hehir 20+
Thanks for the vid link. I don't have time just now to watch it completely but will try to get back to it.
What is referred to about DMT creating hallucinatory phenomena is of no surprise to me. Psychedelic drugs do one thing that everyone experimenting with such drugs should be fully aware of. This thing hallucinagenic drugs do is push the soul / spirit element of our being out of the physical and life body. This is sort of a "simulated" death condition. Hallucinogenic drugs are just like climbing in through the window to get into a house. The "house" being the spiritual world. We get into it alright, but our experiences are so disoriented because we are not prepared for it. Our consciousness needs to be prepared through mental training and meditation.
In ancient times, such people, in all cultures, had these experiences available to them. These people were called initiates. Initiates were "led" over the threshold by other initiates and into the spiritual world "fully conscious". They saw visions ... great visions ... They could sometimes see even everything that developed in the entire evolution of the planet earth.
Chemicals are not the "experience" in themselves, chemicals are just a "catalyst" that pushes the soul and spirit out of the physical body and into the spiritual dimension.
Such is it also with oxygen deprivation. Such is it with Jill Bolte Taylors stroke. Russian astronauts put on the G-force wheel have the same experience .. This is what the "god helmet" is also doing.
Remember Brian, the brain is only like an antenna for your true being. Your true being is of a purely spiritual nature that is ... again .... totally "immaterial" You can damage the brain and point to it and say .. See, the brain is not working, that's why I can no long raise my arm ... but the truth is this, the brain is damaged and therefor my spirit cannot penetrate my nervous system to raise my arm
John Dunbar 10+
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
daniel hehir 20+
Was that an argument for evolution .... or for creationism ??
Or was it a creative evolution ... or was it an evolutionary creationism ..??
If Jim Zediana was still around here, I don't think he would find your comment very enlightening
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
Also, please note that this is only one of the many possible ways to explain the existing world. I believe that it provides another option besides evolution and creationism, as asked in original question.
James Zediana
daniel hehir 20+
Where do we go ...?
Sorry, that's somethin' you don't need to know.
Where are you now James? Haven't heard a peep out of you lately ...
James Zediana
natasha nikulina 50+
Alfred Russel Wallace ; initially the theory of evolution was called Darwin-Wallace theory .
Historians of science have noted that, while Darwin considered the ideas in Wallace's paper to be essentially the same as his own, there were differences.
" Wallace had "probably said the most powerful thing that’d been said in the 19th Century :
A Necessary Unity...."
Wallace :
"The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident .."
"Wallace was strongly attracted to unconventional ideas. His advocacy of Spiritualism and his belief in a non-material origin for the higher mental faculties of humans strained his relationship with the scientific establishment, especially with other early proponents of evolution."
Interesting....
If anybody is interested , let Google help you and share your findings , please :)
Frans Kellner 100+
Wallace is believed by some to have brought the idea of evolution to the mind of Darwin.
For certain it wasn't his idea only but Darwin sure was the one that brought it to the attention of the public at large.
Jean Baptiste Lamarck had similar ideas that are becoming more prominent now with the discovery of epigenetics, the way environmental changes influence genetic expression.
natasha nikulina 50+
Wallace didn't bring the idea to the mind of Darwin, he sent him the paper by post :)
Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. Assay "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type", and Darwin commented : "he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters ..."
But it is not the point.
"But the twin impulses in Wallace’s work make him compelling and oddly contemporary. He combines both halves of the debate over the meaning of evolution, coolly articulating the materialist mechanisms by which the simplest organisms morphed into human beings while arguing that our existence offers evidence of divine agency. "
Check out here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/wallace/quammen-text
It's interesting , really !
Thank you very much for responding !
Frans Kellner 100+
Thank you!
Walace placed the first hints at plate tectonics as well.
natasha nikulina 50+
Maybe you'll be interested in this article
http://www.michaelhayes.net/articles7.html
There is a sense in which Wallace idea of " the centrifugal governor of the steam
engine " belongs here.
