evolution or creation? lets talk... (page 4)

stevenyc

whyizit:

FACT: Charles Darwin ultimately did not believe his own theory. After further research, he realized it didn't make sense.

Care to back up that statement with some proof?

steve

fullofdoubtnow

Hi sam and welcome to the forum

As to your question, I am not sure, but I lean towards evolution.

I find the creation stories in the bible to fantastic to be true, personally.

Satanus

Beardo

I've never had a great deal of trouble explaining that supposed "logical fallacy" to myself. It is obvious that there has always been one constant feature in existence - clearly. There has never been a time when there has been " nothing " (although certain mystics claim that 'NO' thing is the highest state within the universe - but I digress).

So this constant feature has to be "something" - devoid of our labels,

Ok, i'll go along w this, so far.

yet most likely a "thing" with sentient awareness.

No proof, thus conjecture. Futher, claiming this or that characteristic, in this case sentience for it is labelling something about it. Imo, this conflicts w your other statement.

So, yes, I believe in GOD - but I have no idea what or who GOD actually is in its fullness, yet I know that I am not that thing.

If you cannot describe god or comprehend god to any extent, how can you be sure that you are not in your nature 'god'?

To call GOD a thing is to do GOD a great injustice.

Ok.

The label GOD is a problem as it is now loaded with endless preconceived ideas, so I'd rather sit in silence and feel life/energy flowing through all things seen & unseen and attempt to connect beyond the immediate. The feeling of connection I have from time to time lifts my heart until it soars like an eagle and there I find my GOD.

You sound like a mystic. But, you sound like while you experience 'god', you have not percieved what god is. Therefore, is it god which you experience, or something else? You have already stated that it doesn't match the traditional god concept.

I am not a Christian btw or a anything. I just exist.

Not claiming any labels is cool.

S

stevenyc

Whether evolution or creation is true can be seen as a nonsensical question in itself without further definition. It can be said that all life as we know it was created by evolution.

If we are to infer that by "creation" we mean "a supernatural power currently beyond our current comprehension or understanding" then, it can also be said that we were created by evolution, if we suggest that the evolutionary process was started by the "creation" of the universe.

If, however, we are to assume the "supernatural power, currently beyond our current comprehension or understanding" was an intelligent entity living outside the realms of the universe, but created the universe, and then created all life now living and extinct, then there is a difference between creation and evolution.

Also, to have a reasonable discution we would need to know whether valid arguments can contain statements backed up with only a personal belief that a statement is true. And, if any reference material used, would it have to demonstrate why the argument or statement being made is valid.

steve

OnTheWayOut

why do we have a brain capable of 3 million years of infomation when we live for ony a mere 80 odd years?

Science doesn't know everything they claim to know about the brain. While it is true that humans can function on far less available mass of brain (you could just cut it out and a person would still function) that doesn't mean that the rest of the brain is not being used in some fashion. People can make many more connections in the brain by learning, reading, experiencing. The synapses and dendrites in the back of the brain can be used by mentally active people. There may be a host of reasons for the developement of "extra" brain. Our creativity, compassion, curiousity, love, etc may be reinforced by things we store back there.

My personal theory on the brain: We store every single memory of anything we ever thought, saw, said, read, smelled, touched, etc. in our brain somewhere. A fully more functional human (not perfect in WTS thinking, but more functional in our current state) than the average person could use much of that information to increase his chances of survival and reproduction. While I don't know how we got here, my theory fits into survival of the fittest.

Satanus

I suspect that animals underuse their brains as well. What does that prove?

S

daystar

Let's try this again... (I say this because the first attempt at posting this failed.)

Now this universe has the peculiarly accomodating property of
tending to provide evidence for, and confirmation of, whatever
paradigm one chooses to believe in. - PARADIGM SHIFTS AND AEONICS, by Pete Carroll

The Discordian Law of Fives - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#The_Law_of_Fives

The Law of Fives is summarized on page 00016 of the Principia Discordia:
The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
The Law of Fives is never wrong.
The Law of Fives includes the word "Five" five times.
Like most of Discordianism, the Law of Fives appears on the surface to be either some sort of weird joke, or bizarre supernaturalism; but under this, it may help clarify the Discordian view of how the human mind works; Lord Omar is quoted later on the same page as having written, "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."
Appendix Beth of Robert Shea's and Robert Anton Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy considers some of the numerology of Discordianism, and the question of what would happen to the Law of Fives if everyone had six fingers on each hand. The authors suggest that the real Law of Fives may be that everything can be related to the number five if you try hard enough. Sometimes the steps required may be highly convoluted.
Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

I know this doesn't directly address the topic of this post, but that's just how I roll... *shrug* Something to think about...

OnTheWayOut

I suspect that animals underuse their brains as well. What does that prove?

I'm not going to try to support an argument. I don't know how we got here.

All I meant was that there might be an evolutionary reason for developing a brain bigger than the being seems to need. The bigger brained being (human or otherwise) might be able to out-survive others, might be able to score with the opposite sex sooner, because he is using more brains than his competitors, therefore he passes on his bigger-brain genes. The next generation reinforces that bigger brains are good.

Don't ask me to defend this- I'm just a country doctor, Jim, I'm not a biologist.

whyizit

Darwin did not believe his own theory.

You can run a search and find many sites that quotehisownwritings, affirming that he lacked confidence in his own theory, and why. Wikipedia has one. Here is another:

http://www.creator-creation.com/darwin.htm

stevenyc

I always found the creation argument of "untapped brain power" quite amusing and ironic.

Maybe you should as yourself which is more likely: Was this "untapped" availability was part of gods original plan for super-brain, or a useful redundancy for relearning after chronic damage.

steve

evolution or creation? lets talk...

Share this