Um... yeah I actually know the difference between the theory of evolution and big bang cosmology. Would you have, perhaps, been more satisfied had this OP thread said Evolution and big bang cosmology have their roots...? I know the difference, and no you are wrong in one aspect. Billions of years has everything to do with it. Proponents of one of these theories are often proponents of the other, as both of them fit into the worldview of the other. Evolutionists like the big bang because it gives the universe enough time to evolve itself, and set the conditions for what will eventually take place on earth in the form of evolution. The billions of years is a critical thing that you cannot simply glance over (needs enough time for the theory to be sound).
At this point it seems you are just copy pasting information from various creationist websites. That tells me you are either severely misguided or a troll. Lets say you are not a troll and you believe this stuff.
It is dishonest to say Evolution and then constantly talk about Big Bang and Abiogenesis. Stop calling people Evolutionists, I'm asking you this because its nothing but a strawman and not the thoughts of actual people. It is a very dangerous road to start claiming a group of people believe this or that. Actually ask people what they believe. Websites like Creation Today and Answers in Genesis use the terms Evolutionist to mean what ever argument they make up and claim is being used by Scientists. No one actually argues in the name of "evolutionism" because its made up.
Also no, billions of years is not integral to the theories of the Big Bang or Evolution. Tat is what the before mentioned Creationists sites ideas of what a Evolutionist would say.
If you cut out the middle man and look for what scientists say directly, you will quickly learn that they don't talk like the creation websites claim "evolutionists" talk like.
Quote:
No, it really is practically stating Big bang cosmology.
No because the big bang theory is more about how the universe expands and not just a statement that the universe expanded. One again you are relying on second hand information. Go to the sources.
Quote:
As for the "cyclical" part, I believe that in a version of the multiverse theory, are not people discussing the fact that the matter from our "big bang" could merely be matter left over from another universe? Universes beget universes. The big bang is one of many, there could be multiple universes. One universes end is the beginning of another in the form of a singularity. These ideas, I've heard, are being discussed pertaining to multiverse theory and the big bang singularity (in an attempt to say that the universe is really eternal).
The problem is that you are saying "I believe", "I heard", "I think". That is all fine and dandy, but what have people actually said? Unless you have some sources to the papers or articles, you are talking out of your bum.
Quote:
And again, forgive me if my term "evolution" was not exactly correct when referencing the big bang cosmology. But what does the big bang cosmology entail? It entails the beginning point of the universe, and the subsequent forming, expansion, and evolution of the universe,
You don't have sources, so your forcing of theories together means nothing. You have no leg to stand on.
Quote:
providing the conditions for the process to take place here on earth. Evolution and the big bang go hand and hand simple in terms of worldview.
So sayeth the creationist websites you are copy pasting this from.
Quote:
All you can do is say "well technically, the theory of evolution only refers to what took place on earth...." Does that not mean that people don't also apply evolution to the universe and the history of the universe (formation of everything) from the singularity known as the big bang?
You keep bringing up other people, but never have I seen you quote these people. You can keep trying to distract us from the fact that you don't know that much by claiming other people believe whatever, but in the end you still don't know s**t about what you are talking about.
I don't care about what other people have to say unless you can demonstrate their credentials and who they are.
Quote:
Than why don't you branch out past your "Evolution only refers to biology on earth" and actually discusss WHAT I am addressing? Big bang cosmology as well, clearly.
Its not clear because the video and the first post repeatedly mention Darwin and not a single Cosmologist.
Quote:
Clearly the Big bang cosmology has its roots in this ancient philosophy as well.
Except that Big Bang Cosmology is based in math and red shift and not on the creation of the universe by a Cyclical God that would disperse his body to create different class systems and Gods. Guess what, I've read the Vedas. So unless you have to or can quote specific passages, you can't bs your way through this.
Quote:
Clearly, the assumption of abiogenesis is inherent in the theory of evolution.
Nope because Darwin repeatedly mentions the possiblity of both Creation and a Creator in the Origin of Species. You are talking out of your bum again.
Quote:
(we came about by random chances, particles formed themselves etc. no need of a creator, or being put on earth).
That isn't abiogenesis by the way. The current model explains how proteins can form photocells through bonding. By the way, I don't think you know what a particle is.
Quote:
That is the inescapable metaphysical underpinings of the theory of evolution. It is inherent in the theory to ask those sorts of questions, which are outside of the realm of science, yet somehow supposedly in science for the sake of evolution.
Source directly where the theory sates. Sow me where Lenaus, Ghould, Darwin, WIneberg, Mendel, MIller, etc have said this.
Stop making claims without sourcing them. There is no point to go further in your post. Its the same problems repeated. Misrepresenting what something says through either ignorance or dishonesty, straw maning and distracting from your position, and refusing to source your claims. You are a waste of time.
So, instead of trying to shoehorn science into the Bible, you're now trying to shoehorn Evolution into Brahmanism...?
You're still overlooking the fact that Evolution as a theory has absolutely squat to do with origins, you know.
BTW, are you drawing parallels between Brahman and God? That whole movement=energy thing sounds quite similar to a few apologist arguments I've heard concerning Genesis 1:2.
~~~
Dryskale
Today the theory of Evolution is more based in Genetics, Phylogeny, Taxonomy, and Population mechanics than in origins.
Evolution has never been about origins. That's abiogenesis.
It's easy to get them mixed up, considering how many ignoramuses imply that there's no difference, but they aren't the same thing.
~~~
Aporeia
LoveLoud837
I think this just goes to say that evolution is not a fact-based theory but a faith-based theory.
So, instead of trying to shoehorn science into the Bible, you're now trying to shoehorn Evolution into Brahmanism...?
