Debate and Discussion

Creationism and other Bible stories.
bobhhh at 6:57PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
OK I'm sorry. I didn't mean to revive the God thread. So here I seperate this particular thought from that other morass.

me
…since this is one of those things where a lot of god people can't seem to accept the fact that evolution is not a condemnation of the lord, its really just an alternate, and I would argue more plausible, explanation for why there are so many different living things here.

I have said I get crabby when god peeps insist on jamming their doctrine down my atheist throat. This is one of those prime examples, where future generations of scientists and by extension physicians might just have their brains poluted with pseudo science, just because some zealots insist on equal time for the bible in science class.

Some of the greatest srtides in medicine and technology were arrived at by considering actual facts and not being bound to superstition. All the way down the line you see where religious types sought to clamp down on science. The earth is flat; the sun revovles around the earth(Galileo almost got executed for that one); God created the earth in 7 days; The earth is only 10,000 years old.

Face it the bible is the worlds oldest game of telephone, distorted, handed down verbally, translated and retranslated, edited by kings and popes with an agenda, yadda yadda yadda. To attempt to point to it as a resource for scientific thought is just a little too much for me to swallow.

to which there was one on topic response

Kilre
Ah, it's where there's holes in the theory of evolution that creationists/ID sees the miracles (“…and then a miracle happens” ). Those miracles come straight from the holiest of holies, the Bible, because it's always easier to reach for the explanations that deal with the supernatural (i.e., imagination and higher powers, it makes people feel better) than face facts that the real world isn't planned according to a man-made higher power.

Cartoon professor was close but got caught up in that guy who wrote the book.

My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Ronson at 9:17PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I don't know what “cartoon professor” is referring to, but…

“Holes” in Evolutionary Theory? What would they be? The closest you can get to poking holes in evolutionary theory is by discussing mathematical probabilities. But these probabilities are based on incomplete information and are almost always suspect.

The problem that evolution suffers from is laymen misunderstanding the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. I am guilty of it myself, though I am learning more and more about it all the time. Things that are thrown out like “survival of the fittest” are distorted, and things like “random chance” are asserted as mechanisms(though random chance isn't even close to being a component of evolution).

I have almost never seen an anti-evolutionary debate the facts of evolution, but rather the simplified talking points or even completely wrong information.

As for whether God uses evolution as the mechanism for life on Earth, there is no way to disprove that belief.

But it seems to discount the idea of an all powerful God who can subvert the laws of the universe. Plus, that would be several trillion years of non-conscious thought that God had to sit through before early man starting banging the rocks together.

If God set evolution in motion, that to me means there's no one listening or watching our every move. Maybe watching us like an ant farm, but certainly not figuring out the afterlife each of us deserve.

This is why evolution shakes the very foundation of ol' time religion, and relegates God to the margins, where scientific theory has yet to (or is unable to) prove anything.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Kilre at 10:18PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Ronson
I don't know what “cartoon professor” is referring to, but…

“Holes” in Evolutionary Theory? What would they be? The closest you can get to poking holes in evolutionary theory is by discussing mathematical probabilities. But these probabilities are based on incomplete information and are almost always suspect.

The problem that evolution suffers from is laymen misunderstanding the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. I am guilty of it myself, though I am learning more and more about it all the time. Things that are thrown out like “survival of the fittest” are distorted, and things like “random chance” are asserted as mechanisms(though random chance isn't even close to being a component of evolution).

I have almost never seen an anti-evolutionary debate the facts of evolution, but rather the simplified talking points or even completely wrong information.

I won't touch the second half of your post. That's for someone else.

The so-called “holes” in evolutionary theory, while I don't know them all–I'm not out to disprove it–are tied to the “teach the controversy” bull that the creationists/ID people push. Basically, they tout such things as “macro evolution has never been observed”, “it's only a theory”, the mystery of the Cambrian explosion, and the “irreducible complexity” they so know and love, to name a few. Heymelby in the extraterrestrial civilization thread also touched on a few.

THAT is where the major and common holes in evolutionary theory are, and because most of the public that they preach to is largely ignorant of advanced scientific principles, or even the scientific method, they can get away with their quick-to-swallow keywords. Which never turn out to be facts but just easy words that stick in the back of the mind forever.

Creationists/ID speaks in layman's terms so the masses listen to them, and science, with its large vocabulary, is left misunderstood for the most part.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Ronson at 10:28PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I think we're in agreement here, but just to clarify…

Kilre
The so-called “holes” in evolutionary theory, while I don't know them all–I'm not out to disprove it–are tied to the “teach the controversy” bull that the creationists/ID people push. Basically, they tout such things as “macro evolution has never been observed”, “it's only a theory”, the mystery of the Cambrian explosion, and the “irreducible complexity” they so know and love, to name a few. Heymelby in the extraterrestrial civilization thread also touched on a few.

