Non-sense. There is absolutely NO evidence that fills the gaps linking these evolutions. If you were able to provide that Abra, you would be the richest man on the planet - and not hanging around here wishing this were true.

"Eljay" I'm only going by what the bible states .. it state that on the 7th day God "rested" which is an indication that someone took a break or was tired or was exhausted and restrained by time

also if you claim that God is omniscient then that would mean that he knew of everyone's destiny before he created them and that Man is simply a robot created as a puppet performer for "God Divine Plan"



"Eljay" it was a simple question ..do a baby have the 'Free Will" or the "Free Choice" not to starve if there is no one to feed them ..it's a simple yes or no answer ..your attempt at evading the question by presenting unrelated analogies only shows your lack of belief in your own belief ..

that question about the starving baby always stumps people and make them realize that there is no "Free Will or Free Choice and it also show how people are not willing to answer truthfully about their beliefs by answering evasively



since the baby has no 'Free Will" or "Free Choice" of it's own then someone could always stick an I.V. in the little monster and force feed them and the baby would have "No Choice" in the matter ..this method depending on the circumstances are even use on some adults that refuse to eat ..so can you now agree that there is no 'Free Will" or "Free Choice"

We know from history and experience that all religions started from the necessities of life based on social , political ,and other issues .
As far as how and when life started , it is a pure guess and with no proof whatsoever .
This is my say........... .

Eljay,

I inquired as to what you thought happened to the dinosaurs and you indicated that they must of died after the flood. (Maybe they were drowned?) But my question is why weren't there any mention of these hideous monsters going around eating people in any of the ancient scriptures of mankind? And how do you justify science and carbon dating of bones?

The reason I inquired into your beliefs is because I wonder how you can justify these things just as you inquired into how I justify the problem of space travel for aliens.

I don't mind telling you how I "justify" my beliefs in aliens and I don't' question why you would ask as you did me.

The aliens live in another dimension and very possibly traverse time through vortexes. Our own government has discovered this technology and is probably still playing around with it, but most of it (hopefully) was destroyed. (Montauk Project) This project, I believe is not fantasy. It really happened in my opinion. These technologies are accomplished with frequencies ~~and other things.

JB

No its not actually.

Evidence has been found that this knowledge predated scripture and was even practiced in secret by some priests. Sorry I don't have those references for you, but if you won't even believe valid science or the history of myths and the sun worshipers, I doubt if you will accept any other evidence contrary to your set-in-stone religious belief system.




I did not get this from a movie.




Apparently many of them do, including you. You believe the world was created in seven days, including Adam and Eve and dinosaurs which were not even mentioned anywhere in scripture.



They apparently just have not put two and two together. For people who study numerology and astrology that would seem silly. But like many, they won't allow anything to un-brainwash them of their religions notions of their creator.

JB

There is mention of the dino's in the bible...and I did a whole series on this......so I will when I have time it up for you.

I agree, and I did not mean to suggest they were. I am merely suggesting that the ancient "hidden secret knowledge" (The occult) is, according to the Church, astrology and nothing more.

I am also suggesting that ancient astrology originated from an advanced race of humans or aliens who lived on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. These people knew about the solar system and that the earth went around the sun and was not flat.




Okay, if that is what you do, that is your choice, but you need not justify to me why you delve into the occult. I am not going to condemn to to hell for it, although some churches might.



I am suggesting that Christianity is a blending of the religious beliefs at that time to include pagan sun worship.



One can come to their own conclusions on that. I see enough similarity that I find it a very good possibility that Christianity is a blending of different religions. I am not married to any religion that I cannot consider the possibility.