I would say that you using the word "shoehorn" is a little extreme.
Okay, let's have a conversation about it here. Would you disagree with the conclusions from the guy in the video on the historical progression of the ideas of evolution? (bear in mind the progression doesn't necessarily have bearing on the theory being true or false) Which point here seems faulty to you
1. The theory of Evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
2. Pantheistic Evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
4. Plato and Aristotle's Evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
5. The ideas were followed through into the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
6. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy
7. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
8. Charles Darwin developed the idea.
I already quoted Darwin, he talks of the Greek philosophers having the idea long ago. If the Greek philosophers obtained the knowledge from Pythagoras studying under the Brahmins, than the idea can be traced to the Brahmins. Note it was Thales that put the Naturalistic twist on evolution.
Quote:
You're still overlooking the fact that Evolution as a theory has absolutely squat to do with origins, you know.
I already answered someone else, I was also referencing big bang cosmology with this post.
Also, on that point you said, I'm sorry but I don't quite believe that. It purports not to touch on origins in the slightest, but let's be honest. Have you never thought of philosophical claims or metaphysical ideas merely from studying evolution? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wonder how life ended up on earth in the first place?" What are the implications of evolution? There is the assumption of abiogenesis, which is a philosophical claim.
Quote:
BTW, are you drawing parallels between Brahman and God? That whole movement=energy thing sounds quite similar to a few apologist arguments I've heard concerning Genesis 1:2.
But the concept of Brahman is different from other concepts of God. One could easily state that Brahman represents the universe itself (in Brahmin cosmology, the universe being composed of eternal matter and cyclical)
What are the implications of evolution? There is the assumption of abiogenesis, which is a philosophical claim.
Again: evolution neither implies nor assumes abiogenesis.
I would really like to see what percentage of people that endorse the theory of evolution also endorse abiogenesis.
Also, if you could clarify, when in the timeline does the Theory of Evolution begin if it doesn't deal with origins? What period of time is the starting point that they focus on? (looking for an answer with years in it specifically, not just "not at the origins" )
And it's also interesting that you mention that evolution and abiogenesis aren't related, when someone on here I was talking to a long time ago was stating that abiogenesis is true because of evolution, and attempted to show a timeline that lead to the culmination of the first cell.
Um... yeah I actually know the difference between the theory of evolution and big bang cosmology. Would you have, perhaps, been more satisfied had this OP thread said Evolution and big bang cosmology have their roots...? I know the difference, and no you are wrong in one aspect. Billions of years has everything to do with it. Proponents of one of these theories are often proponents of the other, as both of them fit into the worldview of the other. Evolutionists like the big bang because it gives the universe enough time to evolve itself, and set the conditions for what will eventually take place on earth in the form of evolution. The billions of years is a critical thing that you cannot simply glance over (needs enough time for the theory to be sound).
At this point it seems you are just copy pasting information from various creationist websites. That tells me you are either severely misguided or a troll. Lets say you are not a troll and you believe this stuff.
It is dishonest to say Evolution and then constantly talk about Big Bang and Abiogenesis. Stop calling people Evolutionists, I'm asking you this because its nothing but a strawman and not the thoughts of actual people. It is a very dangerous road to start claiming a group of people believe this or that. Actually ask people what they believe. Websites like Creation Today and Answers in Genesis use the terms Evolutionist to mean what ever argument they make up and claim is being used by Scientists. No one actually argues in the name of "evolutionism" because its made up.
Also no, billions of years is not integral to the theories of the Big Bang or Evolution. Tat is what the before mentioned Creationists sites ideas of what a Evolutionist would say.
If you cut out the middle man and look for what scientists say directly, you will quickly learn that they don't talk like the creation websites claim "evolutionists" talk like.
But it would seem that you are actually the person being dishonest here, claiming that I copy pasted stuff from creationist websites. Guess what? I haven't been to one creationist website in this whole thing. Not one.
It is, however, dishonest to say that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Why then, historically, have evolution textbooks included chapters on "theories of the origins of life" when it is not supposed to deal with origins? Why has historically abiogenesis been mentioned in evolution textbooks in schools (it is alluded to in textbooks that Stanley miller's 1953 experiment is a plausible explanation for how life began on earth). People who adhere to evolution are adept at dodging the question on origins, and the philosophical assumptions that the theory is based upon.
And YES, a large amount of time is paramount to the theory of evolution, because if there was not enough time, evolution would not have time to take place. It is paramount that the earth be around 4.5 billion years old.
Quote:
Quote:
No, it really is practically stating Big bang cosmology.
No because the big bang theory is more about how the universe expands and not just a statement that the universe expanded. One again you are relying on second hand information. Go to the sources.
You really didn't see any parallels to the singularity, cosmic egg, and expansion of the universe in the Brahmin narrative?
Quote:
Quote:
As for the "cyclical" part, I believe that in a version of the multiverse theory, are not people discussing the fact that the matter from our "big bang" could merely be matter left over from another universe? Universes beget universes. The big bang is one of many, there could be multiple universes. One universes end is the beginning of another in the form of a singularity. These ideas, I've heard, are being discussed pertaining to multiverse theory and the big bang singularity (in an attempt to say that the universe is really eternal).
The problem is that you are saying "I believe", "I heard", "I think". That is all fine and dandy, but what have people actually said? Unless you have some sources to the papers or articles, you are talking out of your bum.
People I've debated with on this website, for one, have argued from a sort of multiverse model where our big bang was from matter left over of another universe (universes begat universes in a cycle). That's what someone, at least, believed on here, as well as in evolutionary ideas. So that's not out of your bum.
