Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[Ridge Runner]

Reminiscent of the unit I was in in S.Carolina. We'd be in a formation marching somewhere and everyone was actually in-step, but one Marine "weaved" differently. If only the upper bodies were observed it appeared that he was out of step but watching the feet, everyone was in-step. The person marching us would get upset and yell to get in-step to which the Marine would respond that he WAS in-step. He just swayed differently when he walked.
The conversation is reminiscent of marching in that formation- but don't try to carry the analogy beyond a distant memory.

LOL....

We didn't march much, mainly PT formations. What very few dress parades we attended the enlisted would stay in step. The officers on the hand, was a comical different story. Thus the command round step march, or double time would be given.

 

[cwpayton]

A mother attends her son's graduation from basic training. As they march, she remarks "Oh look, everyone's out of step except my Johnny". There are millions of Johnnies carrying bibles and this thread is a testament to that.

Brillant statement, its clear you have much to contribute to the discussion about the age of the earth, please dont hold back , maybe you could explain the building technic of the paramids in egypt or reveal their purpose and function.

 

[cwpayton]

That is absolutely not true. First of all, that is not how the scientific method works. Secondly, your homework assignment is to look into the writings of geologists such as Kenneth B. Miller, Davis A. Young, and Adam Sedgwick. There are many others. Then there are the paleontologists such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (discovered Peking Man), Mary Anning, Robert Bakker (former curator of the Houston Museum of Natural History and an ordained ecumenical Pentecostal minister -he must host some fascinating church discussions), Ken Campbell, and Mary Higby Schweitzer who discovered soft dinosaur tissue and who has often defended her both her faith and understanding of old earth against the modern uneducated young earth acolytes.

"OF course if your mind is locked in, then , theres no debate"

That statement actually captures my point with respect to biblical literalists almost perfectly. How can one have a debate when the only evidence offered by literalists is the BIBLE, as they interpret it - or don't confuse me with three hundred years of scientific research.

With respect to geologic folds and strata in the Grand Canyon or anywhere else, this pre-geology 101 sort of information. They are formed by deep substrata pressure, colliding tectonic plates, and layers of both volcanic and sedimentary layers. Other than sediment the strata have nothing to do with surface activity such as floods. This is not an opinion.

Grand Canyon’s Three Sets of Rocks (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Cmon General ,you can do better than the "national parks " reference for data . , not giving homework assignments either just ,references of which Dr Donald DeYoung and Dr Henry Morris would be preeminent.
SO my question is was man created or did he evolve from some other animal, and if so where did that animal come from? I suppose that part of Genesis is also up to the national park service to explain.

 

[Aaron N]

 

[Red Leg]

Cmon General ,you can do better than the "national parks " reference for data . , not giving homework assignments either just ,references of which Dr Donald DeYoung and Dr Henry Morris would be preeminent.
SO my question is was man created or did he evolve from some other animal, and if so where did that animal come from? I suppose that part of Genesis is also up to the national park service to explain.

Tried to provide you with something basic. This really is not debatable geologic history. A host of far more detailed explanations are at your fingertips via google.

Man was created through the miracle of evolution. The precise development of humans to our current Cro-Magnon form is still being mapped, but the development itself really isn't a questionable scientific theory any longer. At some point in the process, the creator gave us the means to understand our existence - our life and eventual death. That is an awareness no other species on the planet has.

To me, whether that was two specific individuals who first gained that awareness or a gradual understanding by our species is irrelevant. The majesty is God's intelligent design is at work in either case.

I find it particularly compelling that we have found Neanderthal remains (not even our same species) from 40,000 years ago where burials were completed with the inclusion of artifacts - a clear anticipation of an afterlife and God's clear influence on our developing perception of something beyond the physical now.

I simply find it the height of ignorance and arrogance to reject the burgeoning evidence of a far broader and more complex design of creation than that of a 16th century literalist interpretation of the Bible. After all, if God is in fact God, should we be surprised that his design for our world is somewhat more complex than what men could comprehend through their cultural stories 3500 years ago.