JB

i like hysterical jokes majik man, i find no proofs of man evolving from monkeys, lemurs, or any other mammals, i don't believe man evolved on this planet at all. I refuse to think inside the box of mans knowledge or attained intellegence as it stands now, in my opinion man was much smarter when he arrived here and through time has devolved not evolved. I believe we are from somewhere else. where? i won't say as of now. sciences truths to me are as bad as religious truths are to others. neither is correct. so i will continue to look elsewhere for answers. my only reason for posting as i did was to say what I'm saying now. you are wrong. though you'll never see it, just as religions are wrong and will never see it either. your religion is science, have fun with it believe it all you want, be my guest, but its wrong in many areas. and no don't bother - I'm not going to debate you on this, i know your intellegence is superior to mine in that field, you would win the war of words for sure. i'm not into lots of words i'm into finding truths, real truths don't even need words to explain them or defend them - they just are.

That is an interesting possibility. It smacks of the advanced race of beings who existed before the legendary Adam and Eve.

I read somewhere about some bones of a modern man unearthed that predated primitive man. I wish I knew where I read that.

But you could be right about that idea too. Science has it problems and it only relates to what we observe in this holographic matrix.. it is based on observation.

What if we are observing it all wrong?

Gaps?

That's a creationists wet dream.

It's not necessarily to show precisely how every little detail evolved in order to know that evolution took place.

The evidence that life on Earth slowly evolved from primitive species to more complexed species is overwhelming. So much so that to suggest it didn't happen that way is truly naïve, especially in face of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

You look at scientific knowledge and claim there are Gaps. But that's superficial nonsense.

And to what end? So that you can suggest that a totally inconsistent mythology is true.

It's clear that this is only motivation to want to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence that evolution did indeed occur.

You'd rather believe in a mythology that has our creator at war with a demonic fallen angel. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever.

You'd rather believe that our creator just coincidently happens to require blood sacrifices to appease it, just like every other manmade myth on the planet. What's the probability of that happening? Basically zilch.

You'd rather believe that a supposedly all-wise, all-loving, all-perfect God would ask people to stone each other to death after it had already commanded them not to kill? Your God would need to be extremely inconsistent and unstable to have done that. Yet there it is, in black & white, (carved in stone as they say), in the very words that you came belong to this supposedly stable unchanging deity.

You can believe in a doctrine that is a totally oxymoronic in it's description of a deity. Yet, you can't believe in scientific evidence that is indisputable? You claim it has 'gaps'?

You can believe in a God who so loved the world that he drowned out all but a handful of people. Not only did he drown all the innocent newborn babies, but he even downed out the entire animals kingdom as well according to these absurdly silly stories. That kind of act doesn't sounds like an all-wise, all-powerful God.

There are huge logical GAPS in that story.

For example, if this God is supposed to be a fatherly-figure why didn't he provide better mentoring for the people of planet earth instead of having them play guessing games? If he were a human father he's be up on charges of child abuse for neglect.

Also, why not nip it in the bud? Why not just give heart attacks to the evil people so that the good people aren't corrupted by them? After all, if he can intervene to cure cancer, or help someone obtain a job, surely he could give sinners heart attacks. After all they were supposedly having sex like crazy. He could have given them heart attacks and no one would have even known that it was divine intervention.

By not nipping it in the bud and carrying out his own law that sinners must pay the penalty of death for their sins, he just sat by and allowed the whole bowl of apples to go rotten. Not much of a father. Clearly these stories can't be true because there are huge GAPS between what they claim God is like, and what they portray God to actually be like via the stories they tell.

It's full of logical GAPS via gross inconsitences.

The Bible says that God is unchanging, yet Jesus was a completely different persona than the God of Abraham. They supported wildly different philosophical notions. Jesus said to love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, and don't stone people to death, in fact don't even JUDGE them! You certainly can't be stoning "sinners" to death if you aren't allowed to judge them to be sinners.

This is completely opposite to the persona of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham said to hate your neighbor if they don't worship him! In fact, he even said that it is your duty to take up the sword and murder non-believers and destroy their entire villages, including all the women, children, and even their pets and livestock! Leaven nothing! Burn all their physical possessions to the ground and never build on that spot again. Jesus would be totally appalled if anyone did this! Clearly Jesus and the God of Abraham had extremely different philosophies on how people should behave.