Quote:
Quote:
And again, forgive me if my term "evolution" was not exactly correct when referencing the big bang cosmology. But what does the big bang cosmology entail? It entails the beginning point of the universe, and the subsequent forming, expansion, and evolution of the universe,
You don't have sources, so your forcing of theories together means nothing. You have no leg to stand on.
Typical. Don't address what I'm actually saying, don't answer the question I am putting forward. Just comment on sources.
Quote:
Quote:
providing the conditions for the process to take place here on earth. Evolution and the big bang go hand and hand simple in terms of worldview.
So sayeth the creationist websites you are copy pasting this from.
Again you are being dishonest and assuming things. Haven't been to 1 creationist website for any of that information.
Quote:
Quote:
Than why don't you branch out past your "Evolution only refers to biology on earth" and actually discusss WHAT I am addressing? Big bang cosmology as well, clearly.
Its not clear because the video and the first post repeatedly mention Darwin and not a single Cosmologist.
You want to actually answer a question now? The video is full of quotes by professors that admit that Hindus had the orginal idea of evolution, and the Brahmin creation narrative is full of parallels to the big bang. See the op for more quotes.
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly the Big bang cosmology has its roots in this ancient philosophy as well.
Except that Big Bang Cosmology is based in math and red shift and not on the creation of the universe by a Cyclical God that would disperse his body to create different class systems and Gods. Guess what, I've read the Vedas. So unless you have to or can quote specific passages, you can't bs your way through this.
I already quoted the passages, read them yourself on the creation of the universe in the narrative. And you should know that the Brahmin idea of "god" is much, much different from other ideas of God. Is it not striking how much parallels there are in our modern theories to ancient philosophies?
And read another thread of mine if you want to know about Hubble and red shifts, I've talked a lot about hubble already, don't feel like rehashing things. I will say that he initially was not happy to discover that the universe was actually expanding, not happy at all...
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly, the assumption of abiogenesis is inherent in the theory of evolution.
Nope because Darwin repeatedly mentions the possiblity of both Creation and a Creator in the Origin of Species. You are talking out of your bum again.
Quote:
(we came about by random chances, particles formed themselves etc. no need of a creator, or being put on earth).
That isn't abiogenesis by the way. The current model explains how proteins can form photocells through bonding. By the way, I don't think you know what a particle is.
Why is the Stanley Miller Experiment brought up as proof for abiogenesis, as proof for the means that life originated on earth?
Quote:
Quote:
That is the inescapable metaphysical underpinings of the theory of evolution. It is inherent in the theory to ask those sorts of questions, which are outside of the realm of science, yet somehow supposedly in science for the sake of evolution.
Source directly where the theory sates. Sow me where Lenaus, Ghould, Darwin, WIneberg, Mendel, MIller, etc have said this.
Well, you can surely find quotes from Darwin himself. He theorized, at one point, that it could have been a lightning strike on some primordial sea of ancient earth. Basically, he didn't know but you can see that he was trying to come up with ideas.
Quote:
Stop making claims without sourcing them. There is no point to go further in your post. Its the same problems repeated. Misrepresenting what something says through either ignorance or dishonesty, straw maning and distracting from your position, and refusing to source your claims. You are a waste of time.
Really I'm being dishonest here? You're the one who has said absolute lies that I just copy pasted things from Creationist websites.
What are the implications of evolution? There is the assumption of abiogenesis, which is a philosophical claim.
Again: evolution neither implies nor assumes abiogenesis.
I would really like to see what percentage of people that endorse the theory of evolution also endorse abiogenesis.
I would think that depends on whether the theory of evolution were being conflated with Hinduism or not.
Bogotanian
Also, if you could clarify, when in the timeline does the Theory of Evolution begin if it doesn't deal with origins? What period of time is the starting point that they focus on? (looking for an answer with years in it specifically, not just "not at the origins" )
Evolution is a process, not an event - it applies whenever there's life (as we know it).
Bogotanian
And it's also interesting that you mention that evolution and abiogenesis aren't related, when someone on here I was talking to a long time ago was stating that abiogenesis is true because of evolution, and attempted to show a timeline that lead to the culmination of the first cell.
I was talking to someone on here a long time ago who was stating that time has four corners. I can't say it was interesting, granted.
Well apparently it is at least based on some ancient philosophical ideas. If you watch the video you learn that Pythagoras studied talked with and studied under the Hindu Brahmins at one time. That's how the idea was brought to the west.
However, it was originally a pantheistic conception of evolution. Later on another Greek guy Thales put the naturalistic spin on it, and Darwin notes that he and others were among the first to put a scientific spin on the ancient Greek (but really Hindu Brahmin) philosophy.
Yeah and it's not like we've done countless experiments showing how random mutations/environmental factors over time can allow one species to survive while the other dies off; the very scientific definition of evolution.
Hmm, I could get behind that definition of evolution (species surviving while other goes extinct due to environmental factors/mutations). You did fail to note, however, that over time, a species changes or evolves into something else, something that is kind of a big topic in evolution.
Quote:
It's not like we have mathematical and experimental evidence showing the big bang as a plausible origin point for matter and energy to have spread out and clumped together; forming the observable universe.
Perhaps we do.
Quote:
We totally are just mocking some dog tired Hindu creation myth that kind of sounds like the theory of evolution when you ignore 70% of the text therein.
1. The Universe is cyclical
2. Motion causes an atomic particle to appear.
3. The particle/egg expands and explodes, forming the Universe
4. Out of this there is an evolutionary progression from particles to philosophers
5. This process takes billions of years
As far as metaphysical narratives go, that is the closest thing I've heard to evolution and the evolution on earth. You have a singularity, cosmic egg, evolutionary progression from particles to people, and a process that takes billions of years for evolution to take place. Sound familiar? It's not just a vague notion.