I admit ignorance on Heymelby. But as far as the others go, they aren't holes, they are distortions and lies.

“macro evolution has never been observed”? Like, there aren't a string of creatures moderatately mutated from eachother, but sharing the same DNA sequences and unable to interbreed? I find that hard to believe.

“Irreducible complexity” is a fun one. Because someone - usually without a scientific background - observes a creature to have complex interworking parts that they personally can't figure out separate purposes for - that means the creature is too complex to have evolved “by chance”.

(of course, evolution isn't chance, it's by rigidly defined conditions based on environment)

But the fact that someone can't figure out something complex isn't proof of something being “irreducibly complex”, but rather a failure on that person's imagination. So far, every creature used to show as an example of an “irreducibly complexity” has been debunked by scientists.

Creationists/ID speaks in layman's terms so the masses listen to them, and science, with its large vocabulary, is left misunderstood for the most part.

Yeah, well said.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Kilre at 12:12AM, Nov. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Oh I'm in complete agreement with what you said. I was just naming a few “holes” off the top of my head.

To quote heymelby, however, who sparked this topic:

heymelby
This thread is hard to read, there is so much speculation and assumption being presented as fact it's ridculious! I imagine the crapy education most of us got an social/political/entertainment forces are to blame. There is NO factual scientific evidence of Macro-evolution at all. “Science” and i use the term loosely has no answers to the pre-cambrian explosion (all life suddenly appeared) or as to why fossils of common animals we have today are found with dinosaurs, why gold jewlery, tools and artifacts are found in coal (supposed to be millions of years old, yeah right) There is alot of evidence out there that is not reported because it does not fit a predetermined explaination i.e evolution. Now Micro Evolution (changes within a species) yes, It should be called adaption because the trits appear in responce to environmental stimuli or breeding, Dogs for example those little yip yap things and greyhounds are vastly different, yet they are DOGS. There was a study done on fruitflies a while back, since fruitflies live only a short time it is possible to simulate “millions of years of life cycles” in just a few. The scientists where trying to prove evolution, they came up with hundreds of variations….of fruitflies! No matter how big,small,antenne or now antenne they were all fruitflies…no new species. So that leaves that some intelligence created everything and thus could have and probably has created life elswhere, so yes i'm sure there are aliens as long as the environment was made for it.

I'm sure i offended some people here that believe evloution, but this is something i am very passionate about, i used to believe it too (cause that's all i was taught in school) since i've learned on my own and researched on my own I've come to different conclusions. Sorry but truth is not relative, and believing something does not make it so.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
bobhhh at 9:09AM, Nov. 3, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Thanks K, I should have included that.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
subcultured at 2:33PM, Nov. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
you can argue science, but not religion. that's why science trump religion when it comes evolution/creationism

science is the pursuit of truth, while religion is the pursuit of taxing your soul (go to church, give money, feel better about yourself)

religion should inspire people, not make them afraid of a big bad God who will put them in hell.
science inspire people to think outside of the box, discover new things.

therefore, in conclusion putting religion and science together is a bad idea.
just don't do it.

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
Ronson at 4:59PM, Nov. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I'm going to inject some comments from Heymelby, if that's allright…

heymelby
….I imagine the crapy education most of us got an social/political/entertainment forces are to blame. There is NO factual scientific evidence of Macro-evolution at all.

Hmmm…this might predate genetic typing, where we've learned that there are similar sequences in our DNA shared with common ancestors (but different species), and divergences in our DNA from species that evolved in different directions. Keeping up to speed on the topic helps a lot. We've moved on pretty far from Darwin's initial presenation, after all.

“Science” and i use the term loosely has no answers to the pre-cambrian explosion (all life suddenly appeared)

New science has theorized there was no explosion, per se, during the cambrian period, just that environmental conditions were favorable to the creation of fossilized evidence. It is likely (though as yet unproven) that the cambrian era was not more or less active in the divisions of species, just the best at leaving traces.

…or as to why fossils of common animals we have today are found with dinosaurs, why gold jewlery, tools and artifacts are found in coal (supposed to be millions of years old, yeah right) There is alot of evidence out there that is not reported because it does not fit a predetermined explaination i.e evolution.

I've read many reports like this, all discredited and usually done by nonprofessional scientists or archeologists who were guilty of either deception, or of contaminating their dig site. If there is any credible information, I'd like to see it.

Now Micro Evolution (changes within a species) yes, It should be called adaption because the trits appear in responce to environmental stimuli or breeding, Dogs for example those little yip yap things and greyhounds are vastly different, yet they are DOGS. There was a study done on fruitflies a while back, since fruitflies live only a short time it is possible to simulate “millions of years of life cycles” in just a few. The scientists where trying to prove evolution, they came up with hundreds of variations….of fruitflies! No matter how big,small,antenne or now antenne they were all fruitflies…no new species. So that leaves that some intelligence created everything and thus could have and probably has created life elswhere, so yes i'm sure there are aliens as long as the environment was made for it.

