Evolution For Coggies

[_Coggins7]

Well, there does seem to be a bit of historical evidence. Ever heard of Zeus?

How is Zeus evidence of the thesis that was put forth? Zeus sounds to me like God the Father dressed up and adored with a plethora of cultural accretions that modify and re-mold him into the image of the society in which he is worshiped but this says noting about the central motif itself: a divine personage who is a part of a celestial family who is involved in creation cosmology, the origin of the people by whom he is worshiped, and the governance of the universe/earth/nation.

What was the central concept, or core patterns to what early man invented? Did it have anything at all with trying to understand the natural world and placing reasons for natural occurrences into the hands of a god?

The problem is that there is no historical record that early religion actaully developed in this way, in the sense of early man's general psychological tendencies or the actual developments themselves. We don't know how the earliest religions originated (the Gospel tells us this, of course, but you have to accept the Gospel to accept that), but the central motifs, patterns, symbology, and the general "story" of mankind and his purpose are similar throughout all the great religions (both living and long past).

Joseph Campbell's work here is fascinating.




Did you just say "invent" when it comes to God? What?

[_Moniker]

Is this why you dispute the theory of evolution, Coggins? You believe that the theory of evolution does actually discredit God? Why?

Where did I dispute the essence of it? I dispute certain aspects of it, particularly its extrapolations beyond its explanatory boundaries into areas for which it is not (and science, per se, is not) competent as a means of gathering and interpreting knowledge. Actually, I thought I was pretty clear what my problem is earlier in this thread.

No you essentially stated myths about what evolution is. You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution.

Where precisely does evolution extrapolate beyond its boundaries? Please help me understand. I'm assuming here that you believe it goes beyond mere explanation of organisms changing over time into a broader theme? Is that so? Can you explain that?

What about evolution is unacceptable to you? Not the theory itself -- what you think the theory does in essence?

My problem is not with the science of evolution, but with scientism. Evolution explains nothing but the mechanics by which organic life evolved. What it has been used to do is explain both ultimate origins and the ultimate meaning, or ethical essence, of the universe; its been used as a kind of religious faith to make pronouncements upon ultimate questions of existence.

It does not explain origins. Please show me proof of that. CFR.

[_JAK]

Evolution is not incompatible with LDS doctrine in any way.

And evolution does not discredit God.

I’m skeptical of your comment way back there on page 1. (Sorry we don’t have a “thread” view which allows us to see comments directly under the post which they address.

God notions are irrelevant to evolution.

In most respects, science, by its discoveries, discredits indirectly any ancient mythologies. Science seeks to explain and understand what, where, when, why, and how through research, information, discovery, and conclusions which are tentative based on the evidence.

God notions are irrelevant. No evidence has been established for God notions nor was any established previously for many gods. Of course few if any today defend the gods.

JAK

Hi Jak!

Agreed that God is irrelevant to evolution. That's why I said that it doesn't discredit God -- it has nothing to do with God.

Evolution, in its simplest definition, is merely change over time. Biological evolution is the heritable changes seen in a population over many generations.

The theory (fact) of evolution does illuminate our understanding of the natural world -- yet, this in and of itself does not discredit God, necessarily. As we learn more, through scientific discovery, it makes many of these myths of the past obsolete -- agreed. Yet, the idea of a nebulous God floating off in lala land is not necessarily discredited.

Could a theist claim nature is God? Possibly? I don't know -- I don't want to know. I just know that to understand and accept the theory (fact) of evolution does not in anyway impact God. Could it impact the way people view their natural world and as a consequence make them question their theology? Yep. But all in all it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Is it possible that God created evolution? I don't think so -- but a theist might.

Hey Moniker,

I see no refutation here. Perhaps you intended none. I'll assume that.

No credible evidence which has objective, transparent, tested result has been established for God claims. Lacking such evidence, the various God claims should be disregarded. God notions are discredited by default in the scientific method. Discovery requires evidence (information) which is reliable and open to skeptical review.