 

[Ray B]

the creator gave us the means to understand our existence - our life and eventual death. That is an awareness no other species on the planet has.

I disagree on the point that the individual has an awareness of its impending death is unique to humans. Having grown-up in the meat business from ranch to killfloor to retail, While I couldn't know what the animals were thinking, it was clear, particularly with the older bulls, that they would have preferred to have been elsewhere.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Brillant statement, its clear you have much to contribute to the discussion about the age of the earth, please dont hold back , maybe you could explain the building technic of the paramids in egypt or reveal their purpose and function.

From perplexity, hope this helps.

how were the pyramids built​

The pyramids were built by highly organized Egyptian work crews, not by magic or aliens. The best-supported explanation is that stone blocks were quarried, moved by sledges and boats, then hauled up ramps and placed with ropes, levers, and skilled planning.

How it worked​

• Quarrying: Workers cut limestone with copper tools; harder stones like granite were broken out with heavier pounding stones and abrasives.
• Transport: Blocks were moved on sledges, sometimes over wetted ground to reduce friction, and brought by Nile boats or canals when possible.
• Lifting: Most evidence points to some kind of ramp system, likely straight, zig-zag, spiral, or a mix, used to drag blocks upward as the pyramid rose.
• Placement and leveling: Builders carefully leveled the base, aligned the pyramid to the cardinal directions, and finished the outer casing stones near the top down.

What is still debated​

The exact ramp design is still uncertain, because no single method explains every pyramid perfectly. But the core idea is consistent: a large, organized labor force using simple tools, clever engineering, and lots of planning.

The pyramids were mainly royal tombs for pharaohs, built to support the ruler’s journey into the afterlife. They were also meant to express divine kingship, religious beliefs about rebirth, and the pharaoh’s power and wealth.

Religious meaning​

Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaoh could become a god after death, so the pyramid was part of a funerary complex designed for burial rituals and eternal life. The shape may have symbolized a stairway to the heavens, the primordial mound of creation, or sun rays reaching down to earth.

More than a tomb​

The pyramids were not isolated structures; they were part of larger complexes with temples, chapels, walls, boats, and other burial-related features. So their purpose was both practical and symbolic: to house the dead king, protect the burial, and project royal power.

Why they matter​

Even though the bodies were often robbed or moved, the pyramids still preserved the names and stories of the kings who built them. That is a big part of why they remain so important

 

[cash_tx]

Tried to provide you with something basic. This really is not debatable geologic history. A host of far more detailed explanations are at your fingertips via google.

Man was created through the miracle of evolution. The precise development of humans to our current Cro-Magnon form is still being mapped, but the development itself really isn't a questionable scientific theory any longer. At some point in the process, the creator gave us the means to understand our existence - our life and eventual death. That is an awareness no other species on the planet has.

To me, whether that was two specific individuals who first gained that awareness or a gradual understanding by our species is irrelevant. The majesty is God's intelligent design is at work in either case.

I find it particularly compelling that we have found Neanderthal remains (not even our same species) from 40,000 years ago where burials were completed with the inclusion of artifacts - a clear anticipation of an afterlife and God's clear influence on our developing perception of something beyond the physical now.

I simply find it the height of ignorance and arrogance to reject the burgeoning evidence of a far broader and more complex design of creation than that of a 16th century literalist interpretation of the Bible. After all, if God is in fact God, should we be surprised that his design for our world is somewhat more complex than what men could comprehend through their cultural stories 3500 years ago.

This is further bolstered by the factual observation that man and primates have approximately 98% matching DNA. It is disingenuous of those who say that genetic evolution and adaptation somehow equate to random chance.

BTW, this line of scientific inquiry is encouraged by Proverbs 25:2:

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter (my auto-correct tried to spell Mauser).
But the glory of man is to search out a matter."

 

[Red Leg]

I disagree on the point that the individual has an awareness of its impending death is unique to humans. Having grown-up in the meat business from ranch to killfloor to retail, While I couldn't know what the animals were thinking, it was clear, particularly with the older bulls, that they would have preferred to have been elsewhere.

I do not disagree that animals can comprehend danger. But the concept of knowing of one's impending death throughout life is, I am pretty certain, uniquely human.