James Zediana
natasha nikulina 50+
But what he emphasized in his 'version' of natural selection was 'ecological interactions'. Some scientists go so far as to interpret Wallace's thinking as the first example of cybernetic modeling.
And maybe it echoes somehow with Sheldrake's 'Morphic field' ?
John Barbuto
It seems to me this is the pivotal issue. From somewhere came a force that imbues organic things with these tendencies. Since I was a child scientists have been trying to create life in a test tube and they have never succeeded. They can make seemingly-organic sludge, but not life. The pivotal force is not there.
So where did this force come from? I'm now long past high school and I've never seen an answer (and almost never seen the question). Whatever it is exists at the atomic level. Did it just happen, or was some sentience responsible? There are preferred beliefs but no answer. When we can identify the force (differentiating once and for all what is alive versus what isn't) then we can struggle with where the force might have come from.
What is interesting (if the foregoing isn't) is that at death the force seems to leave. All those atoms no longer seem to have the ability to self-organize and go about the business of gathering energy and self-propagating. Hmmm.
daniel hehir 20+
Seems like you are really searching for the answers.
As science also tells us, that in between the atoms there is just an incredible amount of empty space .... or is it really so empty ? Perhaps it is filled with a "life force" or what some call the "etheric force"
These are not at all strange ideas but rather pieces to a greater puzzle that can begin to explain some of the questions you are posing. Although they are not considered "scientific" ...yet ... the sciences may soon be getting on to this. Our tools are still quite clumsy to penetrate these forces but it seems to be heading in that direction with MRI's and such. We can get a magnetic signal from the living substance. An electrical impulse. Heat residue. .... But just what is this "energy" that leaves the physical body at death that you speak of..? Could it be one aspect of the spiritual part of our higher being..? ... I just ask...
Peter Law 50+
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
Those forces added a short lived kind of energy that made organic connections possible of inorganic atoms. And so even today we need be powered from the sun via carbon hydrates to continue that special configuration we call life.
Peter Law 50+
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
What is the difference between being alive and dead versus non living objects
Life is amazing.
If you live long enough though your body and associated organs and processes don't function so well.
The body is complex relying on respiration, circulation, digestion etc at the macro level. So many processes. When a human dies, some critical process or more than one stops and this leads to the shut down of tbe brain and all the processes controlled by the brain. System failure. HowEver some of the processes such as hair and nail growth continue for some time after brain death.
I don't personally see any evidence of some Life force or spirit. The systems work or thy don't more or less.
Watching someone suffer increasing dementia losing their memories, then recognition, their personality, eventually comatose, you see the results of the biological system break down. Finally they die and yet some assume their personality and memories just float off fully intact to be judged by some invisible entity, with no evidence at all.
That sort of thinking is amazing In itself.
James Zediana
You are right we have lots to learn about us. If we get this underastanding will we be able to live forever? Would we want to?
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'd like to be age 28 physically for say 100 to 200 years. Don't think our minds are set up for 1,000s or millions of years.
James Zediana
daniel hehir 20+
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html
James Zediana
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
natasha nikulina 50+
will always be. Form is always changing, never substance.
James Zediana
John Frum 30+
James Zediana
Barry Palmer 50+
Check out this essay.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
daniel hehir 20+
I read the essay but wasn't too impressed. It seems to promote a form of relativism that in my mind is a hinder to the true understanding of the nature of thinking.
You might also consider this.
1 is the largest number. All other numbers are divisible. While 1 can only be divided by itself.
In mathematics as well as geometry things can in fact be proven. In as much as we consider our own thoughts as "real"...... then we have to come to the conclusion that mathematical and geometrical truths as real and are also proven correct or incorrect. If one chooses to deny this, then you at the same time deny the entire foundation of science.
If then real truth can be achieved through mathematics and geometry, then the "ideas" must also be fully real in themselves... or ? Is not mathematics existing only purely in the ideal realm ...?
As we now stand in the danger of wandering further and further away from James's initial question, "Where do we come from?" The fact that we are here presented with an "immaterial" truth that is quite real.
If we can consider this immaterial truth as being founded "in reality" then why should we not consider other immaterial truths to also be just as much founded in the same reality.