I'm sure i offended some people here that believe evloution, but this is something i am very passionate about, i used to believe it too (cause that's all i was taught in school) since i've learned on my own and researched on my own I've come to different conclusions. Sorry but truth is not relative, and believing something does not make it so.

Indeed it does not. Sceintific study does however.

In Richard Dawkin's “Ancestor's Tale”, he sort of explains it. I found this in the reviews for his book:

For example: A certain gull that lives in England can't or won't interbreed with a somewhat similar gull that shares its geography. If you circled the globe observing this gull - going west and staying on latitude - the gull starts to change. From England to Greenland, Canada, Alaska, the Aleutians, Siberia, across Asia and back to England, that first gull gradually turns into the other. At every step along the way, they interbreed. When does this gull “become” one species and quit being the other? The salamanders that live on the ridge of mountains that surround the Central Valley of California (40 miles by 400 miles) are another example of the many “ring species” of the world.

Interrupting here for bit. What Dawkins explains is that these variation of gulls do not interbreed but could EXCEPT that the very first of the ring and the very last of the ring are unable to interbreed. The fact that this entire ring exists can give one a very useful idea of how what we call speciesization can happen.

The essay writer makes further important points:

The term “species” more reflects the human drive to label things than it serves a useful function in nature. As evolution occurred, living things gradually turned into other living things. Lines of continuity connect whole groups of past and present living things. If they were all still alive today, attempting to separate cats from dogs would be a doomed enterprise. Instead of discrete names, we would need sliding scales, placing labels in the realm of fiction. We don't recognize evolution when it happens because it occurs too slowly - not something we could recognize in one (or 10) lifetimes.

Species are sometimes defined as groups that can't interbreed with other groups. Sometimes, species can interbreed, but won't. The insects with the big red thoracic dot and the unadorned ones ignore each other - until the curious entomologist paints red dots on the plain ones. Immediately the orgy begins, creating normal progeny. Is it possible that human skin color and distinct superficial differences among races developed as a matter of sexual selection? There are very few differences among races as obvious as those of overt cosmetic appearance. Although races freely intermarry now, the Stone Age mind which evolved over the last several hundred thousand years was perhaps more selective about mixing their genes with outsiders.

In short, the entire idea of Macro Evolution is only different from Micro Evolution coudl be a result of personal bias. That is what happens as science moves on. Old definitions may need to be discarded in favor of more scientifically valid ones.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
bobhhh at 3:28PM, Nov. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Ronson
I'm going to inject some comments from Heymelby, if that's allright…

heymelby
….I imagine the crapy education most of us got an social/political/entertainment forces are to blame. There is NO factual scientific evidence of Macro-evolution at all.

Hmmm…this might predate genetic typing, where we've learned that there are similar sequences in our DNA shared with common ancestors (but different species), and divergences in our DNA from species that evolved in different directions. Keeping up to speed on the topic helps a lot. We've moved on pretty far from Darwin's initial presenation, after all.

“Science” and i use the term loosely has no answers to the pre-cambrian explosion (all life suddenly appeared)

New science has theorized there was no explosion, per se, during the cambrian period, just that environmental conditions were favorable to the creation of fossilized evidence. It is likely (though as yet unproven) that the cambrian era was not more or less active in the divisions of species, just the best at leaving traces.


…or as to why fossils of common animals we have today are found with dinosaurs, why gold jewlery, tools and artifacts are found in coal (supposed to be millions of years old, yeah right) There is alot of evidence out there that is not reported because it does not fit a predetermined explaination i.e evolution.

I've read many reports like this, all discredited and usually done by nonprofessional scientists or archeologists who were guilty of either deception, or of contaminating their dig site. If there is any credible information, I'd like to see it.

Now Micro Evolution (changes within a species) yes, It should be called adaption because the trits appear in responce to environmental stimuli or breeding, Dogs for example those little yip yap things and greyhounds are vastly different, yet they are DOGS. There was a study done on fruitflies a while back, since fruitflies live only a short time it is possible to simulate “millions of years of life cycles” in just a few. The scientists where trying to prove evolution, they came up with hundreds of variations….of fruitflies! No matter how big,small,antenne or now antenne they were all fruitflies…no new species. So that leaves that some intelligence created everything and thus could have and probably has created life elswhere, so yes i'm sure there are aliens as long as the environment was made for it.

I'm sure i offended some people here that believe evloution, but this is something i am very passionate about, i used to believe it too (cause that's all i was taught in school) since i've learned on my own and researched on my own I've come to different conclusions. Sorry but truth is not relative, and believing something does not make it so.