Religious doctrine begins with claims, not with evidence. The conclusions are unreliable. Islam makes claims. Muslims reject Christian God claims. Christians reject Muslim God claims.

Many scientists consider that prehistoric religions emerged out of fear and wonder about natural events such as storms, earthquakes, the birth of living organisms.

For example, to explain why someone died, people credited supernatural powers. Likely, prehistoric man centered their religious activities on the most important elements of their existence such as the prosperity of their tribe and getting enough food to survive. They often placed food, ornaments and tools in graves. The believed that these items would be useful to or desired by dead people.

They drew pictures and performed dances that were intended to promote the fertility of themselves and animals. They also made sacrifices for the same reasons.

We only have what the artifacts currently discovered show us. So there is more to learn to be sure.

However, the invention of gods as explanation for what early man did not understand has been well documented.

To be sure, religious groups of today are not much interested in the emergence and evolution of superstition/religion. But, there is evidence for it.

Nowhere does modern science credit God or the gods for any evidence which has to the present been discovered.

By default, then, God notions are discredited by scientific research.

Claims of theist are irrelevant. Truth by assertion fails the tests of transparency, openness to information, peer review of evidence, confirmation, and documentation.

That you don’t want to know is also irrelevant to the issue under discussion. You may not.

There are as many notions of God as there are different and distinct organizations which make God claims. None has reliability.

The theological notion that God created (not evolved) man is the reverse of what history tells us about the evolution of cultures and civilizations. To explain, man invented the gods. Once God was a doctrinal shift from the gods.

Today, we have many examples of doctrinal shifts among theologians who disagree with one another on their mercurial God notions.

Evidence before conclusion is the path of science. Conclusions before evidence are unreliable and cacophony.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Well, there does seem to be a bit of historical evidence. Ever heard of Zeus?

How is Zeus evidence of the thesis that was put forth? Zeus sounds to me like God the Father dressed up and adored with a plethora of cultural accretions that modify and re-mold him into the image of the society in which he is worshiped but this says noting about the central motif itself: a divine personage who is a part of a celestial family who is involved in creation cosmology, the origin of the people by whom he is worshiped, and the governance of the universe/earth/nation.

What about fertility Gods? Rain Gods? ANY God that was used to explain nature? Yep, Zeus is God the Father dressed up. BINGO!!!!! Of course I know you're reading this in a completely different way I am. There were at the beginning very primitive Gods and they in turn became more human like and eventually (for Christians) became one big mighty Zeus God = or you can call him God the Father. Whatever works for you.

I had actually decided to stay out of this thread because some of the things you were talking about were just soooo way out there it made me a bit uncomfortable.

What was the central concept, or core patterns to what early man invented? Did it have anything at all with trying to understand the natural world and placing reasons for natural occurrences into the hands of a god?

The problem is that there is no historical record that early religion actaully developed in this way, in the sense of early man's general psychological tendencies or the actual developments themselves. We don't know how the earliest religions originated (the Gospel tells us this, of course, but you have to accept the Gospel to accept that), but the central motifs, patterns, symbology, and the general "story" of mankind and his purpose are similar throughout all the great religions (both living and long past).

Joseph Campbell's work here is fascinating.

What are you talking about? I asked you a simple question and you answer with things I didn't ask. Were primitive gods a way in which early people described gave meaning to natural phenomenon?

by the way, why don't you tell me what is so fascinating about Joseph Campbell's work. Okay?

[Guest]

Evolution is not incompatible with LDS doctrine in any way.

And evolution does not discredit God.

I’m skeptical of your comment way back there on page 1. (Sorry we don’t have a “thread” view which allows us to see comments directly under the post which they address.

God notions are irrelevant to evolution.

In most respects, science, by its discoveries, discredits indirectly any ancient mythologies. Science seeks to explain and understand what, where, when, why, and how through research, information, discovery, and conclusions which are tentative based on the evidence.