James Zediana
or
a = 1
b = 1
a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
to 1(a+b) = 0
Anyway (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
= (0)(2)/(0) = 0/(0)
even if you multiply both sides by (a-b) you get
(a-b)(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = (a-b) 0/(a-b)
=> (0)(0)(2)/(0) = (0)0/0
James Zediana
Derek Young 30+
If we found the answer to "where did we come from", how would that benefit us or what good may that do?
Possibly the answer will appear when you do not seek the answer, but it might appear where you least expect it.
Just my perspective. Thanks for reading. =)
James Zediana
Linda Taylor 50+
He went everywhere across the surface but he couldn't find any solid ground. He then dived below the surface to the bottom and all he found was mud.
This began to enlarge in size and spread outwards until it became the Earth as we know it.
After all this had happened, one of the animals attached this new land to the sky with four strings.
Just after the Earth was formed, it was flat and soft so the animals decided to send a bird down to see if it had dried. They eventually returned to the animals with a result.
The land was still to wet so they sent the great Buzzard to prepare it for them.
The buzzard flew down and by the time that he reached the ground he was so tired that his wings began to hit the ground. Wherever they hit the ground a mountain or valley formed. The land still remains the same today.
The animals then decided that it was too dark, so they made the sun and put it on the path in which it still runs today.
The animals could then admire the newly created Earth around them. After the animals came down, the humans came down.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
chen xin
how about this one
one day a butterfly flying around the wild and careless she knock on a tree and fall down on the ground .then there is a shock the land break and coming out a monkey .and after a thousand years ' developing she become an ape and gradually she become a person,
Barry Palmer 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
In this land of mist and darkness there appeared four clouds in the corners of this world. Those clouds came together and formed the first woman and the first man....
Linda Taylor 50+
As she leaned to look in she slipped and fell. She fell through the opening and continued to fall and fall. At this time the earth was only water and the sea animals were concerned for the beautiful sky woman. They all got together to figure out how to help her.
The turtle said I will catch her on my back and she can be safe and dry. So the sky woman landed on the turtle and was saved. But she missed her garden and asked the animals if they could help. So the animals thought and told her there was ground way under the sea. So the bear tried to swim down down to help the sky woman. But he came up empty handed.
The rabbit said I am fast I can get you some ground. And he swam down and down but also came up empty handed. The humble otter said, I know water and maybe I can help. So he swam down and down for a very long time. When he appeared both his paws had some mud. So the sky woman thanked him and created the land and the mountains and all the plants that are.
Eventually she gave birth to twins who were the beginning of man. But that is another story.....
Pick a story any story. One is just as provable as the next.
James Zediana
Linda Taylor 50+
Guess what? No one was there in the beginning. Nobody knows. That's why they call it belief. They are all stories.
You have to take the stories and look at them. Think, if I believed this, this would be my value system. If I believed that, that would be my value system.
Then when someone approaches you and says I believe this or that, you will understand their values.
But I do not assign belief to any of it..
It's like 42. The answer to life the universe and everything (Douglas Adams). It's just as good an answer as anything else.
Because it's not about the answer,
It's about the question.
chen xin
James Zediana
Roy Bourque 20+
Robert Winner 50+
Lil Abner
Dan F 50+
I remember being told the world was round. I was fascinated and I've never recovered. My sense of curiosity went on high alert. I wanted to know more facts. My poor mom, I did not make things easy for her.
Now, I look back at things and with that comes perspective. My sense of curiosity didn't allow me to believe everything I was told and that's where my stubborn side surfaced. I wanted to understand the real world. Not everyone is plagued with wanting to learn things. They are, or were more receptive to being told how things are and as adults often want to carry on the tradition. That appears to be going on here, but it's not for all of us. Certainly not for me.
Your claim that biological evolution is not fact is ludicrous. As you have indicated earlier, evolutionary biology is negated by "creative design" and "proven" so by the evidence of "irreducible complexity." Wasn't there a high court ruling on this? Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Trust me, I see plenty of mystery, but it is significantly different than the mystery you advocate.
daniel hehir 20+
Hot topic James!
