It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A factual digression concerning evolution and creation

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by oliveoil
No they dont. No one can truly say that his life has meaning unless someone or something has told them the purpose of their being. Only a creator of such knows what his creation is for.


Actually, that's what a purpose is. It's a goal or object to be attained. Ex. "The purpose of this mission is to asses the strength of the enemy." In this sense, I can give my own life a purpose, a goal. I have the free will that allows me to do so.

In terms of meaning, we're talking about significance. We can assess the significance, or meaning, of our lives through our experiences and how we interact with out world.

We don't need anyone to tell us what our purpose is.
edit on 3-12-2010 by PieKeeper because: it was better.


The percentage of about 99.9 is that you are going to fail in assigning your own life a purpose.You are never going to be sure if the choice you have made is 100 percent correct. The only 100 percent sure way of knowing what something is for is by the intent of its maker.Other than that you are not 100persent sure.




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil


There is no such thing as a true accident.Accidents are not intentional.


When I say true accident, I say something that is ACTUALLY an accident rather than something that is APPARENTLY an accident. So we might look at someone who is lying at the bottom of a cliff and say "hmm, they fell accidentally", when actually they were pushed. That is to say that just because we perceive something as an accident, doesn't mean that it is one, and so "true accident" was a qualification. Something may appear to be an accident, but not be one, and that WOULD involve intent.


Woe, wait one minute. Lets clear some things up. First off, I believe that man has indeed evolved physically, Although, certainly not spiritually.This has nothing to do with creation.My statement is clear. There is only two ways anything can come to be.That is either intentional or accidental.Mind you, evolution and creation are two different concepts.The "big bang" did not evolve.Something or someone (god) intended this to be.The Big Bang was either an accident (which accidents have no purpose) or it was intentional (purpose). Mind you, that I am not speaking of the results that can occur from an accident,(meaningful or not) rather the accident itself which is without intent.


If you're not saying that evolution was an accident, why call the thread "a factual digression concerning evolution and creation"?


Yes, you are correct in your analogy, however, The only true way to know exactly what that table is for is by asking the creator its purpose.Other than that we could only theorize, or in plain English, guess.Same goes for humanity.The only way we can truly know what man is for is to ask the Creator.Good thing for us God has revealed this to us.


I have never asked a carpenter what a table is for, neither has one ever offered that information, and yet I use tables for specific (and multiple) purposes. I can ASK a termite why it builds a mound, but I am unlikely to receive an answer. I can discover its function - which is sufficiently homologous with purpose in my mind that I make no distinction, which may be adding to the confusion - through removing said mound and considering the effect on the termites, in much the same way that we could discover the function of the separate sexes by removing one of the and watching the effects on the human race. You treated the function of the seperate sexes as proof of purpose, but have you ever ASKED the creator what they are for? If you have, I find it likely that you have not received a direct answer.

As for man's purpose being elusive, taken as a generalisation to mankind, I accept you point, but wish to add that we cannot know whether mankind HAS purpose at all. However, individuals, by extension of being conscious entities, are capable of assigning purposes to themselves, and attributing functions to others.

I think that's it.

edit on 3/12/2010 by TheWill because: urgh to the flooeyness

edit on 3/12/2010 by TheWill because: double negatives are twice the fail



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by oliveoil
No they dont. No one can truly say that his life has meaning unless someone or something has told them the purpose of their being. Only a creator of such knows what his creation is for.


Actually, that's what a purpose is. It's a goal or object to be attained. Ex. "The purpose of this mission is to asses the strength of the enemy." In this sense, I can give my own life a purpose, a goal. I have the free will that allows me to do so.

In terms of meaning, we're talking about significance. We can assess the significance, or meaning, of our lives through our experiences and how we interact with out world.

We don't need anyone to tell us what our purpose is.
edit on 3-12-2010 by PieKeeper because: it was better.


The percentage of about 99.9 is that you are going to fail in assigning your own life a purpose.You are never going to be sure if the choice you have made is 100 percent correct. The only 100 percent sure way of knowing what something is for is by the intent of its maker.Other than that you are not 100persent sure.


Failure can only be determined by myself.