Also, you bring up an interesting point... it is hard to ignore the religious implications of the text... just like it's hard to get around some serious philosophical implications of the theory of evolution (where did we come from? How did life arise on earth). For A theory that's based in ancient philosophy, it would be rather hard to distance itself from metaphysical claims
The big bang wasn't a particle expanding, it was a chain reaction that linked Higgs Bosons to other quarks to form matter/energy which is always preserved in a system.
What would you say of the initial singularity in the Big Bang? A point so small, yet so infinitesimally dense that it was thought to contain all the mass and spacetime of the universe?
Quote:
Evolution does not always form philosophers, or even beings capable of understanding what philosophy is; and philosophers are not at the top of the food chain or the very end result of evolution. Evolution is randomly guided, so us 'philosophers' are just one branch on an ever growing tree of complex chemical compounds on earth.
The point of the illustration is not that it is a "philosopher" par say, the point of "particles to philosophers" is basically what the theory of evolution says. It documents how from a primordial soup, compounds began to form together to form the first cell, and billions of years later came man (philosopher in the meaning of someone who can contemplate on that fact). Not necessarily saying that man is the highest "state of evolution" or whatever, although curiously, there do seem, in the Hindu interpretation, indications that things strive for more perfection, or a better state. (beings always strive for a higher state of existence). Not quite sure how that goes with entropy.
Quote:
You attempt to use something that happens to be included in a religious book as proof that a scientific theory is metaphysical in nature, when in fact it is the hypothesis that is metaphysical in nature. Darwin would have died another unimportant a*****e with an opinion had he not conducted research that proved fruitful in supporting his claim and starting a chain reaction of researchers clarifying and concreting his opinion as a fact. This is something no Hindu ever did or tried to do, so their half assed attempts at science are a tiny speck compared to Darwinism.
Hypothesis: proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Does it not bother you that there is a metaphysical hypothesis inherent in the theory of evolution? A theory that does not purport to deal with origins or the metaphysical in any way? No, think about this. Even though the theory itself doesn't claim to touch on origins, what is the logical conclusion if evolution is true? Haven't you ever thought gee, if this is true we just came about for no reason. Life constructed itself, in a sense, in the universe. The problem is with the hypothesis itself, it broaches on the all-important question "how did life end up on earth?" There is an underlying assumption of abiogenesis, as opposed to being created. That is a big leap which can't ever be tested but people like holding to that assumption. Science isn't supposed to deal with the metaphysical, or above physical, at all, but this theory clearly tries to make assumptions about the origins of life on earth.
Also, who ever said that it was their attempts at science? It was their RELIGION. That's the key, religion. A religion, and philosophical ideas, which coincidentally, allign verrrry closely to evolution and the cosmology of the big bang (little too close for comfort... what is the implication for our modern theories, if it was all already thought of first by ancient, religious man?)
You're taking the religion thing too far. Just because the people who wrote Hinduism had a particular hypothesis doesn't mean that the hypothesis was religious in nature.
I could quote a scripture saying how the earth is round/spherical and then accuse the science that proves the hypothesis of being wrong because it so happens a religious text got it right and religion is always wrong/a misnomer.
You attempt to deconstruct an empirical science by saying that if religious people came up with the hypothesis that was tested before a professional did, then the science is faith based and all the math and experiments are become nothing more than an assumption to be discarded.
So, instead of trying to shoehorn science into the Bible, you're now trying to shoehorn Evolution into Brahmanism...?
I would say that you using the word "shoehorn" is a little extreme.
Yes, I suppose that you would say that... However, given your track record, and because of what you're saying in this thread, I'd say it's the perfect word for what you're doing.
Bogotanian
Okay, let's have a conversation about it here...
More like,"Okay, I'm gonna say the stuff I've already said umpteen times to other people instead of formulating an actual reply". We all already read all that in the OP, so why are you throwing it at us a second time? That's not an argument, it's just repeating yourself.
Bogotanian
Would you disagree with the conclusions from the guy in the video on the historical progression of the ideas of evolution?
Yes, I would. I think that he sees a connection association between the two because he's looking for one. It's called "confirmation bias"; I'm sure you've heard of it.
Bogotanian
Which point here seems faulty to you
Points 1-8.
Bogotanian
I already quoted Darwin, he talks of the Greek philosophers having the idea long ago. If the Greek philosophers obtained the knowledge from Pythagoras studying under the Brahmins, than the idea can be traced to the Brahmins.
I thought you said Pythagoras never existed, as part of some apologetic argument of yours...?
Anyway, Natural Selection =/= the Great Chain of Being. Darwin's Evolution is not the same thing as the ancient Greek evolution. Once again, you're misinterpreting something in order to make it seem like something it's not. You may be doing this because you don't know any better, which I'd like to think, but I'm starting to wonder...
Bogotanian
Arcoon Effox
You're still overlooking the fact that Evolution as a theory has absolutely squat to do with origins, you know.
I already answered someone else, I was also referencing big bang cosmology with this post.
Then it should be in the thread's title as such.
Bogotanian
Also, on that point you said (about Evolution and Abiogenesis being different things), I'm sorry but I don't quite believe that.
...which means absolutely nothing, since whether or not you think they're the same thing doesn't mean that they are. Abiogenesis deals with the spontaneous generation/activation of life. Evolution deals with how life that already exists changes over long periods of time. Apples and oranges, bro.
Bogotanian
(Evolution) purports not to touch on origins in the slightest, but let's be honest. Have you never thought of philosophical claims or metaphysical ideas merely from studying evolution? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wonder how life ended up on earth in the first place?" What are the implications of evolution? There is the assumption of abiogenesis, which is a philosophical claim.
