Jump to content


Photo

If Evolution Is True, Why Are There So Many Creation Myths?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 23 May 2017 - 06:52 PM

[quote name="Goku" post="137907" timestamp="1495424779" date="22 May 2017 - 02:46 PM"][quote name="Dredge" post="137865" timestamp="1495235254" date="20 May 2017 - 10:07 AM"]
And what do you see as the zeitgeist of the West?[/quote]Cultural Marxism.

I suspect that many of the recent converts into such movements (they've been gaining popularity over the past decade or so) don't share the traditional view that Jews are evil people that need to be harmed for killing Jesus.

I get the impression that Far-right anti-Semiticism has little to do with religion. Hitler wanted to exterminate the jewish race, not just the Jewish religion. The Far-right has learnt to keep their Jew-animus as inconspicuos as possible. But it's true what you say - a lot of folks who are now being attracted to the Far-right aren't anti-Semitic - more like anti-Islam.

I find your last sentence to be the most interesting. I agree there are genetic and cultural differences between various races that have real world impacts, but I don't see any natural barriers between the races. I think most of the barriers we see between the races are cultural, not genetic, if I understand what you are saying.

Asians want to hang out with asians, blacks want to hang out with blacks and whites want to hang out with whites .... as a general rule. It's obvious that there are "natural barriers" between the races.

#22 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 03:27 AM

Asians want to hang out with asians, blacks want to hang out with blacks and whites want to hang out with whites .... as a general rule. It's obvious that there are "natural barriers" between the races.

i'm sure you have heard of the movie "planet of the apes".
it was noted that during the filming of this movie, the gorillas, orangutans, and the chimps hung out with their "kind".
the gorillas took their lunch breaks together etc.
it apparently didn't matter what the actor was.

#23 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 24 May 2017 - 11:35 PM

Asians want to hang out with asians, blacks want to hang out with blacks and whites want to hang out with whites .... as a general rule. It's obvious that there are "natural barriers" between the races.

i'm sure you have heard of the movie "planet of the apes".it was noted that during the filming of this movie, the gorillas, orangutans, and the chimps hung out with their "kind".the gorillas took their lunch breaks together etc.it apparently didn't matter what the actor was.
Interesting!

#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 June 2017 - 11:40 AM

Does the "Out of Africa" theory mean white people evolved from negroes?

I've read in more than one place that there are more (genetic) differences within races than there are between them.



#25 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 June 2017 - 04:20 PM

Does the "Out of Africa" theory mean white people evolved from negroes?

I've read in more than one place that there are more (genetic) differences within races than there are between them.

you've now put yourself in the unenviable position of defining what "race" means. (genetically of course)

#26 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:11 AM

 

 

Does the "Out of Africa" theory mean white people evolved from negroes?

I've read in more than one place that there are more (genetic) differences within races than there are between them.

 

you've now put yourself in the unenviable position of defining what "race" means. (genetically of course)

 

So you want him to define genetically separated groups when by his own admission they are more genetically diverse within than without?

 

Genetically, people are more closely related to those having a similar migration background then those of the same "color" (since blacks and whites are being identified already within the topic).



#27 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:53 AM

So you want him to define genetically separated groups when by his own admission they are more genetically diverse within than without?
 
Genetically, people are more closely related to those having a similar migration background then those of the same "color" (since blacks and whites are being identified already within the topic).

it's an ill phrased question anyway.
"race" is a human subjective term, and therefor irrelevant.

as for genetic diversity, i believe there isn't much difference between what man is now, than what he was at the time of eukaryote super groups.
sure, HGT events are assumed to occur, but these are assumptions, you certainly can't explain novel organs by gradual accumulation of genetic material.
the cell itself is creating these sequences over the course of a few generations.

search on "c value paradox" to get a handle on some of the evidence for epigenetics/ transposons, and regulatory networks.

#28 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 11 June 2017 - 09:55 AM

If creation is true, it would be reasonable to expect that ancient cultures would reflect this stupendously important event in their folklore - they do; lots of them. If evolution is true, how can all these creatiion stories be explained?

.
One of Friedrich Nietzsche's themes was that error has been essential to the preservation--or was it "furtherance"?--of the Human Species.

I should find some quotes...

Does anyone believe that the subject is either/or with respect to creation vs. evolution? I don't.

#29 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 11 June 2017 - 10:41 AM

Does anyone believe that the subject is either/or with respect to creation vs. evolution? I don't.

 

It depends on what you mean by creation. If it simply means "God created", then no; theistic evolution holds that God created and evolution is one of the natural tools God used. In a broad sense theistic evolution is a form of creationism; a creationism that embraces evolution, or an evolution that embraces creation.