We are spiritual beings.
We come from the eternal spiritual world. We are temporarily incarnated in these physical bodies for a short period of time ...walking around on this particular physical plane of existence among many other planes of existence. We were born here .... "out" ....of the spiritual world and we will die, ...back again... "into".... the spiritual world.
pat gilbert 100+
daniel hehir 20+
The whole concept of time as we experience it, sort of as a little fragment of the eternal must also be "inclusive" within the eternal. ...or....?
Time, as much of an illusion as it is, as you say, has to exist within a physical world in order to measure it at all. Whether it be an atomic clock or the earths orbit around the Sun of about 365 days, or the cosmic clock of the Sun's orbit of 225 million years around the Milky Way Galaxy. ...Apropo the 26,000 year alignment coming up on Dec. 21 2012, where the Sun and Earth will form an straight line to the center of the galaxy, something that the ancient Mayan's mysteriously knew about... (explain that one!)
As human beings, ..."being born into time" we naturally struggle with the ideas of "Where it all began?" or "What the word eternity can possibly mean...?" But as spiritual beings, after we die, (as I have come to understand it of course) what we experience as a "flow of time" relationship to the outer world, we will experience this later, after death, as a "spatial experience" This is what many people tell of when trying to explain a NDE. They see their lives as in a tableau. Every experience they have ever had.... is, so to say, spread out before them, so they can observe each and every action and reaction that has ever occured to them in their lives as physical human beings. ..... Now I don't know if were drifting off topic here Pat, but it certainly is an interesting topic!
pat gilbert 100+
My take on this we are spirits we can move out of bodies at least when we die. Since we are spirits we are immortal and we have been doing this for a while...
But what is true? only what is true to your perspective. Anyone Else's opinion about you should not be considered it is irrelevant. You should be your own adviser to do otherwise is the epitome of unethical as you are the only one who can decide what is true for you.
Nicholas Heins
daniel hehir 20+
What an impoverished perspective. .... "just like any other organism"....?
Is this really the best you have to offer? ...I mean .....How inimical can you get...?
No majestical ideas here. No reason for love. No need for development. No reason to reason or think at all ... No sympathy for fellow human beings. No feeling for justice or injustice. We are just a collection of cells....
And if one cannot procreate, then life must be absolutely meaningless to go on with...
Sounds like a good recipe for suicide to me ....
Nicholas Heins
John Dunbar 10+
If there is a soul where is it? Does a rabbit have a soul, a lion, an earthworm? Please look at the science of the brain more and more it demonstrates that the brain is at the helm of experience, perception, sensory information, emotion, thought etc...
pat gilbert 100+
John Dunbar 10+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
pat gilbert 100+
I was not wearing a "god helmet". The only person that can say if I was right or not is ME, me thinks that your opining about what someone else experienced is a professional inability, in other words you psychs cannot pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually LISTEN.
Now here is the thing I was looking for some friends of mine that I could not find, by use of this out of body experience I was able to locate them and walk directly to them about 3 miles away. Another poster told a story of friend who was missing in the Himalayas. They had been searching for him for days finally they talked to a Buddhist monk who told them exactly where to look and they found him at that location.
John Dunbar 10+
pat gilbert 100+
I think these experiences not only demonstrate that there is a spiritual element to this aggregate aka human beings, but that we are spirits.
daniel hehir 20+
You can't think of it spatially. Drop that illusion. That's a common illusion so don't feel bad.
The rabbit, the lion, the earthworm all do have a soul. Their soul however is not individualized as is yours and mine. They have a group soul. A shared soul being. The "soul being" of the lion is one soul being sharing all lion beings. Our soul being is ours and ours alone.