Indeed it does not. Sceintific study does however.

In Richard Dawkin's “Ancestor's Tale”, he sort of explains it. I found this in the reviews for his book:

For example: A certain gull that lives in England can't or won't interbreed with a somewhat similar gull that shares its geography. If you circled the globe observing this gull - going west and staying on latitude - the gull starts to change. From England to Greenland, Canada, Alaska, the Aleutians, Siberia, across Asia and back to England, that first gull gradually turns into the other. At every step along the way, they interbreed. When does this gull “become” one species and quit being the other? The salamanders that live on the ridge of mountains that surround the Central Valley of California (40 miles by 400 miles) are another example of the many “ring species” of the world.

Interrupting here for bit. What Dawkins explains is that these variation of gulls do not interbreed but could EXCEPT that the very first of the ring and the very last of the ring are unable to interbreed. The fact that this entire ring exists can give one a very useful idea of how what we call speciesization can happen.

The essay writer makes further important points:

The term “species” more reflects the human drive to label things than it serves a useful function in nature. As evolution occurred, living things gradually turned into other living things. Lines of continuity connect whole groups of past and present living things. If they were all still alive today, attempting to separate cats from dogs would be a doomed enterprise. Instead of discrete names, we would need sliding scales, placing labels in the realm of fiction. We don't recognize evolution when it happens because it occurs too slowly - not something we could recognize in one (or 10) lifetimes.

Species are sometimes defined as groups that can't interbreed with other groups. Sometimes, species can interbreed, but won't. The insects with the big red thoracic dot and the unadorned ones ignore each other - until the curious entomologist paints red dots on the plain ones. Immediately the orgy begins, creating normal progeny. Is it possible that human skin color and distinct superficial differences among races developed as a matter of sexual selection? There are very few differences among races as obvious as those of overt cosmetic appearance. Although races freely intermarry now, the Stone Age mind which evolved over the last several hundred thousand years was perhaps more selective about mixing their genes with outsiders.

In short, the entire idea of Macro Evolution is only different from Micro Evolution coudl be a result of personal bias. That is what happens as science moves on. Old definitions may need to be discarded in favor of more scientifically valid ones.

This reminds me of that old far side cartoon:


Some people are incapable of listening to reason. I count the creationists in this category if they are claiming it is as valid a theory as evolution. By now they should have realized that evolution is reasoned, and has facts to support it, where creation has that old faithful science text the bible to back it up. blah blah blah facts…
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
arteestx at 8:01PM, Nov. 4, 2007
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Ronson
I don't know what “cartoon professor” is referring to, but…

I think he's referring to a user on DD called Cartoon Professor, but I have to admit that this is what I thought of…


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
bbr at 4:18AM, Nov. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 299
joined: 11-1-2007
Ah, i made a loonnggg assed post sometime about this subject.. hmm. lesseee…

It's a bit much to copy paste all into here, so : Maille Artisans Forum
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
Pulse at 11:07AM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 92
joined: 10-22-2007
Someone
Face it the bible is the worlds oldest game of telephone, distorted, handed down verbally, translated and retranslated, edited by kings and popes with an agenda, yadda yadda yadda. To attempt to point to it as a resource for scientific thought is just a little too much for me to swallow.


Wow that is amazing! the best way to summarize the bible! I can't agree with you more and
yeah you can't put science and religion together they just don't work out. I go to a catholic school while I am agnostic…I really hate it when my religion teacher tries to make me actually believe that everything the catholic did was for the good of the people. FALSE! every religion in the world has done at least one thing bad whether it be the crusades or the terrorist attacks. Religion in my eyes is the ancient way of explaining the world. Plus you also have to think about this…if a guy who was really the resurrected jesus came back tomorrow do you think you'd believe him? Do you think anyone would believe? Do you think catholics or Christians would? NO they wouldnt you they!
That is why I am sorting leaning towards the atheist in me :)



last edited on July 14, 2011 2:56PM
bobhhh at 11:58AM, Jan. 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Pulse
Someone
Face it the bible is the worlds oldest game of telephone, distorted, handed down verbally, translated and retranslated, edited by kings and popes with an agenda, yadda yadda yadda. To attempt to point to it as a resource for scientific thought is just a little too much for me to swallow.


Wow that is amazing! the best way to summarize the bible! I can't agree with you more and
yeah you can't put science and religion together they just don't work out. I go to a catholic school while I am agnostic…I really hate it when my religion teacher tries to make me actually believe that everything the catholic did was for the good of the people. FALSE! every religion in the world has done at least one thing bad whether it be the crusades or the terrorist attacks. Religion in my eyes is the ancient way of explaining the world. Plus you also have to think about this…if a guy who was really the resurrected jesus came back tomorrow do you think you'd believe him? Do you think anyone would believe? Do you think catholics or Christians would? NO they wouldnt you they!
That is why I am sorting leaning towards the atheist in me :)





Glad you agree.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
RabbitMaster at 6:53PM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 129
joined: 5-26-2007
Well as far as I can tell I'm the only person her defending any sort of biblical worldview. So if the individuals that started this thread were looking for a variety of opinions, I'm not sure they got it.