Is there a reason why we have to have purpose? You seem hell-bent on the notion that humans must absolutely have a defined purpose.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


I have found here on ATS two kinds of people. Those who speak for themselves, and those who leach onto those with superior intellect and try in there own rudimentary analogy to explain them.I dont need an english lesson thank you. Now if you have something concrete to add, by all means

When the swine refuse the pearls, and ask for swill instead, no-one is really surprised. But the motto of this web site is 'deny ignorance', not 'wallow in ignorance.'



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 

Hi Will, Apologies for the delay.

When I say true accident, I say something that is ACTUALLY an accident rather than something that is APPARENTLY an accident. So we might look at someone who is lying at the bottom of a cliff and say "hmm, they fell accidentally", when actually they were pushed. That is to say that just because we perceive something as an accident, doesn't mean that it is one, and so "true accident" was a qualification. Something may appear to be an accident, but not be one, and that WOULD involve intent.
You are speaking as though you are in the third person. a mere observer. Only the fellow who "Pushed" the unlucky recipient knows for sure. I agree.The only sure way to know if something is intent-full is to ask the person who intended it.Just like the only way one can 100 percent know for sure what the purpose of something is for is to ask the creator. We are in agreement.


If you're not saying that evolution was an accident, why call the thread "a factual digression concerning evolution and creation"?
Simply because those who believe in evolution believe that we were created by chance.No intent. I believe we were created.We as humans have evolved physically.Evolution and creation are two different concepts . This point I have already stressed.


I have never asked a carpenter what a table is for, neither has one ever offered that information, and yet I use tables for specific (and multiple) purposes
Tables are meant for many purposes not just one.I agree. However the carpender who build the table had a specific one in mind. Coffee, Dinner table,computer table,end table, ect... without one knowing what kind of table it was used for, It would be miss use.


I can ASK a termite why it builds a mound, but I am unlikely to receive an answer. I can discover its function - which is sufficiently homologous with purpose in my mind that I make no distinction, which may be adding to the confusion - through removing said mound and considering the effect on the termites, in much the same way that we could discover the function of the separate sexes by removing one of the and watching the effects on the human race
This would be a colorful alternative but still not 100%. The only way we could possibly know termite nature is by having the creator of the termite tell us. Same goes with man.


You treated the function of the separate sexes as proof of purpose, but have you ever ASKED the creator what they are for? If you have, I find it likely that you have not received a direct answer.
Goodness for me that I do not have to ask. It has been revealed to me though Gods word. Tried, True, And tested!!!.I could start Quoting scripture, However I would like to keep this simple.
As for man's purpose being elusive, taken as a generalisation to mankind, I accept you point Thanks, Though I never implied that mans purpose is ' elusive' Ive only been clear and precise.However, there is so much more concerning man than procreation.Thats another subject.

.

However, individuals, by extension of being conscious entities, are capable of assigning purposes to themselves, and attributing functions to others.[
This is true, However, Again, These people are not 100% sure if the path they chose is correct.Only a creator of sorts can can tell them purpose.
edit on 5-12-2010 by oliveoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by oliveoil
No they dont. No one can truly say that his life has meaning unless someone or something has told them the purpose of their being. Only a creator of such knows what his creation is for.


Actually, that's what a purpose is. It's a goal or object to be attained. Ex. "The purpose of this mission is to asses the strength of the enemy." In this sense, I can give my own life a purpose, a goal. I have the free will that allows me to do so.

In terms of meaning, we're talking about significance. We can assess the significance, or meaning, of our lives through our experiences and how we interact with out world.

We don't need anyone to tell us what our purpose is.
edit on 3-12-2010 by PieKeeper because: it was better.


The percentage of about 99.9 is that you are going to fail in assigning your own life a purpose.You are never going to be sure if the choice you have made is 100 percent correct. The only 100 percent sure way of knowing what something is for is by the intent of its maker.Other than that you are not 100persent sure.


Failure can only be determined by myself.

Is there a reason why we have to have purpose? You seem hell-bent on the notion that humans must absolutely have a defined purpose.


Simple. Because if we as humans do not have purpose, this would make our lives meaningless, which they are not,



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by TheWill
 

Hi Will, Apologies for the delay.