John Dunbar 10+
"They have a group soul. A shared soul being. The "soul being" of the lion is one soul being sharing all lion beings. Our soul being is ours and ours alone." How can you know this? Why doesn't the lion have an individualized soul?
daniel hehir 20+
We have discussed this topic together before. Here's a fresh link to what Newsweek printed about Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE. He happens to be a neurosurgeon. Take a look at it and tell me what you think.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html
John Dunbar 10+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4T5LduZ9vg
Entropy Driven 10+
Also, you can't conclude from such a low number of answers that evolution can't be proven. If you were interested you would know that there's many resources where you could figure this out. TED is not the place for learning everything there is to know about anything (in two weeks, right?). You were visited mostly by people with not enough expertise to first notice where your problems are, then guide you through figuring that out. Curiously, you left the other threads as soon as some expertise in the field and in the way you have been mislead started showing up. The first one you left as soon as I showed that one part of your conclusions were drawn from the misuse of data. The other as soon as I started asking specifics about your look at evolution. How conclusively can you say that evolution can't be proven if you did not even try? If all you've got is answers in a TED forum where most of the knowledgeable people might already be tired of endless discussions with creationists who just won't listen? Why do creationist start these discussions if they will not pay any attention? Why should we bother answering if you appear not to care?
(My time is limited, so if you answer, I might not be able to answer back but until a couple days later. But I do not know if I am still sufficiently interested after the two other interactions we had.)
daniel hehir 20+
The typical mistake the evolutionists make is that because they can observe an evolutionary process in nature means that there is no God, no spirit, no soul, nothing .. nothing more than this one time lonesome existence out in the middle of the Milky Way ... meaningless and empty. Without reason or purpose.
Because we can cleverly observe patterns of form and color in nature that change through the course of time, how does this make one jump to the conclusion that there is no more than this physical reality that we can see and feel. ..?
Attention needs to be paid to things of spiritual nature. Mankind is not merely evolving as a physical being but also as a spiritual being. Just observe the changes that have evolved in your own spiritual being. Look into your own soul and compare the way you were as a child to the way you are now. What changes do you see. The spiritual reality is quite real and it's secrets lie within you. As an individual, you have evolved spiritually. Just as the human race has evolved spiritually. This is the real essence of humankinds evolution. Not the purely physical aspect of our being. If evolution is ever going to be taken seriously it must also encompass exactly this idea. Our own spiritual evolution.
Rick Ryan 10+
Your accusations against evolutionists simply thinking there is no God because they observe an evolutionary process in nature, then dismiss the God, are not valid.
The problem is neither theory...creation or evolution...is COMPATABLE with each other, depending on how each side DEFINES their own beliefs.
If there is a God and that God has a Master Plan (Determinism?), then nothing that we as Human Beings "do" makes a difference. We are all characters is a "God Novel" written by the God, with no ability to change who we are. If I am a "good person" or a seriel killer, it is not my choice...God decided it when he wrote the plan. If we have no free will, then even praying to a God to help us face our daily trials and tribulations won't help. The God has already determined what each of us will do, how we will act, and whether we will be moral or immoral. And part of the God's Master Plan would also include the evolutionary process that led to Human Beings. If it didn't, the God placed all the "evidence" for evolution...the things we discovered...there just to confuse us. It would be like saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old (and so are we), but God placed all those dinosaur bones out there just so He could amuse himself as he watched us get confused about them.
Evolution allows for "free will". Most religious teachings do not, in the sense that the teachings place demands on the Human Being to act in a strict way the God demands, or face punishment for it if we don't.
The incompatabilities between the two theories are what raises the questions and objections about them from the "other side".
But the most obvious problem is that if someone can say, "There had to be a Creator", then someone else can also say, "Well then, there had to be something that created the Creator, too. Who created the Creator?"
daniel hehir 20+
I don't know where you get this idea of a "master plan" from. I have surely never mentioned it.
I don't know where you get this idea of a "6000 year old earth". I haven't mentioned that either.
I find neither idea compatible with my perspective at all.
Although you might be reading them into my words somehow, I'll assure you that they are not at all included in my way of seeing things.
Should an "evolutionist" be open minded enough to include a creator god, then good for him! ... But I don't think you could collect enough of them to start a football team....
James Zediana
Entropy Driven 10+
Rick Ryan 10+
Try perspective and look again? OK.
If I am incapable, as a finite Human Being, of thinking like and understanding the god, then so are all of my fellow Human Beings, including an appointed leader of a church. So if he/she can't think like and understand the god, why should I believe anything the other Human Being tells me to believe about the god?