“Perhaps you would care to try your villany on a less defenseless opponent?”–Kung Fu Rabbit
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
mlai at 7:07PM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
This forum is 95% progressive and secular, Rabbitmaster. Religious, conservative, and Republican folks often become natural targets here.

The good point is that you easily garner a lot of attention when you stand up.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
subcultured at 10:38PM, Jan. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
people should spend more time researching with how and why the bible was created and why some stories were included and some were cast aside.

one story “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”
Someone
The text describes the life of the child Jesus, with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events, comparable to the trickster nature of the god-child in many a Greek myth. One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in Qur'an 5:110. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse, found in the Greek text A, and Latin versions. The Greek text B doesn't mention Jesus cursing the boy, and simply says that the child “went on, and after a little he fell and gave up the ghost,” (M.R. James translation). Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into him. In the latter case, there are three differing versions recorded the Greek Text A, Greek Text B, and the Latin text. Instead of bumping into Jesus in A, B records that the child throws a stone at Jesus, while the last says the boy punched him.

When Joseph and Mary's neighbors complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier apparent cruelty. Subsequently he resurrects a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and another who cuts his foot with an axe.

After various other demonstrations of supernatural ability, new teachers try to teach Jesus, but he proceeds to explain the law to them instead. There are another set of miracles in which Jesus heals his brother who is bitten by a snake, and two others who have died from different causes. Finally, the text recounts the episode in Luke in which Jesus, aged twelve, teaches in the temple.

to the sheep who are merly simpletons following a preacher it might seemed that jesus was evil and cruel. not something they want to paint a picture of a messiah.

but do you know what i see? and why it should have been included into the bible. because it shows how he went from being a malevolent child who had great powers to taking responsibilities when using those powers. it's a tale of a person who was selfish and became selfless and end up sacrificing himself in the end.

to those that are able to dig beneath the surface of the story, they can find enlightenment about making up for past sins and using what was given to him to do something positive. it has a good lesson, than no one is perfect, not even Jesus.

mistakes are what makes us humans and we learn from those mistakes.

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
kyupol at 5:15PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
subcultured
you can argue science, but not religion. that's why science trump religion when it comes evolution/creationism

science is the pursuit of truth, while religion is the pursuit of taxing your soul (go to church, give money, feel better about yourself)



IMO, science and religion should be INTEGRATED to compliment the weakness of the other.

Science = fails to realize that there are other things that exist that cannot be seen by the five senses. Such as the soul, and things like chakra, chi, psychic ability, etc. Science (at today's level) limits itself to the physical state.

Religion (traditional) = has all kinds of limiting factors. For instance, in Catholicism, the 1st commandment is ‘thou shall not have any gods other than me’. Under that sin, it is a sin to seek knowledge and try to believe in the occult. Why? Why is gaining knowledge sinful? I remember a time discussing with a priest about articles that contradict the Catholic faith. Instead of offering valid counterarguments, all I got was ‘you shouldnt read that garbage!’

Instead of bickering which one is right and wrong, why not integrate those two fields into one?

God knows what new technologies will we arrive at.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
kyupol at 5:28PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Back to the topic, there is a possibility that the creation stories are actually encrypted in our DNA as a species.

For instance, the ancient Filipinos (we are an underrated culture IMO :) ) have a creation story. About Malakas and Maganda.

http://www.geocities.com/gcalla1/malakas.htm

Like most cultures, the Philippines has its own creation story. And, although it does not offer an explanation as to how the world began, it does however, give the readers a glimpse of how early Filipinos view their origin.

–The tale begins with a mythical bird, perhaps the sarimanok, flying over a large expanse of water (obviously the Pacific). Due to such a long journey (from where & what destination was never specified), it thus decided to seek shelter. Coincidentally, after a brief search, the sarimanok was able to find a cluster of islands (to be later known as the Philippines) and perched itself on a large, singular, bamboo shoot centered within the land formation. Tired, and undoubtedly hungry, the sarimanok decided to peck on the gigantic bamboo shoot hoping to find any means of sustenance. As the bird pecked continuously, however, the shoot began to split into two equal halves. Startled, the bird flew away never to return. However, out from the two equal halves, a golden skinned man and an equally hued woman emerged. The man, named Malakas (strong), and the woman called Maganda (beautiful) thus became the first Filipinos.


How in the world did the pre-hispanic Filipinos get those ideas? The Spanish gained control of the country around the 1600s.