Not to worry, it's not as though I check ATS every half-hour (well, I do, but that's just because I have no life)



When I say true accident, I say something that is ACTUALLY an accident rather than something that is APPARENTLY an accident. So we might look at someone who is lying at the bottom of a cliff and say "hmm, they fell accidentally", when actually they were pushed. That is to say that just because we perceive something as an accident, doesn't mean that it is one, and so "true accident" was a qualification. Something may appear to be an accident, but not be one, and that WOULD involve intent.
You are speaking as though you are in the third person. a mere observer. Only the fellow who "Pushed" the unlucky recipient knows for sure. I agree.The only sure way to know if something is intent-full is to ask the person who intended it.Just like the only way one can 100 percent know for sure what the purpose of something is for is to ask the creator. We are in agreement.


That seems cleared up then.



If you're not saying that evolution was an accident, why call the thread "a factual digression concerning evolution and creation"?
Simply because those who believe in evolution believe that we were created by chance.No intent. I believe we were created.We as humans have evolved physically.


So, we're not FULLY in agreement, then. I believe in evolution (I think that much is clear), however, this does not mean that I would reject the suggestion that evolution occurred with intent. (Due to the intrinsic nature of most deities to the system, I'd like to change the analogy to whether he fell on purpose or by accident. Is that alright?). Consider evolution to be the path taken by the man when he left the cliff - it is the same, regardless of the reason for his fall. As I know that he passed from the cliff to the ground, I can say this, but neither knowing the man nor personally witnessing the fall, I cannot say WHY he fell.



I have never asked a carpenter what a table is for, neither has one ever offered that information, and yet I use tables for specific (and multiple) purposes
Tables are meant for many purposes not just one.I agree. However the carpender who build the table had a specific one in mind. Coffee, Dinner table,computer table,end table, etc... without one knowing what kind of table it was used for, It would be misuse.


For several years, I used a kitchen dresser to support a large aquarium. This was a purpose not intended for it by its carpenter, but by me, the owner of the dresser. Whether this was misuse depends on perspective - the carpenter and I are both creators of purpose, although only the carpenter created the dresser.



I can ASK a termite why it builds a mound, but I am unlikely to receive an answer. I can discover its function - which is sufficiently homologous with purpose in my mind that I make no distinction, which may be adding to the confusion - through removing said mound and considering the effect on the termites, in much the same way that we could discover the function of the separate sexes by removing one of the and watching the effects on the human race
This would be a colorful alternative but still not 100%. The only way we could possibly know termite nature is by having the creator of the termite tell us. Same goes with man.


You treated the function of the separate sexes as proof of purpose, but have you ever ASKED the creator what they are for? If you have, I find it likely that you have not received a direct answer.
Goodness for me that I do not have to ask. It has been revealed to me though Gods word. Tried, True, And tested!!!.I could start Quoting scripture, However I would like to keep this simple.


I'm combinging these two (above) because I feel that my next point depends upon them both. Unless I misunderstood, you treated the presence of the two seperate sexes, and the function derived thereof, as proof of man's purpose. I can test this function, and thus by what I perceive to be your reasoning its purpose, by removing one of the sexes and observing the result (= no children). I can test the function, and again by what I perceive to be your reasoning the purpose, of the termite mound by removing it (=termites crop of fungus fails, termites starve and die, or overheat/suffocate in the process). Termites serving as intermediary between the mindless - evolution - and the omniscient - a deity - the function of this example was to demonstrate that creator need not be conscious of function (purpose) for function (purpose) to be served (the man might have fallen on purpose, or he might have fallen by accident. I don't know). That is not to say that creator cannot be conscious of function (the man COULD have wanted to jump), merely that function does not require a conscious creator.

As for scripture, returning to the tired analogy of the reasons for the man's falls, the bible would fit into this analogy as a witness account. A person who was present at the time tells me that the man jumped. I note that they have said this, but they are a person - of very much the same ilk as the people who wrote the bible - and their motives are as invisible to me as those of any person. I may trust them (= faith), but if I were investigating the man's death and had to establish its cause, I would have to understand the witness' motives and fallabilities before I could safely make that judgement. It might be that they saw something he did which showed that he intended to fall, or it might be that they believed they saw such a thing when it did not occur. They might even, for an unknown reason (perhaps they pushed him?) want me to believe something that they know to be false.

So I am aware of the scripture, but I recognise that it is written by people as an account of events that in many cases they have not witnessed first hand. I do not distrust the accounts per se, but I take it in context as best as I can, and in my recognition that I cannot know any man's motives, I do not trust the accounts either (In this area at least, I lack faith).




