*************
M*W: I don't practice in sun worship. The ancients did and all religion evolved out of sun worship. You have a reading comprehension problem. Learn to communicate in English here or get lost.
Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
*************
M*W: I don't practice in sun worship. The ancients did and all religion evolved out of sun worship. You have a reading comprehension problem. Learn to communicate in English here or get lost.
Then why were the Hebrews at odds with the Sun worhippers? The Canaanites were Sun worshippers you know, as were the Egyptians.
*************
M*W: As I recall, the early Hebrews did practice sun worship when they allegedly moved northward out of Africa. The ancient Hebrews were also moon worshippers. Monotheism appeared in Egypt with Akhenaten IV (Moses) and his mandatory law of Aten Ra worship which, of course, is sun worship. See below:
"(Heb. shemesh), first mentioned along with the moon as the two great luminaries of heaven (Genesis 1:14-18). By their motions and influence they were intended to mark and divide times and seasons. The worship of the sun was one of the oldest forms of false religion (Job 31:26,27), and was common among the Egyptians and Chaldeans and other pagan nations. The Jews were warned against this form of idolatry (Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; Compare 2 Kings 23:11; Jeremiah 19:13).
http://www.englishatheist.org/bough/rationalist.shtml
Selected Bibliography:
Grant Allen, The Evolution of the Idea of God: An Inquiry into the Origins of Religion (New York: Henry Holt an)d Company, 1897).
David Forsyth, Psychology and Religion London 1935, p.97.
This hypothesis is ably presented in the following works:
C. F. Volney, The Ruins, or Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires and the Law of Nature trans. Joel Barlow (New York: Peter Eckler Press, 1890);
Charles F. Dupuis, The Origin of All Religious Worship (New Orleans: 1872);
Edward Carpenter, Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1920);
Gerald Massey, Pagan Christs; idem, Christianity and Mythology;
Arthur Drews; The Christ Myth (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1910);
T.W. Doane; Bible Myths;
Rev. Dr. Richard B. Westbrook, The Eliminator and his The Bible—Whence and What (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1890).
Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, p. 29.
Sir Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity (New York and London, 1928), pp. 77–78.
L. Gordon Rylands, The Evolution of Christianity (London: Watts & Co., 1927).
J.M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Watts & Co., 1913), p.12.
McCabe, Joseph, The Story of Religious Controversy (Boston: The Stratford Co., Publishers, 1929).
Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 127.
Higgins, Anacalypsis, vol. 2, P. 105.
Professor Arthur M. Harding, Astronomy (Garden City, NY, 1935).
E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead, The Hieroglyphic Transcript of the Papyrus of ANI (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, Inc., 1960).
Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, Ancient Egyptians, vol, 11 of Herbert Spencer's Descriptive Sociology, p. 41.
Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, The Gods of Ancient Egypt, in Hammerton's Wonders of the Past (New York, 1937), p. 667.
Ibid., p. 678.
Note that many of the above references were written a long time ago and by christian scholars. This list is not comprehensive. I suggest reading Ahmed Osman's works.
Yep.
The deal is that it takes mankind, or seems to (whichever), out of the central role. The randomness and inequity and inherent unsympathetic nature of evolution puts humans out in the great unknown, subject to random chance. No underlying gentleness, no redemption, no secret-smurf hidden meaning to anything.
Now, if you're religious, the above still isn't a problem because one could just say "oh yeah? well God did all that". This is a perfectly fine answer with me, or at least a completely neutral one. I don't know how the universe got started and it may as well have been a created event as a naturalistic one. If you assume a god that operates within naturalistic laws, well then there you go and I wish you the best in your cavort through the Elysian fields or what have you. I don't think it's really that way (or else I'm in deep shit) but I have no objection to you believing in it, so long as you leave commandments about whacking people not doing what you want or believing as you do. That's my two cents.
Praise Myuu.
Geoff
When God has created nature, He obviously worked within the supernatural.
So nature was always here, or nature created itself? Great Med Woman.
That is reasonable - such endeavors however should be contained by the word 'theory' - that doesn't seem to be the case however with evolution
or alternatively they could operate out of the same essential design - just like a motorcycle could be defined as something like 99% identical to a motor car
Again, it remains tentative that speciation confirms the truth of evolution, since they are both separate phenomena
Those who deny the theory of evolution can deny the theory of gravity on the same grounds. I think we should give those who disbelieve in evolution a practical experience in scientific theory
a person can make claims of direct perception with gravity - they can't do so with evolution however.
scientific truth = empirical direct perception that is repeatable
Yes they can.
It has BEEN OBSERVED in the laboratory.
Evolution is FACT - i.e. IT OCCURS (observation has shown us this).
It is also a THEORY - i.e. we have theories for HOW IT WORKS.
In the same way that gravity is also a FACT - but there is also the THEORY of Gravity
Please be sure you distinguish between the two.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
How could a book whose most recent portions were written almost two millenia ago acknowledge a theory which only emerged less than two centuries ago?
What does that even mean?
Did nature create itself? That is what you would have us believe, as typically, the Darwinites are showing their irrational colors!
We have NO IDEA what created this universe - if indeed it was ever created.
But YOU would have us jump onboard the idea of "GOD did it" without providing evidence, or explaining how God was created.
And creation of the Universe is NOTHING to do with Darwin!!
So please stop spouting irrelevant drivel.
But YOU would have us jump onboard the idea of "GOD did it" without providing evidence, or explaining how God was created.
And creation of the Universe is NOTHING to do with Darwin!!
So please stop spouting irrelevant drivel.
That's right, my bad, Darwinism picks up with the goo.
LightGigantic:
In as much as evolution is fallsifiable in principle, it only claims to have the massive amount of evidence on its side.
This could indeed be an argument were it not for the "junk" DNA which is shared by both.
Junk DNA shared between chimps and humans indicates that at least some of their DNA shared serves no purpose in either yet remains. This seems to indicate they come from a common source that once did use this junk DNA, but now no longer does.
Actually, isn't that the entire foundation for evolution? Producing new species?
The problem is that any MASSIVE changes, like a bacteria into a fish, are hard to show in a laboratory, as they take far too many generations to produce. A sexually-producing microorganism is less dramatic by definition, but if it no longer can mate, and is different in crucial ways from its forebear species, then it fits the definition of evolution.
In as much as evolution is fallsifiable in principle, it only claims to have the massive amount of evidence on its side.
This could indeed be an argument were it not for the "junk" DNA which is shared by both.
Junk DNA shared between chimps and humans indicates that at least some of their DNA shared serves no purpose in either yet remains. This seems to indicate they come from a common source that once did use this junk DNA, but now no longer does.
Actually, isn't that the entire foundation for evolution? Producing new species?
The problem is that any MASSIVE changes, like a bacteria into a fish, are hard to show in a laboratory, as they take far too many generations to produce. A sexually-producing microorganism is less dramatic by definition, but if it no longer can mate, and is different in crucial ways from its forebear species, then it fits the definition of evolution.
Are you talking about evolution per se, or Darwinian evolution?
That's a good one, bacteria morhped into fish, I like that.