How did they have an ‘Adam and Eve’ story even before the Spanish taught them Christianity?

It could be that there is an outside force that is not human who made it possible. Who imparted that knowledge to the early people on this earth.

The truth will always come out in the end.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
bobhhh at 7:06PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
kyupol
Back to the topic, there is a possibility that the creation stories are actually encrypted in our DNA as a species.

For instance, the ancient Filipinos (we are an underrated culture IMO :) ) have a creation story. About Malakas and Maganda.

http://www.geocities.com/gcalla1/malakas.htm

Like most cultures, the Philippines has its own creation story. And, although it does not offer an explanation as to how the world began, it does however, give the readers a glimpse of how early Filipinos view their origin.

–The tale begins with a mythical bird, perhaps the sarimanok, flying over a large expanse of water (obviously the Pacific). Due to such a long journey (from where & what destination was never specified), it thus decided to seek shelter. Coincidentally, after a brief search, the sarimanok was able to find a cluster of islands (to be later known as the Philippines) and perched itself on a large, singular, bamboo shoot centered within the land formation. Tired, and undoubtedly hungry, the sarimanok decided to peck on the gigantic bamboo shoot hoping to find any means of sustenance. As the bird pecked continuously, however, the shoot began to split into two equal halves. Startled, the bird flew away never to return. However, out from the two equal halves, a golden skinned man and an equally hued woman emerged. The man, named Malakas (strong), and the woman called Maganda (beautiful) thus became the first Filipinos.


How in the world did the pre-hispanic Filipinos get those ideas? The Spanish gained control of the country around the 1600s.

How did they have an ‘Adam and Eve’ story even before the Spanish taught them Christianity?

It could be that there is an outside force that is not human who made it possible. Who imparted that knowledge to the early people on this earth.

The truth will always come out in the end.



Ok I'll take a stab at this one.

Perhaps there is a myth about an Adam and Eve, or more specifically, a Father and a Mother, because that mekes sense to people who had a father and mother.

I'm sure if we descended from birds and not mammals there would be a creation story about the big egg, or if we were hyper intelligent Amoeba there would be the bible story about the first budding.

My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
StaceyMontgomery at 9:30PM, Jan. 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I have to say, I see no real similarity with the Adam & Eve legend at all. Sure, it has the first humans as a breeding pair, but that's kind of an obvious idea for anyone who had two parents. The rest of the legend is totally, totally different.

Look, you started with the idea that all Creation stories are from some base template in our DNA. And all you have to show for this idea is: “all human creation stories focus on the creation of humans!”

The evidence actually seems to be that humans beings are endlessly creative. And since their creation myths have so little in common, we can assume they are not based on a common truth. Other than the idea that humans know they have parents.

In fact, the diversity of human mythology seems to lend weight to the idea that the stories are just stories after all. Think about it - if you ask 5 witnesses to describe an accident they all saw, you will get 5 different stories… but those 5 stories will have a lot more in common than Malakas & Maganda have with Adam & Eve.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
ozoneocean at 2:25AM, Jan. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
subcultured
to those that are able to dig beneath the surface of the story, they can find enlightenment about making up for past sins and using what was given to him to do something positive. it has a good lesson, than no one is perfect, not even Jesus.
Yea… :(

That's one of the nasty things about newer versions of the bible… All the good stuff gets taken out and the thing becomes Disnefied. He, but funnily enough they don't have a problem leaving in the stuff about evil gay people and subservient women.

Then again, Disney would probably agree with that too ^_^

The older, truer forms of mythology are a LOT more interesting, and far, FAR from being silly, pointless, obsolete fluff, they actually tell us a WHOLE lot about ourselves and the communities that spawned them.

Teh, the people who dismiss religion are perfectly equally as bad as those who reject science. They forget that humans and only human because we have an ongoing, developing culture that we all share and contribute to in various ways. Without that we really are just simple beasts… Science counts for NOTHING at all without the common, shared mental tools to use and understand it.

Religion is part of how we got there. Understand that and it lends you a lot more insights into how the world works… because we are the world. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
cartoonprofessor at 4:32PM, Jan. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Well said, Ozone.

It is important to understand religion and its purpose in society.
Prayer is, after all, a very powerful way to communicate with our subconscious, and if the Hindus are right, our entire universe of which we are part.

Evolutionary theory is simply another, newer method of seeing the world and how we fit into it.

Scientists understand that the more our understanding grows, the more questions are raised.

They also understand that all scientific theory is simply that… theory. It remains so until, if ever, it gets disproven.