You talk about supposed 'gaps' in science yet the mythology that you're trying to sell is completely full of holes.

It's no wonder they call it the Holey Bible.

And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up the divine claims of these outrageously inconsistent myths. You claim to what more 'proof' that evolution actually happened and until then you're going to believe in something that is totally absurd and clearly impossible to be true.

It's clearly impossible to be true because it constantly claims that God has a specific character but then tells stories that reveal just the opposite. It claims that God is unchanging, yet it contains stories where its God has a complete personality transplant.

It has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true via it's own self-inconsistencies.

And there is not one iota of evidence whatsoever for it's claim of divine origins

Not one shred of evidence for it's claim of divinity. All it has to offer is it's own unsupported claims within the myth itself.

Claiming that some of the cities, people, and worldly events that are described in the bible can be shown to have actually historically occurred does not support it's claims of divinity or divine intervention. All mythologies are based on some real events. Those real events and situations are what give men the ideas to make up these incredulous stories. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support divine intervention or divine inspiration.

In fact, the self-inconsistencies in the stories are self-proof that it can't be the divine word of an all-supreme perfect creator because an all-supreme perfect creator wouldn't have been inconsistent in it's behavior and messages. So it has truly proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it can't possibly be true.

You have absolutely indisputable proof that the biblical account of God can't possible be true simply because a truly all-wise, all-perfect God would not have behaved in such an inconsistent manner as the Bible describes. You have PROOF that it can't be true right in the book itself. No need to even look outside of it to see that it's a totally manmade fallacy.

Trying to dismiss science just because it doesn't have a completely formulated explanation for every single little detail of precisely how every species evolved from the previous one, and then turning around and supporting a mythology that is utterly full of holes is truly an absurd position to be taking Eljay.

Seriously, if that's your stance there isn't much sense in even conversing with you at all because you clearly want to support your favorite mythology at all cost no matter how unreasonable you need to be to argue for it.

i'd be very intetrested in reading that JB, if you can find it again i'd be very grateful.

JB:

What if we are observing it all wrong?

tribo:

i believe we are observing it all wrong, thats why im writing on such. I don't mean to put down science or religion per se, but as you state - it's in the observation that is wrong. One has to try as much as possible to put away known concepts before they can start thinking of what else may be true. Til one does they are trapped by whatever predominant ideas abound within their existance.

your thinking inside science Eljay, there is no quote- "time travel" - those who come here come little distance at all. It is merely a trip to the bathroom so to say. Einstein got some things right and somethings wrong just as every other scientist that has followed. No matter what cult you join, or follow after, when you do, you then limit what is or is not possible. Some times alot some times a little. that's the problem when people put themselves or trap themselves in widely held beliefs. Thats why i write on what i write in book of truths.

37)" If you were to play the three or four year old’s game of WHY? With the greatest scientific minds of today in every field of study, eventually they would all reach a point where they would have to admit “ they didn’t know” ALL the why’s or how’s of things studied. This is because outside of what is readily knowable of something at any given point in this space and time, the rest of science is based on theoretical conjecture, hypothesis , and a great deal of what I call - accidental science - DUMB LUCK. Will they, can they, do they guess rightly at times? Yes of course they do. Just as all of us would in our own fields of endeavor if given enough time, chances, and allowed to make enough attempts, most everyone would eventually guess correctly at some things or occasionally happen upon something by dumb luck. But to think or expect that we are ever going to know the macro and micro of those things studied is absurd.

Until mankind learns how to properly approach the study of things he desires answers to in a correct way, and applies core logic and reasoning,that are not based on things known or developed by man, to his search for real answers at the beginning of his search, without any preconceived ideas of what he wishes to find, he will continue to play the role of intellectual educated fool.

This is true about "time travel."

In truth, there is no travel because there is no time. All that exists exist in the present moment. There is no space, so there can be no real travel. All is created and perceived by the mind. That includes time and space.

Just like when you dream. You create space and you walk through it. In reality, that space does not exist. You see mountains, and objects in that dream reality. That does not exist but is a manifestation of your mind.

This reality is manifested in the same way. It is a dream reality we call real only because of its duration and clarity and because of our collective agreement that it exists and we are in it.

JB

one of the few that get it -

In various discussions of reality, religion, life, existence,etc. I have found there are many different levels of thought and it gets confusing to people because some people speak from within the box of the agreement of reality (space-time, science, observation etc.) and then others speak from their own conclusions,religious belief, imagination etc.)

This is where misunderstanding is created. What is considered truth on one level is not considered truth on another level. What is considered fact can change with new information and new agreements.

So what is the ultimate purpose of all the discussion? Is it so that we as individuals can feel comfortable in our own skin and with our own existence by the false assumption that we know the truth?

I have said this before and I seem to keep returning to this conclusion. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

And I have also concluded that the only thing we can be sure of is that we exist. I have concluded that the only thing real in this reality is my own existence and yours. And I can't be 100% certain about yours.

May the force be with you all and may you learn to use it.

JB

gee thanks.

But I'm not sure I fully understand it.

OK! So, as I promised, I will do my best to put this first piece you propose, 'Antique egyptian era', in what I understand to be its historical context.

We will then be able to debate, discuss or otherwise toss around, the actual religious concepts you have submitted above within the historical context inside which I suggest they existed. (IN MY WILDEST DREAMS!!!)

The first thing to be clear about when discussing such topic, is the 'source', the starting point.
'Who' said 'What', and 'When' did they say 'it'.

Doesn't mean it is always accurate, but at least it organises the dicscussion from a 'here is what we know to be accurate' from the 'here is what we suspect, and are not certain to be accurate' pragmatic grid.

Sort of separating science from myths.

And on that point, we pose the follow-up question which arises when asking 'what do we mean by religion in Egypt???'

Do we mean the first possible interpretation, attributed to the american sociologist, J.B. Pratt, for whom religion is a social attitude, taken most seriously, by individuals, or groups, confronted by the power, or powers, which they are convinced, end up disposing of their interests and destinies???

Pratt distinguishes certain circumstances, the knowledge of which he suggests, will help with the understanding of 'RELIGIOUS FACTS'.

You see what happens here J.B.??? We're actually setting some parameters to hold the infamous discussion to which we invited ourselves. (MUCH TOO ORDERLY AND COHERENT A CONCEPT FOR THESE THREADS, BUT WHAT THE HELL!!!)

Coming 'from' the myth itself, will never give us a perspective from which to understand the myth in itself.

A bit like a superstition is never a superstition for the person for whom it is ONE!!!

To understand the superstition, you must take a step back from it, and consider it in a larger, and broader context.

It all starts with a simple question: 'WHY I AM SO CONVINCED THAT IT IS SO??? IS IT REALLY SO??? WHY I AM SO DETERMINED TO FIND OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS THOUGH THERE WERE ANS ANSWER??? LET'S TAKE A HARD LOOK???'

Back to Pratt's 'circumstances', he proposes 4 of them.

1) Intellectual: Knowledge and understanding of dominant forces
2) Emotional: The sentiment of dependence between the actions dictated by either the intelectual or emotional domains
3) Social: a social implication, religion being a community affair.

So, the analysis of religion of a civilization must deduct the facts, according to Pratt, must deduct the facts, taking in consideration the perspectives of TOUGHT (THINGKING), PIETY (DEVOTION), RITUALS AND MORALE.

What jumps up from this approach, is that this grid of criteria doesn't just define the domain of religion, but the much larger dmain of society in general.

As we see on these very forums J.B., a world obsessed by a totalitarian layman's view, or scientific bias, as we know it, is not necessarily distinguished by the grid that Pratt proposes. In either case, we could say that there is an intellectual conviction of the 'existence' of natural forces from which human destiny depends, corrolated to a strong commun effort to control those forces from a pure human will!!!