As for man's purpose being elusive, taken as a generalisation to mankind, I accept you point
Thanks, Though I never implied that mans purpose is ' elusive' Ive only been clear and precise.However, there is so much more concerning man than procreation.Thats another subject.


I discussed procreation in reference to your nod to the separate sexes. I am aware - although Dawkins, it seems, is not - that there is more to life than procreation.



However, individuals, by extension of being conscious entities, are capable of assigning purposes to themselves, and attributing functions to others.[
This is true, However, Again, These people are not 100% sure if the path they chose is correct.Only a creator of sorts can can tell them purpose.


I would suggest that correct is a matter of perspective, and depending upon the various perspectives, two apparently distinct purposes can in fact be correct - if a creator intended everyone to know all that they could, for example, and one person spent their life studying all that there was to know about the creator, concluding that all true knowledge could be found only by seeing by His (or Her) light, while the other spent their life studying all that they could of the world, but it's own light, each would have discovered an equal amount of knowledge by two quite different paths.

That sounds really hippy. Point is, you can try to understand a god to understand the world by Him (or Her), or you can try to understand the world on its own (regardless of the conclusions that you come to). As both gods and worlds hold more to know than any human can ever learn, neither of us will ever exhaust our quest for knowledge.




edit on 5/12/2010 by TheWill because: Some words are central to a point and must not be ignored.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Simple. Because if we as humans do not have purpose, this would make our lives meaningless, which they are not,


Who are you to, and on what ground do you, claim that human lives have meaning?

If they don't, is that a problem? Why would it be a problem?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 



Who are you to, and on what ground do you, claim that human lives have meaning?


Well if being a human being does not qualify me as staking a claim as to whether my human life has meaning or not, I dont know what else does, except the fact that God has revealed this to me.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 



So, we're not FULLY in agreement, then. I believe in evolution (I think that much is clear), however, this does not mean that I would reject the suggestion that evolution occurred with intent
Who intended evolution though? You either believe in a creator or not.


(Due to the intrinsic nature of most deities to the system, I'd like to change the analogy to whether he fell on purpose or by accident. Is that alright?). Consider evolution to be the path taken by the man when he left the cliff - it is the same, regardless of the reason for his fall. As I know that he passed from the cliff to the ground, I can say this, but neither knowing the man nor personally witnessing the fall, I cannot say WHY he fell.
Correct! The only sure 100% way of knowing is by having the one who Pushed him reveal this to you.


For several years, I used a kitchen dresser to support a large aquarium. This was a purpose not intended for it by its carpenter, but by me, the owner of the dresser. Whether this was misuse depends on perspective - the carpenter and I are both creators of purpose, although only the carpenter created the dresser.
Yes , and only the carpenter knows 100% what is creation was /is for.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 



So I am aware of the scripture, but I recognise that it is written by people as an account of events that in many cases they have not witnessed first hand. I do not distrust the accounts per se, but I take it in context as best as I can, and in my recognition that I cannot know any man's motives, I do not trust the accounts either (In this area at least, I lack faith).
I understand. Its human nature to be skeptical. However, we must look at truth and reason.These biblical writers were all about truth.the bible is there to be tested.Undisputed I might add.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 



I would suggest that correct is a matter of perspective, and depending upon the various perspectives, two apparently distinct purposes can in fact be correct - if a creator intended everyone to know all that they could, for example, and one person spent their life studying all that there was to know about the creator, concluding that all true knowledge could be found only by seeing by His (or Her) light, while the other spent their life studying all that they could of the world, but it's own light, each would have discovered an equal amount of knowledge by two quite different paths.
No, because one would know everything there is to know about materialistic things, and one would know only about spiritual things. The problem here is that TRUTH is that man is in union of both. Fact is that no man will ever know everything there is to know.If this was the case there would be nothing to feed the brain. The will would die. Lets stick to truths, shall we?
edit on 6-12-2010 by oliveoil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
There is nothing factual about evolution, how its on same page as creationism is beyond me.

Ricahrd dawkins(man who has never found out anything secret), i am going to call you names, must love all the rubbish you people believe from his mouth.
edit on 12/6/2010 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


The Bible is heavily disputed. There are many who are skeptical about the following claims of the Bible:

The creation story
The flood story
The historical account of Exodus
Moses as a historical character
Jesus as a historical character


...actually, it would be much faster to simply state that every single scientific or historical claim in the Bible is either under contention or refuted. Well, all of the scientific claims are more or less refuted, the historical claims are more contested than refuted.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
There is nothing factual about evolution,


You keep saying that, I keep refuting that claim, you keep ignoring me.



how its on same apge as creationism is beyond me.