 

[VertigoBE]

From perplexity, hope this helps.

how were the pyramids built​

The pyramids were built by highly organized Egyptian work crews, not by magic or aliens. The best-supported explanation is that stone blocks were quarried, moved by sledges and boats, then hauled up ramps and placed with ropes, levers, and skilled planning.

How it worked​

• Quarrying: Workers cut limestone with copper tools; harder stones like granite were broken out with heavier pounding stones and abrasives.
• Transport: Blocks were moved on sledges, sometimes over wetted ground to reduce friction, and brought by Nile boats or canals when possible.
• Lifting: Most evidence points to some kind of ramp system, likely straight, zig-zag, spiral, or a mix, used to drag blocks upward as the pyramid rose.
• Placement and leveling: Builders carefully leveled the base, aligned the pyramid to the cardinal directions, and finished the outer casing stones near the top down.

What is still debated​

The exact ramp design is still uncertain, because no single method explains every pyramid perfectly. But the core idea is consistent: a large, organized labor force using simple tools, clever engineering, and lots of planning.

The pyramids were mainly royal tombs for pharaohs, built to support the ruler’s journey into the afterlife. They were also meant to express divine kingship, religious beliefs about rebirth, and the pharaoh’s power and wealth.

Religious meaning​

Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaoh could become a god after death, so the pyramid was part of a funerary complex designed for burial rituals and eternal life. The shape may have symbolized a stairway to the heavens, the primordial mound of creation, or sun rays reaching down to earth.

More than a tomb​

The pyramids were not isolated structures; they were part of larger complexes with temples, chapels, walls, boats, and other burial-related features. So their purpose was both practical and symbolic: to house the dead king, protect the burial, and project royal power.

Why they matter​

Even though the bodies were often robbed or moved, the pyramids still preserved the names and stories of the kings who built them. That is a big part of why they remain so important

That is indeed the canon explanation from our historians, however:

- you cannot date stone
- history is replete with examples of peoples invading, conquering or just finding structures, then putting their own names on them.
- the oldest piramids are the grandest, the newer ones become ever so less impressive.

You combine all this and then use some common sense on the construction methods and tools that the historians proposed and you quickly come to the conclusion that none of it makes sense.

Much more likely the pyramids were built by a civilisation prior to the Egyptian one, before the Younger-Dryas impacts and resulting floods and were later rediscovered by the Egyptians who put their name on them.

You don’t have to get into alien conspiracies or other wacky theories to acknowledge that the pyramids were not built with copper tools, simple pulleys and sledges on sand. And then somehow all that knowledge was lost when the builders died and never repeated to such a splendour again.

 

[Alistair]

That is indeed the canon explanation from our historians, however:

- you cannot date stone
- history is replete with examples of peoples invading, conquering or just finding structures, then putting their own names on them.
- the oldest piramids are the grandest, the newer ones become ever so less impressive.

You combine all this and then use some common sense on the construction methods and tools that the historians proposed and you quickly come to the conclusion that none of it makes sense.

Much more likely the pyramids were built by a civilisation prior to the Egyptian one, before the Younger-Dryas impacts and resulting floods and were later rediscovered by the Egyptians who put their name on them.

You don’t have to get into alien conspiracies or other wacky theories to acknowledge that the pyramids were not built with copper tools, simple pulleys and sledges on sand. And then somehow all that knowledge was lost when the builders died and never repeated to such a splendour again.

As some counterpoints:

- You cannot date stone. But you can use C14 dating to date gypsum mortar, wooden internal structures, reeds, charcoal, and straw, all of which are seen in the construction of the pyramids. Unsurprisingly, those dates check out.

Reference: https://archive.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html

- True. However, see above. The Egyptians controlled that region when the structures were built.

- Not true. here's a timeline of all the pyramids:

They got significantly bigger and more impressive up to the great pyramid, after which they did get smaller. It seems that whatever trend was driving each successive pharaoh to build one bigger than his predecessor broke down. Might be wars, might be agricultural losses due to the recorded droughts in 2200bc(ish), might be the cultural changes coming into the first intermediate period that those droughts and famines drove.