From a rational and logical perspective, you just shot down your own arguement. The "Human Being" church shouldn't be telling anybody what or what not to believe. They can't be any more right or wrong about it than I can.
James Zediana
Entropy Driven 10+
daniel hehir 20+
Your question is a two sided coin.
Where the creationist go wrong is their idea that the human being has simply been created by God out of the blue.
...Poof ! ... Adam and Eve...Poof ! ... the Garden of Eden. ..magically materialized... This is the traditional creationists materialistic illusion and downfall.
Where the evolutionists go wrong is that they can not or will not heed to the overwhelming evidence of the spiritual world and it's existence. They scream "prove it!" Prove it to me on "MY" materialistic premises.
In the end, both perspectives are quite materialistic.
The human being is a created being, not a "physically" created being but rather a "spiritually" created being. So the creationists are in a sense half right, in so far they assume that there is a higher power in the universe that is the creative force flowing in, streaming through, and forming all physical matter. .but wrong in the conventional conception of a little man in a white robe with a beard and a cane up in heaven somewhere
As we see that human beings obviously evolve, as the animals do, we can thus say that the evolutionists too, in a sense, have half right. However, in their eyes, the creative process cannot be of any "spiritual nature" To them it is driven by purely physical laws. Seeming to suggest that even an "IDEA" in itself is of a "purely physical nature" ... absurd you say? .. yes !! Though not many evolutionists can see or are willing to see this self contradiction. Surely, even they cannot deny that all evolutionary theory is based and developed on observations either in theoretical experimentation or observations in the realm of nature. Evolutionary science, as in all sciences, has first a theory (an IDEA) and then it proceeds to the field of experiments / observations to prove the theory correct or incorrect....
Are not mankind's "IDEAS" in themselves taking part in the creative process's of the world. Are we not also ....becoming as gods...?
James Zediana
natasha nikulina 50+
James Zediana
Casey Christofaris 10+
James Zediana
Casey Christofaris 10+
James Zediana
Then the new testement shows a God who loves us so much he dies for us and takes the blame for all our sins.
I'm glad we have this change.
Peter Law 50+
There are really two creation possibilities. 1) By an eternal God. Or 2) By a mortal Alien or similar.
There are also two main evolution possibilities. 1) Classic gradualism. Or 2) Punctuated equilibrium .
I have never heard of any other possibilities.
Personally I think an eternal God is the most plausible. Never heard of something creating itself; if true, then we'd all be out of work.
:-)
John Smith 30+
Rick Ryan 10+
Peter Law 50+
:-)
John Smith 30+
Peter Law 50+
You must also know that the universe is material, & thus exposed to the ravages of time. If it has to be eternal then it would be eternally "heat dead". The fact that there is usable energy available would indicate creation within a set timescale in the past. If you want it to be cyclical, then energy would have to come from an external source.
It's interesting to discuss these things, but in reality we don't have a scoobie.
:-)
James Zediana
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
This is the original term used in Genesis but there is questions as to what Moses's source was for these writing.
Peter Law 50+
:-)
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Peter Law 50+
It is unlikely that the creator of the universe would communicate with his creation through some minority sect that few of us has heard of. Not impossible of course. I would go for one of the Abrahamic religions, which we all know about & can make informed decisions. But you are correct, might doesn't always mean right.
:-)
Entropy Driven 10+
I do not think that you have evolution well studied. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are not versions of evolution. They are questions about whether evolution happens in continuous steps (gradualism), or if there is periods of at least anatomical stasis (no changes visible for several generations), "punctuated" by periods of "rapid" change, where "rapid" is defined by its relative speed compared to the periods of stasis, yet still take from thousands to millions of years to happen. So, these are details about tempo, not "versions" of evolution. The mechanism for evolutionary change are still the same. Only one (puntuated eq.) takes into account that environments might not push populations constantly and evenly towards visible changes.
Peter Law 50+
That's ok, I agree, just a different slant on the Same thing.
:-)
James Zediana