I know, creationism is such unproven hogwash while evolution is rigorous science.



Ricahrd dawkins(man who has never found out anything secret),


...except that he found out the secret of memes. Imagine if the world didn't have a word to describe lolcats and rickrolling.

I mean, seriously, what is with that claim? He's never found out anything secret?



i am going to call you names, must love all the rubbish you people believe from his mouth.


Wow, very mature.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 



Who intended evolution though? You either believe in a creator or not.


I must be wording this wrong. It is not either/or. I have received an invite to the party, and my RSVP was "Maybe". Got it?


Correct! The only sure 100% way of knowing is by having the one who Pushed him reveal this to you.


That depends whether you trust the person who says that they pushed him. Over 50 people confessed - independently - to the murder of Betty-Ann Short (look it up if you don't know, but NOT on google images), and most of them were lying. Everyone has an agenda.


I understand. Its human nature to be skeptical. However, we must look at truth and reason.These biblical writers were all about truth.the bible is there to be tested.Undisputed I might add.


I'm sure madnessinmysoul has replied satisfactorily to the undisputed claim, and so I shall keep my hand to myself on that one. However, you seem to be interpreting my "lack of faith" as something that is problematic for me. I do not trust the witness fully, but rather than impeding my understanding of the situation, it allows me to see it from a perspective not open to those who trust, and thus when I finally get off the fence and say why the man fell, it is entirely my decision, unaffected by the conflicting agendas of all the various witnesses.


No, because one would know everything there is to know about materialistic things, and one would know only about spiritual things. The problem here is that TRUTH is that man is in union of both. Fact is that no man will ever know everything there is to know.If this was the case there would be nothing to feed the brain. The will would die. Lets stick to truths, shall we?



The will would die. I like it.

My point was that neither would know everything that there is to know, and so while each would lack completely in the other's field of expertise, neither would be able to claim having learnt more. Provided that each remained largely within situations where his or her knowledge could be applied, neither would suffer as a result (although, of course, if the two fields were sufficiently narrow, you'd end up with those dreadful academic types who only ever talk about their specific field, and however brilliant their knowledge of physics may be, they are completely incapable of understanding the basic ecology of disease transmission)

Amusingly, proving how fickle my mind is, having said that correct was a matter of perspective here, I just posted a quote implying (quite firmly) that there was only one truth on another thread.

However, I do feel that there is a distinction between correct and true. Just give me a while to come up with what it is.
edit on 6/12/2010 by TheWill because: Realised that I had more than one post to reply to.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


No problem, Its just all therapy to ones intellect. Take your time. Think though what you are going to say.Those who post hastingly are usually those who are premature in there thoughts.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Got it!

(correct and true being slightly different)

Old myth, possibly chinese but I'm not sure, it was in a book I read when I was younger (not particularly long ago but long enough that I can't remember specifics).

Basic gist: monster is in a cave, and comes out when nobody sees it to eat livestock, destroy crops, etc. etc. etc., the king/chief person has three sons and a daughter. Oldest son bravely volunteers (to what end, I am not sure) to go and find out what the beast is. Once in the cave, however, his hand encounters its enormous claws and he gets scared, runs down the mountain and tells everyone it's a terrible lion. Second son goes up, same story except his hand touches its scaly skin and he runs down the mountain to tell everyone that it's a horrible crocodile. Third son goes up, same story but this time his hand encounters leathery wings and he runs down the mountain to tell them that it is a monstrous proportions.

The daughter, who being a sensible sort should have been sent up first, is sent up by her father to end the confusion that the three sons have caused (which is understandably making him less than popular. So she goes up, probably taking some monster-snacks with her as bait and possibly taking a rope, and she brings the beast out into the daylight and lo, they are all right, and also all wrong, for it is neither lion nor crocodile nor bat, but a dragon with aspects of all three.

So, with the different viewpoints being correct: most of us can only see a certain amount of everything from where we stand, and what we see can seem quite at odds with what other people see, however, we may be seeing the SAME THING, just from different angles. So all the sons were correct (well, ish. For the bit that they encountered, it was a logical conclusion), but only the daughter saw the truth (big picture, not the definite article).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join