In my mind when someone stops questioning and follows any doctrine, religious or scientific, blindly… then that is simple laziness. This person has given up their rights and responsibiliities to use their intellect. In doing so they become a danger to themselves and others because they can committ any action without taking moral responsibility for it…

Evolutionary theory certainly stands up to intellectual reasoning far better than any other at present. Creationist theory breaks down instantly when common sense is applied, as does most religious theory… after all, if God is Omniscient and Omnipotent that literally means that you, I, and every animal, plant, insect, rock and even Satan, is God!
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
Calbeck at 4:24AM, Jan. 29, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
ON EVOLUTION:
I don't have much trouble matching Biblical theory to evolutionary theory. Genesis' description of creation is by a country mile the closest any religion gets to getting it right, and the bits which are off aren't so far off that they can't be explained with a little consideration of the realities behind the formation of the Bible itself.

The two real sticking points are, first, that the Day Four puts the creation of Sun and Moon as AFTER the planet has complex life on it. However, the phrasing is in line with Day One and repeats redundant points from same…it looks as though someone down the line decided the Earth had to come first and chopped the verse in half, shuffling the second part three Days forward.

The second and more important is that “flying creatures” crop up before land animals do, of which we have absolutely no evidence. It's possible, however, that some aquatic-based fliers could have pre-dated continental formation; all of our fossil records are by their nature incomplete. We know for a fact that only a fraction of the world's prehistorical species were preserved in this fashion.

So on these points, I take things on faith, but not blindly so. In short, Genesis may be accurate, in terms of presenting a thumbnail view of planetary and biological evolution…as presented by someone with absolutely no possible scientific knowledge of either.


ON GOD:
I don't believe God is Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent…these effectively prevent Him from having free will to begin with. Nor is there much in the Bible to back any of this up, beyond opinion pieces. When we hear these claims, we are hearing “Mike's Fan Club”: they mean well, but they ARE fanboys.

I believe God was the “First Observer” that quantum physics is essentially reliant on. Normally, all actions which CAN take place in the universe DO take place, simultaneously. Observation of these actions forces a single dominant set of actions into existence in what is called a “collapsing wave function”. It's literally a wave of different possibilities that crash into a single event.

In this context, “let there be light” may well have been the determining observation that triggered the Big Bang (which initially was nothing but light, and during the first nanoseconds of which many of this universe's physical laws came into being).

Bearing in mind that this is all of course a theoretical assumption, let us move from there to the concept that God was self-aware at the moment of the Bang, and went from there to exist for literally billions of years before the first initial signs of physical life appeared anywhere in the universe.

That's a long time to be lonely.

Plenty of time, actually, to come up with “imaginary friends” for companionship. Or build some not-so-imaginary ones. Like, say, angels.

Which all, unfortunately, would be largely predictable since God's the original programmer of these particular AIs. And they don't reproduce to create independent versions, because God had never seen anything reproduce anywhere. One could understand in this context why God would deliberately create a “no-man” just for the experience of being disagreed with, or why He might not simply destroy angels that chose to rebel.

Which kills a few aeons, of course, and then along comes life.

And life does things on its OWN, and that's what makes it incredibly interesting. You can shift it around and mess with its DNA or environment, but it will simply adapt in its own fashion to the changes.

How priceless, to a six-billion-year-old mind, would independent sentient thoughts and behavior be?


ON ADAM AND EVE:
When Cain killed Abel and left for parts elsewhere, he found “other people” and with them created the city of Ur. What “other people”? He and Abel were A&E's first kids.

This makes sense IF A&E were not the first “humans” but instead the first “modern humans”, the last stage of a process in which God guided the development of evolution to produce sentient beings. Current theory is that Neanderthal was not wiped out violently but instead “bred into” and ultimately replaced by modern man. We still retain recessive Neanderthal traits, for example.

That would also make sense from the idea of tailoring a genetic heritage and then spreading it rapidly into a “stock” species which had already established a defensible foothold in the ecology.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
mlai at 8:05AM, Jan. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
lol a real live gnostic in our midst

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
ozoneocean at 8:32AM, Jan. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
cartoonprofessor
Well said, Ozone.
Thanks Cartoonprofessor :)

I wasn't really focussing on the mystic though but an aspect of our cultural development; religion and mythology as part of the bedrock of civilisation.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
cartoonprofessor at 8:21PM, Jan. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Yes I know.
Civilization grows and changes as its stories change. I agree Religion and Mythology have long determined social morality. These days for better or worse Hollywood is the centre of modern cultural development and societal growth.
My comment on prayer was not intended to be mystical. Science it today well aware of how powerful our subconscious is. Direct communication, whether through meditation, affirmations or prayer with our subconscious is a way of making use of that resource.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
Roguehill at 7:28AM, Jan. 31, 2008
(offline)
posts: 211
joined: 1-3-2007
The strengths of the Bible aren't in telling us about events as much as relationships. The entire Old and New Testament is a story about how people relate to each other and how they relate to God (and vise versa). You'll note that it doesn't mention in the bible when iron was discovered or how ships were made….it's not about the “doings” of life, it's more about the “being”. Of course, learning the craft of “being” is something that is really difficult to do and is probably the most important skill to develop in life…much more important than science, I might add. (Being a dispicable bastard who knows how to calculate pi is only remotely useful.)
So, it's a good idea to use either tool for it's proper job. The systematic quality of science can help us cure Polio, while religion helps us cope with the grief that comes from the death of a Polio victim. Conversely, trying to use science for comfort is hollow and using religion to explain horses is storytelling.