Just because you can't separate the scientific from the philosophical and/or supernatural doesn't mean that science can't.
Also, let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life, and the theory of abiogenesis says absolutely nothing about the gradual change of organisms over time.
Bogotanian
Arcoon Effox
BTW, are you drawing parallels between Brahman and God? That whole movement=energy thing sounds quite similar to a few apologist arguments I've heard concerning Genesis 1:2.
But the concept of Brahman is different from other concepts of God. One could easily state that Brahman represents the universe itself (in Brahmin cosmology, the universe being composed of eternal matter and cyclical)
One could state that. One could also state that every single thing in existence is Brahman, which would be more accurate. To say that Hindu cosmology says that the universe is "composed of eternal matter" feels like you're trying to shoehorn science into religion to give credence to one side, or the other, or both.
Perhaps you should study Hinduism a bit and see what it actually says about the nature of the universe (as well as the roles of the Trimurti) instead of basing all your ideas about what their religion says on stuff you saw on the internet. And before you bother saying that you have, this is from your other copy of this thread in M&R, with the same name and OP:
Bogotanian
The man notes in the video that the Brahmins had an eternal, cyclical view of the universe. Not exactly sure what, but I would guess that infinite matter of some kind.
You don't actually know in what way Hindus' cyclic view of the universe works, but you're guessing it has to do with "infinite matter of some sort", because potato because such a thing supports your argument.
As explained over there, the Hindu view of the universe could be likened to the Big Bang/Big Crunch in that Brahman breathes out the universe, and eventually breathes it back in, only to repeat the process - but that doesn't mean they're the same thing by any length. The Vedas, Upanishads and Mahabharata collectively say jack about the nature of matter, since the concept as we know it didn't even exist when they were written. That "size of a particle" line you keep quoting from the Manusmiriti is a nothing more than a convenient interpolation for this argument.
A few other things:
Bogotanian
Lucky~9~Lives
...evolution neither implies nor assumes abiogenesis.
I would really like to see what percentage of people that endorse the theory of evolution also endorse abiogenesis.
Red herring. That percentage is irrelevant to whether or not either assumes either.
Bogotanian
...Why then, historically, have evolution textbooks included chapters on "theories of the origins of life" when it is not supposed to deal with origins?
Link to one of these "evolution textbooks", PLZ, as I've never heard of a textbook that solely deals with such a topic.
Bogotanian
Dryskale
...Guess what, I've read the Vedas. So unless you have to or can quote specific passages, you can't bs your way through this.
I already quoted the passages, read them yourself on the creation of the universe in the narrative.
No, you actually didn't. What you provided was a line from the Manusmriti (which aren't Vedic in nature), and a line from one of the Upanishads with a convenient interpretation. Remember what I said about shoehorning earlier? Yeah.
Bogotanian
Dryskale
Bogotanian
That is the inescapable metaphysical underpinings of the theory of evolution. It is inherent in the theory to ask those sorts of questions, which are outside of the realm of science, yet somehow supposedly in science for the sake of evolution.
Source directly where the theory sates. Sow me where Lenaus, Ghould, Darwin, WIneberg, Mendel, MIller, etc have said this.
Well, you can surely find quotes from Darwin himself. He theorized, at one point, that it could have been a lightning strike on some primordial sea of ancient earth.
So, here we have you ducking your burden of proof and making another un-sourced claim in the process. Nice.
Bogotanian
Dryskale
Stop making claims without sourcing them. There is no point to go further in your post. Its the same problems repeated. Misrepresenting what something says through either ignorance or dishonesty, straw maning and distracting from your position, and refusing to source your claims. You are a waste of time.
Really I'm being dishonest here? You're the one who has said absolute lies that I just copy pasted things from Creationist websites.
Tu quoque fallacy is fallacious. Whether or not he is being dishonest doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you are.
...Now, you should really contact a mod about shutting down either one or the other of these threads. With two of them going, conversation threads are going to get garbled, and points are going to get confused. I don't know if merging them is possible, but you could ask.
So, instead of trying to shoehorn science into the Bible, you're now trying to shoehorn Evolution into Brahmanism...?
I would say that you using the word "shoehorn" is a little extreme.
Yes, I suppose that you would say that... However, given your track record, and because of what you're saying in this thread, I'd say it's the perfect word for what you're doing.
No, I think you are blowing it quite out of proportion, startlingly so in fact. I assume that you take someone elses view who commented something like "If you take 30 shots while upside down than maaaaybe there is some similarity with evolution, but not really."
Swami Vivekanada
"What is the cause of evolution? Desire. The animal wants to do something, but it does not find the environment favourable and therefore develops a new body. Who develops it? The animal itself, its will. You have developed from the lowest amoeba. Continue to exercise your will and it will take you higher still. The will is almighty. If it is almighty, you may say, why cannot I do everything? But you are thinking only of your little self. Look back on yourselves from the state of the amoeba to the human being; who made all that? Your own will. Can you deny then that it is almighty? That which has made you come up so high can make you go higher still."
Btw he also discusses the parallels between evolution and the concept of reincarnation moving up the "tree of life" as well.
The Ladder of Ascent
" .... 20,000 species of non-mobile plants (Sthvara); 900,000 species of aquatic creatures; 900,000 species of amphibians and reptiles; 1,000,000 species of birds; 3,000,000 species of other creatures such as animals; 400,000 species of anthropoids (Vanaras), after which the human species (Manushya) of 200,000 varieties come into being, and Man then engages in purposeful activity to attain perfection." (Padma Purana)
Quote:
Bogotanian
Okay, let's have a conversation about it here...