  • piasan likes this

#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 June 2017 - 06:49 PM

Does anyone believe that the subject is either/or with respect to creation vs. evolution? I don't.
I don't either. 
 
Man has a long history of attributing that which is not understood to supernatural acts..... which serves to explain the prevalence of creation myths.


#31 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 June 2017 - 07:53 PM

Man has a long history of attributing that which is not understood to supernatural acts..... which serves to explain the prevalence of creation myths.

a perfectly valid assumption, but there is no evidence either way in regards to the creation of life.
but yet we have tantalizing clues with prebiotic compounds.
when you consider the intricacies of the living cell, it's going to take a HUGE stretch of the imagination to say "yes, this stuff came about naturally".
this brings up the prospect of something equally unimaginable.
so yeah, i guess there is a chance of a third option.

got yer maypole?

#32 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:44 AM

If creation is true, it would be reasonable to expect that ancient cultures would reflect this stupendously important event in their folklore - they do; lots of them. If evolution is true, how can all these creatiion stories be explained?

.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote a great deal of words on the general principle that error has been essential to the furtherance of the species throughout man's history. Here are only a small few.
.

... as the
astrologer contemplated the stars in the service of
man and in connection with their happiness and
unhappiness, such a seeker contemplates the whole
world as related to man, as the infinitely protracted
echo of an original sound : man ; as the multiplied
copy of the one arch-type : man. His procedure is ~
to apply man as the measure of all things, whereby
he starts from the error of believing that he has these
things immediately before him as pure objects. He
therefore forgets that the original metaphors of per-
ception are metaphors, and takes them for the things^
themselves.

.
(source)

The next examples are from Beyond Good And Evil; Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, 1886, translation by Helen Zimmern.
.

Part One : On the Prejudices of Philosophers
...
4

The falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection
to a judgment; in this respect our new language may sound
strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life
serving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating.
And we are fundamentally inclined to claim that the falsest
judgments (which include the synthetic judgments a priori) are
the most indispensable for us; that without accepting the fictions
of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented
world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant
falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not
live - that renouncing false judgments would mean renouncing
life and a denial of life. To recognize untruth as a condition of
life - that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a
dangerous, way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that
token alone place itself beyond good and evil.

.
(source)
.

Part Two : The Free Spirit
...
24

O sancta simplicitas! In what strange simplification and
falsification man lives! One can never cease wondering once one
has acquired eyes for this marvel! How we have made everything
around us clear and free and easy and simple! how we have been
able to give our senses a passport to everything superficial, our
thoughts a divine desire for wanton leaps and wrong inferences!
how from the beginning we have contrived to retain our
ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, lack
of scruple and caution, heartiness, and gaiety of life - in order to
enjoy life! And only on this now solid, granite foundation of
ignorance could knowledge rise so far - the will to knowledge on
the foundation of a far more powerful will: the will to ignorance,
to the uncertain, to the untrue! Not as its opposite, but as its
refinement! Even if language, here as elsewhere, will not get over
its awkwardness, and will continue to talk of opposites where
there are only degrees and many subtleties of gradation; even if
the inveterate Tartuffery of morals, which now belongs to our
unconquerable "flesh and blood," infects the words even of those
of us who know better - here and there we understand it and laugh
at the way in which precisely science at its best seeks most to
keep us in this simplified, thoroughly artificial, suitably
constructed and suitably falsified world - at the way in which,
willy-nilly, it loves error, because, being alive, it loves life.

.
(source)

From Human, All Too Human, 1878, translation by Helen Zimmern:
.

SECTION ONE
Of First and Last Things (1)

1

Chemistry of concepts and feelings. In almost all respects,
philosophical problems today are again formulated as they were
two thousand years ago: how can something arise from its
opposite--for example, reason from unreason, sensation from the
lifeless, logic from the illogical, disinterested contemplation from
covetous desire, altruism from egoism, truth from error? Until
now, metaphysical philosophy has overcome this difficulty by
denying the origin of the one from the other, and by assuming for
the more highly valued things some miraculous origin, directly
from out of the heart and essence of the "thing in itself."(2)
Historical philosophy, on the other hand, the very youngest of all
philosophical methods, which can no longer be even conceived of
as separate from the natural sciences, has determined in isolated
cases (and will probably conclude in all of them) that they are not
opposites, only exaggerated to be so by the popular or
metaphysical view, and that this opposition is based on an error
of reason. ...
...
(1). "Last Things" (die letzten Dinge) refers to eschatology.
(2). Ding an sich: the thing in itself, in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781), refers to
the existent as it exists independently of our knowledge; a noumenon, a thing of the
mind rather than of the senses; that which a thing is when there is no human
perception of it, i.e., when it is in "essence" rather than in "appearance."