In short, we need both.

GHOST ZERO
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
horseboy at 2:23PM, Jan. 31, 2008
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
Ronson
The problem that evolution suffers from is laymen misunderstanding the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. I am guilty of it myself, though I am learning more and more about it all the time. Things that are thrown out like “survival of the fittest” are distorted, and things like “random chance” are asserted as mechanisms(though random chance isn't even close to being a component of evolution).
This looks promising, but I'm still unemployed so can't afford books. :(
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
UltimaXG2 at 9:18PM, Feb. 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 374
joined: 8-30-2007
Creationism is garbage. These people are just out to troll the scientific community… The ones that are all “in your face” about it, anyway. I'm cool with creationists, so long as they don't go apeshit on me about my beliefs, which are backed up with SCIENTIFIC proof.
Comics:
Beyond the Deep End
Mysterious Transfer Student
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:36PM
alibaba at 9:10AM, Feb. 6, 2008
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 2-6-2008
kyupol
IMO, science and religion should be INTEGRATED to compliment the weakness of the other.

Science = fails to realize that there are other things that exist that cannot be seen by the five senses. Such as the soul, and things like chakra, chi, psychic ability, etc. Science (at today's level) limits itself to the physical state.

Religion (traditional) = has all kinds of limiting factors. For instance, in Catholicism, the 1st commandment is ‘thou shall not have any gods other than me’. Under that sin, it is a sin to seek knowledge and try to believe in the occult. Why? Why is gaining knowledge sinful? I remember a time discussing with a priest about articles that contradict the Catholic faith. Instead of offering valid counterarguments, all I got was ‘you shouldnt read that garbage!’

Instead of bickering which one is right and wrong, why not integrate those two fields into one?

God knows what new technologies will we arrive at.

whoa, sorry, but integrating science and religion is a VERY bad idea…

think about it, what is science?
scientists observe nature, then pose questions: how does this work?
then they form hypotheses, make experiments and create theories, etc. in order to come up with the answers.
by understanding the natural laws, science is able to invent working technologies based on nature.

you say that science “fails to realize that there are other things that exist that cannot be seen by the five senses”.
thats not true. science doesn't fail to realize them at all.
what about things like radioactivity, etc.? there are a lot of things that can't be seen, or heard or felt, but science still managed to prove them and even make use of them.

scientists also looked into stuff like chi, psychic abilities, poltergeists, etc countless times.
actually, almost everyday there are cases where these kinds of things are reported and tested. the media often makes a big thing out of it, however, not even once was anything supernatural found.
not once!
they all could either be explained by natural means or there was not enough information to test anything at all.
so many people claim that they have psychic abilities, but when it comes to testing them, they suddenly have a bad day…


so how would you integrate religion and science into one?
if you put religion into science, it would vaporize since it can't stand up to the scientific methods.

if you put science into religion, well, then nothing would happen anymore. religion is not an evolving field, its static and absolute, so science would simply stop: “we know that god did it, so why should we question it?” XD
no new technologies in this case :( .








on topic: i must say i really wonder why so many people still want to believe in a god (from a scientific point of view).
i tried it, but it just does not make any sense.
we perfectly know that the earth is not the centre of the universe.
we also know that the earth hasn't been made specifically for humans.
but humans have developed egos and have become pretty arrogant.
by claiming that god made humans in his (!) image we were basically saying: “humans stand above all other life forms”.
man, how egocentric…

if you think about it, its natural for humans to come up with “gods”, because we are in awe of nature and just want to know everything - and if we can't explain things, we make 'em up.
every culture has come up with their own creation stories and god-designs.
yet, some still believe that “our story is real and the million others are blasphemy”!

and then comes ID… oh man, what a joke.
is the theory of evolution complete? surely not.
has the theory of evolution mistakes? possible.
is evolution true? you can bet your ass on it :D .

how can people look at the theory of evolution, find points that are unclear (yet) and then simply say: thats naturaly impossible! GOD MUST HAVE DONE THIS!!
sheesh…
if there was the least bit of evidence for something that could not have occured naturally (NOT arguments of ignorance like irreducable complexity), THEN we should start thinking seriously about something like intelligent design, because otherwise it can only act as a science-stopper.

religion (and mythology) can be a nice thing, but there really is no room for it in science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:49AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved