Evolution or Creationism

[Ceannairceach]

You have a right to your own beliefs, I personally believe in Creationism.

Why? On what basis?

[Jedi8246]

Creatolution is the only way to go!!!

[Ceannairceach]

Creatolution is the only way to go!!!

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

[Abdju]

present me with a god, with a definition, including their influence, if he/she/it has/had any, on the universe, life, humanity, ect.
like I have said before "god" is such an amorphous term that it requires a definition for logical discussion.
This also cuts down on the "thats not the kind of god I'm talking about" game.

OK. I am a Heliopolitan Egyptian Recon. The pantheon is massive, but we can essentially break it down into three kinds of gods:

1. Ra as supreme/creator god (according to Heliopolitan creation myth as narrated in the “Monologue of Ra” of Papyrus Bremner-Rhind BM10188)

2. Celestial Gods. That is, the other gods of the pantheon who were, according to the Heliopolitan school, not involved in the act of creation, but who nonetheless are divine beings with supernatural powers. (e.g. Shu, Tefnut)

3. Earthly Gods. Gods of the royal pantheon who ruled on Earth in corporeal form. Almost always Pharaohs, but there are some who were not. (e.g. Ahmose I, Amunhotep I, Amunhotep-sa-Hapu)

If we stick to these three definitions as being fairly clear, then we should have no confusion as to who/what we are talking about. So, let us discuss what each is claimed by the religion to have done, and how these claims are regarded by myself. It should be borne in mind here that there is no absolute modern authority on modern Heliopolitan thought (i.e. there is no “official church line” akin to the Vatican for Roman Catholicism). I am speaking for myself and how I personally interpret and follow the religion, to the best of my ability.

Ra as Supreme God
Ra is ascribed power above and beyond that of all other gods in the pantheon. His powers are not limitless, and are given as changing over time. Prior to the act of creation, neither Ra nor any other life existed, but the potential for it did. Ra, thus, did not create the potential for life, but rather set about realising that potential.

It was I who came into being as Khepri. When I came into being, being came into being.

The existent was split from the non-existence, the creation of the cosmos, including Ra as the first being. Thus, from this I conclude that though Ra is indeed as old as the universe, He is not eternal, and neither is the cosmos. Egyptian texts are explicitly stated as not being literal in interpretation (see the original scribal annotations to the so-called book of the dead, which attempt to interpret certain passages), and I personally interpret the physical act of creation itself as being the Big Bang.

Similarly, Ra, along with Osiris, is mentioned to be the last two beings to survive to the end of the cosmos. This is explicitly stated in the so-called “Book of the Dead”, which is not, strictly speaking, a purely Heliopolitan text, but it was (and is) used by all Egyptian theological schools of thought.

The Earth will return to Nun, to endless flood as in it’s first state. I (Ra) shall remain with Osiris, after I have transformed myself into another snake, which men do not know, and gods do not see.

Nun is the state of non-existence, as already described. It is visualised in Egyptian myth as a primordial ocean. Given that by definition this condition harbours no life, and the serpent is an ambiguous state between existence and non-existence in Egyptian meta-language, it is accepted by myself (and also by the academic community) that this is the nearest thing to an explicit statement permissible in Egyptian culture that not only will the cosmos eventually end, but that doing so will necessitate the reduction of Ra back to the state of potential but unrealised existence. This is not explicitly stated (i.e "It is dead") is due to a taboo in Egyptian culture. I personally interpret this physical event as the Big Crunch scenario for the ultimate fate of the cosmos.

Ra is stated as having created the first generation of the lesser gods, and well as the land and animals, including humans.

When 22 I came into being, 'Being' I came into being, and all beings came into being after I came into being

They brought back to me mine Eye with them after I had united my members; I wept over them, and that is how men came into being I from the tears which came forth from mine Eye.

Again, it is important to stress that we are not talking in literal terms, but rather a visualisation of a series of events. My interpretation of the text is that the existence of gods and animal life predates the existence of humans, and that though the gods were directly created, and thus descended from Ra, Earthly life is not the result of a direct action, but rather something that was desired, and was introduced to Earth by mundane means, through abiogenesis and evolution. The existence of humans was the result of a separate will, and brought about likewise through natural processes.

As for direct interactions with humankind, the Book of the Celestial Cow details this. To quote the whole text would be impractical, but a somewhat lacking summary can be seen here.

To cut a long story medium length, Ra rules a united dominion, as King both on Earth and in the celestial realm. He grows old, his body turning into precious materials (skin of gold, bones of silver, hair of lapis lazuli), and more distanced from His earthly subjects. The humans rebel. Ra consults with a council of the gods and seeks advice from Nun itself, before deciding to sends his eye (i.e. his active agency, in the form of Sekhmet) to Earth to slaughter humankind. Upon realising the scale of the slaughter, Ra has a change of heart, but is unable to stop Sekhmet. He orders his priests on earth to flood the land with a blood red coloured beer. Sekhmet believes it to be blood and drinks it, falls into a drunken stupor and wakes up happy as peaceful Hathor. The gods and loyal humans urge Ra to retain His Earthly throne, and the loyal humans attempt to hunt down and kill the remaining rebels ot persuade Him, but Ra elects to withdraw to the sky and delegate some of His role on Earth to the minor gods.

The text is somewhat esoteric and it only appears in Royal tomb texts, never private. Numerous interpretations have been made of it, both religiously inspired and purely academic. My personal view is to go with a simple interpretation. Much as in the Dynastic period in Egypt, when Horus reigned on Earth through a shared incarnate divinity with the reigning Pharaoh, then a similar political situation existed in one of the pre Naqada III polities with Ra,and that a war/rebellion brought that period to an end. The common phrase in Egyptian text referring to the "Time of Ra" lends some support to the idea that Horus has not always been the prime celestial deity involved in the Kingship, and it is historically known that in the 2nd Dynasty, the situation briefly changed, and Set briefly usurped the role of Horus (link). Gods and politics, always interesting... I did actually write a paper on the possible role of Ra in Early Dynastic state ideology utilising Kahl's work on Early Dynastic elite and Royal names. I'd quote from it if I could my laptop sorted out

Celestial Gods
Nothing particularly exciting here. I believe I've already covered the main issue, that their existence is, in my interpretation, down to the direct actions of Ra. They are, for all intents and purposes, His bloodline descendent, His children, for want of a better term. Being celestial, like Ra, they do not act directly upon the physical world, except through taking using a physical vessel such as an icon. Horus, as we have already discussed, did have a semi-permanent presence on Earth by sharing the incarnate body of the Royal gods, and that it is my personal interpretation that Ra previously did the same. Other than that, the Celestial Gods wield power only indirectly, and do not generally involve themselves particularly heavily in human affairs on Earth, except in limited cases where they have a clearly defined role, such as Thoth, Hapi etc.

Their role is more significant in my beliefs concerning the afterlife, but that is a long and mostly separate issue we can discuss if you so wish.

Earthly Gods
This is rather more interesting, and is one of the more unusual parts of Egyptian religion that doesn't really have a very close analogue in others, though some would compare Jesus, when one gets into details it doesn't really compare that well.

Firstly, many of the earthly gods are known to us from history. Names like Ahmose I (after Ra, He is the most important god in my own personal faith), Ramesses II, Thutmose III are all very well known. It gives us the frankly rather overwhelming situation of actually coming, quite literally, face to face with the gods. In this respect, there is also the situation that their existence isn't really in question. All of the those I just listed have direct physical remains, right here on Earth. This also makes the question of their impact and interaction with humans rather straightforward, as we have proof of thir actions, which can be attributed directly to them beyond any reasonable doubt. Unlike the others, during earthly life they have less need for icons, having a direct corporeal form. When that form dies, then they in effect are celestial gods. Like them, they are in the direct service of Ra, and like them, they require icons to have any more direct interaction with or impact upon earthly matters.