More like,"Okay, I'm gonna say the stuff I've already said umpteen times to other people instead of formulating an actual reply". We all already read all that in the OP, so why are you throwing it at us a second time? That's not an argument, it's just repeating yourself.
You are not actually discussing any of the 8 points in the conclusion, you just said "nah, they're all invalid."
Quote:
Bogotanian
Would you disagree with the conclusions from the guy in the video on the historical progression of the ideas of evolution?
Yes, I would. I think that he sees a connection association between the two because he's looking for one. It's called "confirmation bias"; I'm sure you've heard of it.
Bogotanian
Which point here seems faulty to you
Points 1-8.
Again, points 1-8 are invalid. What a deep, thought-provoking answer. Just they're wrong. Why are you in this thread if you're not going to discuss any of the points?
Anyways, I am going to disagree with you and agree with some actual professors on the topic of Pythagoras
"The analogies between Greek Pythagorean philosophy and the Sankhya school are very obvious." (Sir William Jones, pioneer of Western study of Sanskrit)
"It is more likely that Pythagoras was influenced by India than by Egypt. Almost all the theories, religious, philosophical, and mathematical taught by the Pythagoreans, were known in India in the sixth century BC." (Professor H.G. Rawlinson)
And who mentions that Pythagoras studied under the Brahmins?
"Pythagoras travelled widely, studying the esoteric teachings of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and even the Brahmins." (Iamblichus, Pythagoras' biographer)
Maybe you refused to comment on any of the 8 points because, the philosophy of evolution predates the scientific theory, and ancient evolutionary ideas were based (gasp) in philosophy.
Quote:
Bogotanian
I already quoted Darwin, he talks of the Greek philosophers having the idea long ago. If the Greek philosophers obtained the knowledge from Pythagoras studying under the Brahmins, than the idea can be traced to the Brahmins.
I thought you said Pythagoras never existed, as part of some apologetic argument of yours...?
Oh no, I should clarify this for you. I personally accept that Pythagoras, as a person, existed. Because, as we all know, first-hand accounts of someone's life aren't needed to validate their existence. We assume that many historical people existed. It's only when people make ludicrous claims such as "Jesus never existed." They like to apply a hypocritical standard of existence to eye-witness sources...
when... cough cough... so many ancient figures lacked eye witness sources... cough cough.... for hundreds of years or more.... oh right, we only apply that rigorous standard to Jesus, that makes sense. Noted.
Quote:
Anyway, Natural Selection =/= the Great Chain of Being. Darwin's Evolution is not the same thing as the ancient Greek evolution. Once again, you're misinterpreting something in order to make it seem like something it's not. You may be doing this because you don't know any better, which I'd like to think, but I'm starting to wonder...
The philosophy behind evolution is rooted in naturalistic philosophy, forwarded by Thales. Yep, the root idea for the modern theory of evolution was the ancient Greek philosophers (Darwin admits that). The idea came from an ancient philosophy, but someone seems scared to admit that. Unless, you would say that the ancients really had their philosophical views correct all along.
Quote:
Bogotanian
Arcoon Effox
You're still overlooking the fact that Evolution as a theory has absolutely squat to do with origins, you know.
I already answered someone else, I was also referencing big bang cosmology with this post.
Then it should be in the thread's title as such.
If it'll make you happy I guess. Also, can you change a title once it's posted?
Quote:
Bogotanian
Also, on that point you said (about Evolution and Abiogenesis being different things), I'm sorry but I don't quite believe that.
...which means absolutely nothing, since whether or not you think they're the same thing doesn't mean that they are. Abiogenesis deals with the spontaneous generation/activation of life. Evolution deals with how life that already exists changes over long periods of time. Apples and oranges, bro.
Bogotanian
(Evolution) purports not to touch on origins in the slightest, but let's be honest. Have you never thought of philosophical claims or metaphysical ideas merely from studying evolution? Have you ever thought "Gee, I wonder how life ended up on earth in the first place?" What are the implications of evolution? There is the assumption of abiogenesis, which is a philosophical claim.
Just because you can't separate the scientific from the philosophical and/or supernatural doesn't mean that science can't.
How does science separate the metaphysical assumptions from the scientific? Oh right, people side step the issue and say "Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with origins,"
Quote:
Also, let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life, and the theory of abiogenesis says absolutely nothing about the gradual change of organisms over time.
Abiogenesis is the metaphysical driving assumption behind the theory of evolution.
Quote:
Bogotanian
Arcoon Effox
BTW, are you drawing parallels between Brahman and God? That whole movement=energy thing sounds quite similar to a few apologist arguments I've heard concerning Genesis 1:2.
But the concept of Brahman is different from other concepts of God. One could easily state that Brahman represents the universe itself (in Brahmin cosmology, the universe being composed of eternal matter and cyclical)
One could state that. One could also state that every single thing in existence is Brahman, which would be more accurate. To say that Hindu cosmology says that the universe is "composed of eternal matter" feels like you're trying to shoehorn science into religion to give credence to one side, or the other, or both.
You said it yourself, every single thing in existence is Brahmin (completely different from other concepts of God.... it's sort of more, pantheistic if you think about it.... gee kind of like I was saying from the video). That everything includes everything in the universe. The Brahmin universe is eternal and cycle. Hence all matter in the universe.
Quote:
Perhaps you should study Hinduism a bit and see what it actually says about the nature of the universe (as well as the roles of the Trimurti) instead of basing all your ideas about what their religion says on stuff you saw on the internet. And before you bother saying that you have, this is from your other copy of this thread in M&R, with the same name and OP:
Bogotanian
The man notes in the video that the Brahmins had an eternal, cyclical view of the universe. Not exactly sure what, but I would guess that infinite matter of some kind.