Certainly the country shrunk, got economically weaker, and had bigger problems in the period 2200-2000BC, so not exactly surprising that mega projects weren't top of mind. After that, I guess it was no longer considered as important in the successive periods. The middle kingdon rulers seem to be more interested in military conquest (mostly in Nubia), defensive structures, and irrigation than pyramids, which honestly seems smart.

As for the construction methods themselves, whilst certainly an amazing undertaking and something probably right on the ragged edge of their technical skills, it does seem a plausible explanation to me.

 

[cwpayton]

Tried to provide you with something basic. This really is not debatable geologic history. A host of far more detailed explanations are at your fingertips via google.

Man was created through the miracle of evolution. The precise development of humans to our current Cro-Magnon form is still being mapped, but the development itself really isn't a questionable scientific theory any longer. At some point in the process, the creator gave us the means to understand our existence - our life and eventual death. That is an awareness no other species on the planet has.

To me, whether that was two specific individuals who first gained that awareness or a gradual understanding by our species is irrelevant. The majesty is God's intelligent design is at work in either case.

I find it particularly compelling that we have found Neanderthal remains (not even our same species) from 40,000 years ago where burials were completed with the inclusion of artifacts - a clear anticipation of an afterlife and God's clear influence on our developing perception of something beyond the physical now.

I simply find it the height of ignorance and arrogance to reject the burgeoning evidence of a far broader and more complex design of creation than that of a 16th century literalist interpretation of the Bible. After all, if God is in fact God, should we be surprised that his design for our world is somewhat more complex than what men could comprehend through their cultural stories 3500 years ago.

OK THEN, we simply do not see this IN THE SAME light, I think it futile to continue to chase around the same presumptions or" burgeoning evidence", in search of a conclusion. I place a higher degree on the earlier apostle confessions of faith ,rather than any 16th century priest . Not withstanding a reformation was needed in the church. I mostly believe in the west minister confession and canons of Dort. One of which says the government should not interfere with matters of faith. This would I think, mean, stating both sides of creation at natl parks. I dont believe evolution had anything to do with creation of man, so there you have it.
Neanderthals' mostly some over the top inbreeding Id guess.
CW PAYTON

 

[cwpayton]

From perplexity, hope this helps.

how were the pyramids built​

The pyramids were built by highly organized Egyptian work crews, not by magic or aliens. The best-supported explanation is that stone blocks were quarried, moved by sledges and boats, then hauled up ramps and placed with ropes, levers, and skilled planning.

How it worked​

• Quarrying: Workers cut limestone with copper tools; harder stones like granite were broken out with heavier pounding stones and abrasives.
• Transport: Blocks were moved on sledges, sometimes over wetted ground to reduce friction, and brought by Nile boats or canals when possible.
• Lifting: Most evidence points to some kind of ramp system, likely straight, zig-zag, spiral, or a mix, used to drag blocks upward as the pyramid rose.
• Placement and leveling: Builders carefully leveled the base, aligned the pyramid to the cardinal directions, and finished the outer casing stones near the top down.

What is still debated​

The exact ramp design is still uncertain, because no single method explains every pyramid perfectly. But the core idea is consistent: a large, organized labor force using simple tools, clever engineering, and lots of planning.

The pyramids were mainly royal tombs for pharaohs, built to support the ruler’s journey into the afterlife. They were also meant to express divine kingship, religious beliefs about rebirth, and the pharaoh’s power and wealth.

Religious meaning​

Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaoh could become a god after death, so the pyramid was part of a funerary complex designed for burial rituals and eternal life. The shape may have symbolized a stairway to the heavens, the primordial mound of creation, or sun rays reaching down to earth.

More than a tomb​

The pyramids were not isolated structures; they were part of larger complexes with temples, chapels, walls, boats, and other burial-related features. So their purpose was both practical and symbolic: to house the dead king, protect the burial, and project royal power.