So on this forum, like elswhere in life the fundamental question is: 'HOW DO SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIFFER???'.

From a pragmatic standpoint, which is the perspective chosen for THIS dicussion (FORGET IT!!!), the only effective distinction resides in the FORM we attribute to the power or powers to which humanity and the universe in which it exists, are subjected to.

In the case of science, the powers take the shape of numbers,
... whereas for religion,
the shapes of the power(s) are characters (superhumans and humans), suited with attributes, and very human and emotional qualities, all impossible to measure (numbers), and held together inside the construct of myths.

So given that 'myths' and 'numbers' are the only useful distinctions, to tell the religions apart form other social and phenomenons, we will have to keep this heterogeneous notion in mind all the way through our exploration.

Like water of different densities, where it looks as though it is together, the different 'bodies' never mixe! Likewise, numbers and myths, facts and faith, DON'T MIX. It's the fundamental distinction between the two bodies!

It took Pratt, analysing egyptian history, to arrive at this pragmatic distinction between science (numbers/facts), and religion (faith/myths).

By no means do we master this distinction in everyday life, as demonstrated profusely by the different discussions on these forums, but the working distinction has been made, and is practiced by the communities which matter on both sides of the question. (else where than in these forums)

From that perpective, we will agree that egyptian religion, like all others, must be looked at from its mythical and superstitious realities, and not from an angle of numbers and first degree facts.
While it might be fact that such and such 'periods' held such and such beliefs, the beliefs themselves are never facts!!!

That distinction is indispensable if we want to account specifically for that which is 'religious' in antique Egypt.

It is only in that context that we can assert correctly that egyptian religion was essentially a social phenomenon: an instrument through which egyptians demonstrated their collective 'will' to not be at the effect of nature (nature's wrath), and their determination to integrate instead, with nature.

This in turn, points to the profound difference between mainstream religions concepts, and the egyptian religion concept.
It is most generally accepted that we are no longer obcessed by the imminence of destruction (fear of wrath), the fonfding premise of egyptian religion.

Quite to the contrary, the defining will of our era is one of transforming, whereas egyptian religion concentrated all its efforts toward integration with that which existed (conservation vs transformation).

Thinking of the discussions which take place on these forums, I feel the 'egyptian heritage' and mindset hasn't completely dissappeared!!!

More to come on the Egyptian era later (truly the founding antique blocks of our western civilization and historical mindset).

In the meantime I leave you with a Wiki defintion of its principal and definitive 'story teller', HERODOTUS.








Herodotus (see below) had already defined the Egyptianas the most religious of all men, and modern science has done little else tan confirm that. Enventhough this religious attitude was a fundamental caracteristic of a particular stage of the development of humanity, and could be witnessed elshwere, art history has helped us establish that 'egyptian religion' generated the largest number of specialised works, the most written 'exposés', and the most overwhelming number of popular treatises.

From WIKI:
'... Herodotus of Halicarnassus (Greek: Ἡρόδοτος Ἁλικαρνᾱσσεύς Hēródotos Halikarnāsseús) was a Greek historian who lived in the 5th century BC (c. 484 BC–c. 425 BC) and is regarded as the "Father of History" in Western culture.

He was the first historian to collect his materials systematically, test their accuracy to a certain extent and arrange them in a well-constructed and vivid narrative.[1] He is almost exclusively known for writing The Histories, a record of his "inquiries" (or ἱστορίαι, a word that passed into Latin and took on its modern connotation of history) into the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars which occurred in 490 and 480-479 BC—especially since he includes a narrative account of that period, which would otherwise be poorly documented, and many long digressions concerning the various places and peoples he encountered during wide-ranging travels around the lands of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Although some of his stories are not completely accurate, he states that he is only reporting what has been told to him.