...

9

Metaphysical world. It is true, there might be a metaphysical
world; one can hardly dispute the absolute possibility of it. We
see all things by means of our human head, and cannot chop it
off, though it remains to wonder what would be left of the world
if indeed it had been cut off. This is a purely scientific problem,
and not very suited to cause men worry. But all that has produced
metaphysical assumptions and made them valuable, horrible,
pleasurable to men thus far is passion, error, and self-deception. ...

...

11
Language as an alleged science. ... ... Very belatedly (only
now) is it dawning on men that in their belief in language they
have propagated a monstrous error. Fortunately, it is too late to be
able to revoke the development of reason, which rests on that
belief.

Logic, too, rests on assumptions that do not correspond to
anything in the real world, e.g., on the assumption of the equality
of things, the identity of the same thing at different points of time;
but this science arose from the opposite belief (that there were
indeed such things in the real world). So it is with mathematics,
which would certainly not have originated if it had been known
from the beginning that there is no exactly straight line in nature,
no real circle, no absolute measure.

...

18

Basic questions of metaphysics. ...

...Even now, we believe fundamentally that all feelings
and actions are acts of free will; when the feeling individual
considers himself, he takes each feeling, each change, to be
something isolated, that is, something unconditioned, without a
context. It rises up out of us, with no connection to anything
earlier or later. We are hungry, but do not think initially that the
organism wants to be kept alive. Rather, that feeling seems to
assert itself without reason or purpose; it isolates itself and takes
itself to be arbitrary. Thus the belief in freedom of the will is an
initial error of all organic beings, as old as the existence in them
of stirrings of logic. Belief in unconditioned substances and
identical things is likewise an old, original error of all that is
organic. To the extent that all metaphysics has dealt primarily
with substance and freedom of the will, however, one may
characterize it as that science which deals with the basic errors
of man--but as if they were basic truths.
...

19

The number. The laws of numbers were invented on the basis of
the initially prevailing error that there are various identical things
(but actually there is nothing identical) or at least that there are
things (but there is no "thing"). The assumption of multiplicity
always presumes that there is something, which occurs repeatedly.
But this is just where error rules; even here, we invent entities,
unities, that do not exist.


Our feelings of space and time are false, for if they are tested
rigorously, they lead to logical contradictions. Whenever we
establish something scientifically, we are inevitably always
reckoning with some incorrect quantities; but because these
quantities are at least constant (as is, for example, our feeling of
time and space), the results of science do acquire a perfect
strictness and certainty in their relationship to each other. One can
continue to build upon them--up to that final analysis, where the
mistaken basic assumptions, those constant errors, come into
contradiction with the results, for example, in atomic theory. ...

.
(source)

#33 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:45 AM

The next examples are from The G*y Science, 1882, translation by Walter Kaufmann,.
.

BOOK II

107. Our ultimate gratitude to art
If we had not welcomed the arts and invented this kind of
cult of the untrue, then the realization of general untruth and
mendaciousness that now comes to us through science—the
realization that delusion and error are conditions of human
knowledge and sensation—would be utterly unbearable.
...

.

BOOK III

121

Life no Argument. We have arranged for ourselves a world in
which we can live - by the postulating of bodies, lines, surfaces,
causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without
these articles of faith no one could manage to live at present. But
for all that they are still unproved. Life is no argument; error
might be among the conditions of life.

.

BOOK V WE FEARLESS ONES
...

343
...
Consequently, "will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow
myself to be deceived" but-—there is no alternative-—"I will not
deceive, not even myself"; and with that we stand on moral
ground
. For you only have to ask yourself carefully, "Why do you
not want to deceive?" especially if it should seem—-and it does
seem!—-as if life aimed at semblance, meaning error, deception,
simulation, delusion, self-delusion, and when the great sweep of
life has actually always shown itself to be on the side of the most
scrupulous polytropoi [Greek word used in the first line of the
Odyssey to describe Odysseus; meaning ranges from much turned
to much traveled, versatile, wily, and manifold]. Charitably
interpreted, such a resolve might perhaps be a quixotism, a minor
slightly mad enthusiasm; but it might also be something more
serious, namely, a principle that is hostile to life and destructive.
-—"Will to truth"—that might be a concealed will to death ["will
to death" borrowed by Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle].

.
(source)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users