You don't actually know in what way Hindus' cyclic view of the universe works, but you're guessing it has to do with "infinite matter of some sort", because potato because such a thing supports your argument.
Quote:
As explained over there, the Hindu view of the universe could be likened to the Big Bang/Big Crunch in that Brahman breathes out the universe, and eventually breathes it back in, only to repeat the process - but that doesn't mean they're the same thing by any length. The Vedas, Upanishads and Mahabharata collectively say jack about the nature of matter, since the concept as we know it didn't even exist when they were written. That "size of a particle" line you keep quoting from the Manusmiriti is a nothing more than a convenient interpolation for this argument.
Thank you for admitting that. Doesn't mean they are the same thing, but there is the glaring parallel with the modern theory, that you need some serious blinders on not to see. Indicating that new modern ideas aren't really so new and modern after all.
I'll quote a wiki paragraph.
Among the Hindu Puranas, an eternal universe cosmology in which time has no absolute beginning, but rather is infinite and cyclic, is described, rather than a universe which originated from a Big Bang.[13][14] However, the Encyclopædia of Hinduism, referencing Katha Upanishad 2:20, states that the Big Bang theory reminds humanity that everything came from the Brahman which is "subtler than the atom, greater than the greatest."[15] The Nasadiya Sukta, the Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda (10:129) mentions world beginning from a point or bindu, through the power of heat.[16][17] This can be seen as it being corresponding to The Big Bang theory. Several prominent modern scientists have mentioned Hinduism as the only religion (or civilization) in all of recorded history, that has timescales and theories in Astronomy that appear to correspond to that of modern science, e.g. Carl Sagan,[18] Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg,[19][20][21] Robert Oppenheimer,[22] Nikola Tesla,[23] Eugene Wigner,[24] Fritjof Capra [25] etc. Religious Interpretatiosn of the Big Bang
A few other things:
Quote:
Bogotanian
Lucky~9~Lives
...evolution neither implies nor assumes abiogenesis.
I would really like to see what percentage of people that endorse the theory of evolution also endorse abiogenesis.
Red herring. That percentage is irrelevant to whether or not either assumes either.
Dude evolution text books at least mention abiogenesis and the primordial soup. It is not irrelevant at all. More skirting.
Quote:
Bogotanian
...Why then, historically, have evolution textbooks included chapters on "theories of the origins of life" when it is not supposed to deal with origins?
Link to one of these "evolution textbooks", PLZ, as I've never heard of a textbook that solely deals with such a topic.
Ahaaa I see what you did there. Note the word "solely" as if "Only when an evolution text book solely deals with abiogenesis, is it a thing." So you're telling me it hasn't mentioned abiogenesis at all? (Even in just a sentence or something, the Miller Urey Experiment, in an intro chapter)
It doesn't have to SOLELY be about abiogenesis, only reference it once or a few times to give the idea credence.
Sigh. You just can't win sometimes, know what I mean? First I did not put sources (nor did I plagiarize anything either) and someone says "You have no sources raaar." When I put sources, someone says "Appeal to authority." What is the line between appeal to authority and being able to explain a topic? (Btw some things I said are common knowledge, didn't know you had to quote something that's common knowledge, such as Darwin's view but I'll find a link at the end)
Anyways here's a textbook for one. Here's one simply called "Evolution"
Note the part II segment "Origin and Diversificatin of Life"
"Origin and Diversification of Life (Part II) describes the history of life on earth from the origin of life to the evolution of humans, with emphasis on the major transitions in genetic organization and novel adaptations that have appeared. The diversity of life is emphasized. The chapters make extensive use of information from complete genome sequences and analysis of molecular mechanisms in development."
Wait, evolution is not supposed to deal with origins, yet there is a segment that pertains to the Origins of Life on earth? Hmmmmm abiogenesis much? If evolution had nothing to do with origins, this section would not be in the book and abiogenesis would never be mentioned as an idea in evolutionary textbooks. You're saying that you've never heard of a promordial soup anywhere in an evolution textbook?
Quote:
Bogotanian
Dryskale
...Guess what, I've read the Vedas. So unless you have to or can quote specific passages, you can't bs your way through this.
I already quoted the passages, read them yourself on the creation of the universe in the narrative.
No, you actually didn't. What you provided was a line from the Manusmriti (which aren't Vedic in nature), and a line from one of the Upanishads with a convenient interpretation. Remember what I said about shoehorning earlier? Yeah.
See previous explanation, and wiki page, and what is your "convenient" interpretation from the Upanishads? Again the idea of Brahmin being "subtler than an atom, greater than the greatest." You said yourself there are similarities in the Big Bang/Crunch illustration.
Quote:
Bogotanian
Dryskale
Bogotanian
That is the inescapable metaphysical underpinings of the theory of evolution. It is inherent in the theory to ask those sorts of questions, which are outside of the realm of science, yet somehow supposedly in science for the sake of evolution.
Source directly where the theory sates. Sow me where Lenaus, Ghould, Darwin, WIneberg, Mendel, MIller, etc have said this.
Well, you can surely find quotes from Darwin himself. He theorized, at one point, that it could have been a lightning strike on some primordial sea of ancient earth.
So, here we have you ducking your burden of proof and making another un-sourced claim in the process. Nice.
1837 Darwin - "the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable"
1871, private letter he sent
"it is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed"
Darwin underwent several ideas and thoughts on the topic, and seemed unable to make up his mind in the end. The promordial soup was one of them.
Quote:
Bogotanian
Dryskale
Stop making claims without sourcing them. There is no point to go further in your post. Its the same problems repeated. Misrepresenting what something says through either ignorance or dishonesty, straw maning and distracting from your position, and refusing to source your claims. You are a waste of time.