Opinions

Herodotus's invention earned him the twin titles "The Father of History", first conferred by Cicero, and "The Father of Lies".[4] As these epithets imply, there has long been a debate—at least from the time of Cicero's On the Laws (Book 1, paragraph 5)—concerning the veracity of his tales and, more importantly, the extent to which he knew himself to be creating fabrications. Every manner of argument has surfaced on this subject, from a devious and consciously-fictionalizing Herodotus to a gullible Herodotus whose sources "saw him coming a long way off".[citation needed]

Criticisms of Herodotus

There are many cases in which Herodotus, not certain of the truth of a certain event or unimpressed by the dull "facts" that he received, reported the several most famous accounts of a given subject or process and then wrote what he believed was the most probable. Although The Histories were often criticized in antiquity for bias, inaccuracy and plagiarism—Claudius Aelianus attacked Herodotus as a liar in Verae Historiae and went as far as to deny him a place among the famous on the Island of the Blessed—this methodology has been seen in a more positive light by many modern historians and philosophers, especially those searching for a paradigm of objective historical writing. Of course, given the sensitivity surrounding the issue, the very foundation of the discipline of history, this has not become a common view; attacks have been made by various scholars in modern times, a few even arguing that Herodotus exaggerated the extent of his travels and invented his sources.[5]

Discoveries made since the end of the 19th century have helped greatly to restore Herodotus's reputation. The archaeological study of the now-submerged ancient Egyptian city of Heracleion and recovery of the so-called "Naucratis stela" give extensive credibility to Herodotus's previously unsupported claim that Heracleion was founded under the Egyptian New Kingdom. Because of this recent increase in respect for his accuracy, as well as the quality and content of his observations, Herodotus is now recognized as a pioneer not only in history but in ethnography[6] and anthropology...'



REMEMBER IN GOING THROUGH THIS,

'... SLOW DOWN, IN ORDER TO GO FASTER!!!' ... an ancient ZEN paradox!!!

or as I answered to TRIBO:

'... aren't we all spinning our wheels anyway???'


In reading the different 'off topic' posts on this thread, and useless to say I have given up all intent of managing it, I am reminded that saying (forget the author):

'... chaos is beautiful! ... and absolute chaos is bliss!!! Trying to 'fix it', understand it, avoid it, change it, is the expression of man's stupidity, and his ultimate downfall!!!'

Well, I work for a union that mandates that a break be taken after three hours of work. I'm never "exhausted" or in need of this "rest" - I just take it. So for you to assume that I take this break because of these reasons is to READ this into your interpretation. You see rest as a result of being exhausted. To me - it is also an indisation of simply having completed something - and not exclusively a result of physical exertion.




No one has the free choice to not starve if there is no food available - so I guess that would include babies now - wouldn't it.



Of course the child could thrash around and pull out the I.V. But here - you are forcing the will of someone stronger and able to control the actions of the child. If I held a gun to your head and strongly requested you to do whatever - I would say that "I'm changing the rules" to your freedom of choice, eH. You could always chose to be shot. So - coming up with the exception does not prove the rule.

back up a little to the discussion on man being put here G, I believe and have for some time that man is from elsewhere, which i will not discuss on here, but when he was placed here he brought with him all the knowledge from where he was originally, those things included the ability to create life from substance found here - we are not part of the so called evolution we are the cause for that which exist, we created what had and now flourishes here. not the other way around. then we had the means to return to where we came from at will, now we have mostly lost that. if there were floods and cataclysmic events we mainly missed those things by not being present, when thing became more stable we stayed and thrived.

As to religions i believe we also brought with us the concept of our former beliefs which were of a singular creative force, this view was in time diminished by mans lack of knowledge as time proceeded here and man became less interested and non responsive to things of this like. till we have ended up as we are now, not knowing anything as it once was. A recent example of this can be seen as the so called dark ages as to what was accomplished by earlier civilizations before that time such as the egytian,roman,greek,and others - that is a good comparison i believe.

man has lost his initial ability to create from substance and is just now attemting to revive this lost art - but is so far away from it yet that only little progress is bieng made. This will change when we re-learn what we have originally lost, but this will not come thru science.