Why they matter​

Even though the bodies were often robbed or moved, the pyramids still preserved the names and stories of the kings who built them. That is a big part of why they remain so important

A ramp to build the pyramids would have needed to be a mile or so long to prevent being to steep, and would have interfered with the structure itself as the corner alignments were kept within something like 2-5 10ths of an inch from top top bottom and you could not place any stone where it connected.

 

[Red Leg]

OK THEN, we simply do not see this IN THE SAME light, I think it futile to continue to chase around the same presumptions or" burgeoning evidence", in search of a conclusion. I place a higher degree on the earlier apostle confessions of faith ,rather than any 16th century priest . Not withstanding a reformation was needed in the church. I mostly believe in the west minister confession and canons of Dort. One of which says the government should not interfere with matters of faith. This would I think, mean, stating both sides of creation at natl parks. I dont believe evolution had anything to do with creation of man, so there you have it.
Neanderthals' mostly some over the top inbreeding Id guess.
CW PAYTON

Fortunately natural history museums and parks are focused on knowledge rather than belief or faith. There is also the sticky issue that there are far more than "both sides" with respect to the creation of the universe. I would assume you would be offended if the Park Service or Smithsonian gave equal time to the beliefs of Bhuddhism where there is no creator, but rather an eternal, beginningless cycle of expansion, decay, destruction, and rebirth, or the Hindu faith which has an even more complex understanding of the universe and humankind. They, of course, would be amused by the notion of 6 days 6 thousand years ago.

But we don't have go that far abroad in trying to offer "both sides" do we? The vast majority of Christians do not "believe" in a literal interpretation of the scriptures. So, do we let a Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Fundamentalist Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox or some other denomination offer some alternative to the actual physical evidence of the creation of life on this planet? Were they to vote on it, the literalist would lose.

So yes, you are correct, government should indeed stay out of issues of faith. That is why state sponsored museums and parks stick strictly to the facts and not what RedLeg or Cwpayton might believe based upon an interpretation of a bible verse.

 

[Hogpatrol]

This is in Zulu land in RSA. Forget the name of the park.

 

[Hogpatrol]

There are thousands of others but only one (sic) gets you to the pearly gates. All the others? Paraphrasing Prince, "You're on your own".

The 12 Classical Religions
While 4 to 10 distinct groupings are often cited by sociologists, the 12 classical religions that form the foundation of world religion studies are:

1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. Hinduism
4. Buddhism
5. Sikhism
6. Judaism
7. Baháʼí Faith
8. Jainism
9. Shinto
10. Taoism
11. Zoroastrianism
12. Confucianism (often considered a philosophy, but religious in practice for many)

Other Faiths and Belief Systems
The thousands of remaining religions fall into diverse, highly localized categories. These include hundreds of independent denominations, indigenous traditions, African traditional religions, and new religious movements.

 

[Ray B]

The problem that I see in religions is a person has the opportunity to make an investment. A person can choose to spend his life on himself without regard for any afterlife results. A person can disregard his desires and spend his life following a religious doctrine of denying himself in order to gain a desirable afterlife. Or 3, he can follow a religious doctrine, giving up on his desires with no thought of gain in the afterlife.
A significant number of people who profess Christianity and possibly other religions whom I come into contact with strike me as being in the second category.

 

[Aaron N]

This is in Zulu land in RSA. Forget the name of the park.View attachment 766923

Be good, do good. Really the only words one should strive to live by no matter what your beliefs are.

 

[mark-hunter]

Man was created through the miracle of evolution. The precise development of humans to our current Cro-Magnon form is still being mapped, but the development itself really isn't a questionable scientific theory any longer. At some point in the process, the creator gave us the means to understand our existence - our life and eventual death. That is an awareness no other species on the planet has.

To me, whether that was two specific individuals who first gained that awareness or a gradual understanding by our species is irrelevant. The majesty is God's intelligent design is at work in either case.

I find it particularly compelling that we have found Neanderthal remains (not even our same species) from 40,000 years ago where burials were completed with the inclusion of artifacts - a clear anticipation of an afterlife and God's clear influence on our developing perception of something beyond the physical now.