[Coccygia]

Creatolution is the only way to go!!!

Sounds like something George W. Bush might have said.

[Jedi8246]

Creatolution is the only way to go!!!

Sounds like something George W. Bush might have said.

I somewhat doubt it. Bush probably believed in Creationism though I'm not sure.

[Farnhamia]

Sounds like something George W. Bush might have said.

I somewhat doubt it. Bush probably believed in Creationism though I'm not sure.

Probably. He did endorse "teaching the controversy" back '05, though.

[Coccygia]

Sounds like something George W. Bush might have said.

I somewhat doubt it. Bush probably believed in Creationism though I'm not sure.

Oh, I'm sure he did, but he would have pronounced it "Creatolution".

[Jedi8246]

Creatolution is the only way to go!!!

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

[Innsmothe]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

The Christian God is evil and is dead.
Worship the true gods damn you.

[Abdju]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

Damn it. If I knew you could defend your position just by posting a torrent of links to dubious websites, I wouldn't have bothered, you know, actually writing something and checking the original source material...

[Farnhamia]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

Thank you, I especially like the Pennock article, and I urge everyone who believes in Intelligent Design to read it.

[Norstal]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

Your own links betray you.

[Ceannairceach]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

Pretty much, but read the first one. Robert Pennock writes delightfully on the ID movement and the attempts to get creationism past the science classroom doors.

[Jedi8246]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

It does actually, because evolution is basically stating that the current state of things evolved from previous life. The argument that everything has to come from something fits rather well. Where did evolution begin? With the Big bang. And the Big Bang came from God.

[Jedi8246]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

Your own links betray you.

How so?

[The Large Steel Lords]

You have a right to your own beliefs, I personally believe in Creationism.

Why? On what basis?

I cannot speak for the writer of the post you were quoting, but I accept Creation based on the same abductive logic used by evolutionists before any examination of evidence. You see, many of the evidences used for evolution (such as similarities between species, or the popularly labeled and libeled fossil record) can also be used as evidences for a single Intelligent Designer. For example, let's take a single blacksmith. He may make many different tools and weapons, but a blacksmith is known not by the items he makes for sale but by the tools he makes for himself. A blacksmith would realize a need for a tool with a specific function and make that tool using his own skills. A person who knows blacksmiths would be able to attribute a specific tool to a specific blacksmith because every tool that blacksmith makes would be made using similar shapes and methods from tool to tool, coming up with very unique items made using similar pieces. Likewise, an intelligent Designer would use similar parts to make entirely unique species.

Abductive logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a form of logic which makes a single, general observation:

There is a wide variety of unique things on the earth.

Then we make an assumption. Atheists make the assumption that there is no God, and therefore come to the conclusion that some mechanism of nature would have to explain the variety, which we now know as evolution. Christians and other theists make the assumption that there has to be a God, thus we come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

My further reasoning is that I believe that both atheism and theism require faith. Both theism and atheism have no ability to prove or disprove several facets of their beliefs:

Atheism:
Cannot answer the question of origins from a cosmological standpoint. Either matter had to always exist and the universe is not expanding, or else the universe is expanding and there was a point when no matter existed. Either way you have a problem. The former opinion has a problem with the Expanding Universe Theory, while the latter has a problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
The atheist "god of the gaps" theory is that of vacuum energy, an unmeasurable, unobservable and ultimately unprovable theory.
Cannot disprove the existence of God

Theism:
Cannot prove the existence of God thus resulting in a god of the gaps theory.


While there are points for and against both, I believe in putting my faith in a belief which will provide purpose. If there truly is no God, then there is no purpose for me to be here, and therefore I am nothing, as was the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, if God is real, then there is hope, there is purpose, and there is a reason to live.

Yes, my belief is not scientific, but it is not illogical, irrational, nor unfounded.