God notions are irrelevant. No evidence has been established for God notions nor was any established previously for many gods. Of course few if any today defend the gods.

JAK

Hi Jak!

Agreed that God is irrelevant to evolution. That's why I said that it doesn't discredit God -- it has nothing to do with God.

Evolution, in its simplest definition, is merely change over time. Biological evolution is the heritable changes seen in a population over many generations.

The theory (fact) of evolution does illuminate our understanding of the natural world -- yet, this in and of itself does not discredit God, necessarily. As we learn more, through scientific discovery, it makes many of these myths of the past obsolete -- agreed. Yet, the idea of a nebulous God floating off in lala land is not necessarily discredited.

Could a theist claim nature is God? Possibly? I don't know -- I don't want to know. I just know that to understand and accept the theory (fact) of evolution does not in anyway impact God. Could it impact the way people view their natural world and as a consequence make them question their theology? Yep. But all in all it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Is it possible that God created evolution? I don't think so -- but a theist might.

Hey Moniker,

I see no refutation here. Perhaps you intended none. I'll assume that.

No credible evidence which has objective, transparent, tested result has been established for God claims. Lacking such evidence, the various God claims should be disregarded. God notions are discredited by default in the scientific method. Discovery requires evidence (information) which is reliable and open to skeptical review.

Religious doctrine begins with claims, not with evidence. The conclusions are unreliable. Islam makes claims. Muslims reject Christian God claims. Christians reject Muslim God claims.

Many scientists consider that prehistoric religions emerged out of fear and wonder about natural events such as storms, earthquakes, the birth of living organisms.

For example, to explain why someone died, people credited supernatural powers. Likely, prehistoric man centered their religious activities on the most important elements of their existence such as the prosperity of their tribe and getting enough food to survive. They often placed food, ornaments and tools in graves. The believed that these items would be useful to or desired by dead people.

They drew pictures and performed dances that were intended to promote the fertility of themselves and animals. They also made sacrifices for the same reasons.

We only have what the artifacts currently discovered show us. So there is more to learn to be sure.

However, the invention of gods as explanation for what early man did not understand has been well documented.

To be sure, religious groups of today are not much interested in the emergence and evolution of superstition/religion. But, there is evidence for it.

Nowhere does modern science credit God or the gods for any evidence which has to the present been discovered.

By default, then, God notions are discredited by scientific research.

Claims of theist are irrelevant. Truth by assertion fails the tests of transparency, openness to information, peer review of evidence, confirmation, and documentation.

That you don’t want to know is also irrelevant to the issue under discussion. You may not.

There are as many notions of God as there are different and distinct organizations which make God claims. None has reliability.

The theological notion that God created (not evolved) man is the reverse of what history tells us about the evolution of cultures and civilizations. To explain, man invented the gods. Once God was a doctrinal shift from the gods.

Today, we have many examples of doctrinal shifts among theologians who disagree with one another on their mercurial God notions.

Evidence before conclusion is the path of science. Conclusions before evidence are unreliable and cacophony.

JAK

JAK, I can't take you and Coggies on at the same time.

It me make this easy for both of us. I don't believe in God. Now go get Coggins. :)

[_Moniker]

And Jak, let me add this: I agree with everything you stated above. I think? Pretty sure. Okay?

[_JAK]

Moniker said:
JAK, I can't take you and Coggies on at the same time. It's like two polar opposites poking me from either end. And not in a good way!

Let me make this easy for both of us. I don't believe in God. Now go get Coggins. :)
----------

JAK:
I haven't been reading Coggins.
I shall try.

JAK

[Guest]

Please do! Thanks!!!

[_Coggins7]

"God creates dinosaurs, god destroys dinosaurs, god creates man, man destroys god, man creates dinosaurs,

Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the earth..."

[_JAK]

And Jak, let me add this: I agree with everything you stated above. I think? Pretty sure. Okay?

I don't even understand what Coggins is saying.

There are major syntax problems among other problems with what he/she is saying.

JAK