I simply find it the height of ignorance and arrogance to reject the burgeoning evidence of a far broader and more complex design of creation than that of a 16th century literalist interpretation of the Bible. After all, if God is in fact God, should we be surprised that his design for our world is somewhat more complex than what men could comprehend through their cultural stories 3500 years ago.

I will share just my thoughts on that. No philosophy, no theory, no quotes. And my experience.

Science does not give complete answers to entire chain of evolution, and religion depends on faith.
Science still have "missing links" in chain of human evolution, and religion(s) does not give answer without faith.

The belief in afterlife is common to all religions of the world.

The god, or the creation, it is actually the life, in my understanding.

And the question is what is the life?

If there is perfectly preserved dead body, we cannot breath the life into it.
Only life creates the life. The miracle.

How the life started at the times when there was no life at all?

The global omni religious belief of afterlife, in my thinking is expression of human everlasting fight to reach eternity, and preserve life in any form.

This part of faith is common to all mankind and all religions.

The humans do not want to perish, being stuck in perishable and ageing bodies during their lifetimes.

In order to reach eternity, when our bodies die, we can only continue in afterlife while being gone for ever from our community that is left in this world.

In this world we can keep the memory, to reach eternity.
The memory of a man, of a woman, of the idea, of the tribe, of the family, of the culture, of anything we keep as our value.
This is our salvage.

Which is my understanding why we build things, of stone, memorials, graveyards, buildings, and later we invented the alphabet, to write down what is important, and accumulate our knowledge generation after generation.
And with that we flourished

We fight that our ideas, our values, and our knowledge reach eternity.

Now, I will share my experience with death.
Many years ago, I was shot. An inch aside of spine, and and inch below rib cage. Pass through

I never went unconscious, and once I was down my brain was calculating my odds rapidly.
It didnt take long, to reach conclusion I dont have much odds left.

Once I realized that, first I felt remorse.
I was very young, and I did not have my family yet.
I felt remorse, for dying young and not yet having kids.
One of the most bitter feelings, I ever experienced. It was the life spent for nothing.

And then I had to prepare my self for the worst.

This immediately came with realization of the fact there will not be tomorrow for me.
I have no better description of this realization, but to compare it to the moment when others make their peace with god.
The god, then, is the life.
So, I made my peace.

Once this new reality settled in, all my fears have gone.
In that moment, I had no idea, or faith if there is life after life, I had no idea or faith if there is a heaven or a hell.
And whatever there is behind the dark curtain, It was all fine with me.
No fears, and no hopes.

And then I had nothing else to do, but to wait to see that darkness, and to see what is on the other side. I settled against the wall, to reduce the increasing pain, as the wound cooled down. First few minutes, the wound was not painful at all. The pain came afterwards, some minutes later

I never made that final step forward to the darkness to see what is there.
Nor the darkness came to me.

I was conscious till the last moment, when they put me on operation table and I woke up in the hospital bed next day
I ended up in hospital, doctors patched me up.
I was 2 months hospitalized, out of which I spent one month on infusion, which led me to come down in weight from 75 kilos (then) to 45 kilos when I left hospital. Took me one year to recover to my full previous strength.

Having said all that, i dont think my experience was any different then anybodys else, who came to close contact with death, lost all the hopes, and all the fears, and survived.

It is the life that we try to preserve, and trying that with any mean possible since the times immemorial, with our faith, our accumulative knowledge and our efforts to raise family with our values, in the same time being aware of our limited time on earth.
The cultures, or the religions, call life - the energy that flows in every living being, which we cannot create- the god. We must put the name, to the miracle of life.

What is the life? What is that spark? The god?

 

[Hogpatrol]

The problem that I see in religions is a person has the opportunity to make an investment. A person can choose to spend his life on himself without regard for any afterlife results. A person can disregard his desires and spend his life following a religious doctrine of denying himself in order to gain a desirable afterlife. Or 3, he can follow a religious doctrine, giving up on his desires with no thought of gain in the afterlife.
A significant number of people who profess Christianity and possibly other religions whom I come into contact with strike me as being in the second category.

Good observations. Begs the question, Is the second category more moral than the third, vice versa or equal?