[Farnhamia]

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

It does actually, because evolution is basically stating that the current state of things evolved from previous life. The argument that everything has to come from something fits rather well. Where did evolution begin? With the Big bang. And the Big Bang came from God.

Nope. Evolution is only the explanation of how life develops. It says nothing about how life arose. So, no. You really ought to read up on subjects before attempting to describe them.

[Ceannairceach]

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

It does actually, because evolution is basically stating that the current state of things evolved from previous life. The argument that everything has to come from something fits rather well. Where did evolution begin? With the Big bang. And the Big Bang came from God.

One can believe that the BBT is wrong while still believing in evolution. They are exclusive topics. Theoretically, evolution began when life formed. Life was not formed with the big bang.

Also, because I'm in a shitty mood; there is no proof of god either.

[Avenio]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf

Will read this and critique it later Upon being informed of the actual contents of the article by Farnhamia and further reading on my part, this isn't even proof of god nor evidence, its a critique of ID. Regardless, a Google search about Stephen Meyer (The author) and the subject suggests that his work on the subject leaves a large amount to be desired. Note how the first criticism of the work is from a Christian.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Blargh. Point one is an argument from incredulity. And not a very convincing one at that. Cursory scans of the articles on the habitable zone and alternate biochemistries poke some large holes in it. Add Douglas Adams' puddle analogy and it's really not very convincing. Later goes on about the eyes and the human brain, which I'll leave to the evidence already presented in the thread and to people much more qualified than I. Second argument is best debunked by this article. Third is a natural-law argument. Fourth is an argument from incredulity with a dash of argument from ignorance for seasoning. A scan of Wikipedia's introduction to genetics and the RNA world hypothesis as well as associated alternative theories is more than sufficient to sink it. Five and sixth are evangelism, not proof.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

Irreducible complexity. Re-hashed watchmaker fallacy.

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument

Re-hash of earlier cosmological argument. Not convincing.

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-argument-from-contingency

Arguments from contingency are similarly unfulfilling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

There's more than enough criticism and debate among philosophers to put in question the idea that this is 'proof' of god.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Again, another cosmological argument. See above.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf

Will read this and critique it later, but a Google search about Stephen Meyer (The author) and the subject suggests that his work on the subject leaves a large amount to be desired. Note how the first criticism of the work is from a Christian.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Blargh. Point one is an argument from incredulity. And not a very convincing one at that. Cursory scans of the articles on the habitable zone and alternate biochemistries poke some large holes in it. Add Douglas Adams' puddle analogy and it's really not very convincing. Later goes on about the eyes and the human brain, which I'll leave to the evidence already presented in the thread and to people much more qualified than I. Second argument is best debunked by this article. Third is a natural-law argument. Fourth is an argument from incredulity with a dash of argument from ignorance for seasoning. A scan of Wikipedia's introduction to genetics and the RNA world hypothesis as well as associated alternative theories is more than sufficient to sink it. Five and sixth are evangelism, not proof.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

Irreducible complexity. Re-hashed watchmaker fallacy.

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument

Re-hash of earlier cosmological argument. Not convincing.

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-argument-from-contingency

Arguments from contingency are similarly unfulfilling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

There's more than enough criticism and debate among philosophers to put in question the idea that this is 'proof' of god.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Again, another cosmological argument. See above.

That first one isn't by Meyer, it's about him. It's very good.

[Avenio]

That first one isn't by Meyer, it's about him. It's very good.

Huh. That's weird; why he would post a critique of Meyers' evidence for ID as a 'proof' of god is beyond me. Edit en-route to clarify. I do suppose that's what I get for skimming the article quickly.

[Farnhamia]

That first one isn't by Meyer, it's about him. It's very good.

Huh. That's weird; why he would post a critique of Meyers' evidence for ID as a 'proof' of god is beyond me. Edit en-route to clarify. I do suppose that's what I get for skimming the article quickly.

I think he just went by title.

[Norstal]

Your own links betray you.

How so?

The first link clearly states that ID is not scientific.