Really I'm being dishonest here? You're the one who has said absolute lies that I just copy pasted things from Creationist websites.
Tu quoque fallacy is fallacious. Whether or not he is being dishonest doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you are.
For someone who claims to hold the integral highground time and time again in our discussions, what is with that? You admit that he is being dishonest, but he gets a pass, because you think I'm being dishonest. I'm not being dishonest, I come back to you with sources (which you'll probably just say appeal to authority) but that response is clear. You vindicated a dishonest person. His lies apparently don't matter, only my apparent dishonesty does. stare
Quote:
...Now, you should really contact a mod about shutting down either one or the other of these threads. With two of them going, conversation threads are going to get garbled, and points are going to get confused. I don't know if merging them is possible, but you could ask.
Wasn't sure which forum would get more hits, but it seems this one is. I'll contact a mod about it.
This is a fascinating watch on the origins of Evolution, which go back thousands of years before Darwin's time.
There is a difference in words here and the mean. Like the word p***y. Pusillanimous->p***y->cats are called cowardly-> shortened to p***y->p***y is now a word for cats-> women get associated with cats-> p***y becomes a slang word for her v****a
Words change over time. Do you deny this?
Quote:
It is a four part video and if anyone is interested the other parts are on youtube (it has some great quotes).
I can find the quotes it uses just fine without having to watch a stupid video about some Illuminati mouth breathing idiot.
Quote:
But for those who don't watch, I'll post the conclusion page to demonstrate the thought progression of the presentation.
Oh joy.
Quote:
1. The theory of Evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
No it did not. The theory of evolution, came from obeserving a change within animals. They needed a word to describe it. Evolution, or "a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development" It comes from THIS word. Evolute which basically is a geometry term but also used in biology. Its use for BIOLOGY didn't come about till the 1880's or so. So no. There is little to no way the world oldest religion has anything to do with the WORD and theory of evolution. Anyone that says it does it a TRANSLATOR of the word.
Words in various tongues can translate to various meanings. Just take a look at ancient hebrew. I don't know HOW people can translate that crap to something as 'legible' as the bible.
Quote:
2. Pantheistic Evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
A guy born before Socrates.
Did you know that the greek word for AMBER is the word we get the word ELECTRON from? I didn't know that. That's pretty interesting. Plus I wouldn't trust guys who think earth becomes water, and who thinks lodestones ((magnets)) WE LIVING THINGS. Yeah sorry. No.
Quote:
Diogenes Laertius tells us that the Seven Sages were created in the archonship of Damasius at Athens about 582 BC and that Thales was the first sage. The same story, however, asserts that Thales emigrated to Miletus. There is also a report that he did not become a student of nature until after his political career. Much as we would like to have a date on the seven sages, we must reject these stories and the tempting date if we are to believe that Thales was a native of Miletus, predicted the eclipse, and was with Croesus in the campaign against Cyrus.
Oh whats that? That's the sound of the video maker lying his a** off.
Quote:
4. Plato and Aristotle's Evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
I'm not suprized that there is hardly any mention of Plato in egypt even by himself. Socrates
I can tell something I have heard of the ancients; but whether it is true, they only know. But if we ourselves should find it out, should we care any longer for human opinions?
Phaedrus
A ridiculous question! But tell me what you say you have heard.
Socrates
I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters. Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. Oh lookie, THOTH, the bane of all conspiracy theorists. Get the philebus, and the phaedrus, in which Whats his face mentions egypt. Phaedrus 274c-275b; Philebus 19b, those are you search terms for the day children.
Quote:
5. The ideas were followed through into the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
*sighs* Oh really? Well lets see proof. Lets see proof that BIOLOGICAL ******** EVOLUTION is There. And not a word that roughly means the 'same' as it. As in change. You are an idiot.
Quote:
6. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy
What philosophy? "change over time in species?" How exactly can biological evolution be a philosophy? The most I can the word CHANGE, is one. Joy, you have one tiny piece of the meaning of biological evolution taken out of context. You are a ******** idiot, collect your damn sign from the inbred rednecks on stage and go ******** your cousin.
Okay that was harsh.
Quote:
7. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
His name is JAMES BURNETT you idiot. He was a scholar of ETYMOLOGY. Or as you would call it, "linguistic evolution". You are an idiot that doesn't know who this man is. The guy studied LANGUAGES. Granted he studied evolution as well. But you are an idiot still. Lord Monboddo.
Do I need to tell you how wrong this is or do you know from the thousands if not millions of people who know better.
Quote:
Also, here are some interesting quotes from the presentation
Oh joy. Lets give interesting quotes from something else.
Quote:
"Indeed, the Hindus were Spinozists 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like evolution existed in any language of the world." Sir M. Monier-Williams, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Oxford, 1894
But first, lets find the CONTEXT of this quote. There is the WHOLE context.
Oh yeah I'm sure they knew about biological evolution:
In the Indian perception, says Swamiji,
‘. . .every being is a perfect Soul, and the
diversity of evolution and manifestation of
[one’s] nature is simply due to the difference
in the degree of manifestation of this Soul.
The moment the obstacles to the evolution
and manifestation of nature [within] are
completely removed, the Soul manifests It-
self perfectly.' .....The two causes of evolution advanced
by Darwin, viz. sexual selection and survival
of the fittest, according to Swamiji, are inad-
equate
TL;DR Appogetics for Hinudism and Evolution.
The hindu term for 'evolution' is NOT biological Darwism evolution. But SPIRITUAL evolution. Basically from acting like 'uncivilized' people to repressed Elizabethan people.
Quote:
Hindu Cosmic Evolution
Quote:
1. The Universe is cyclical
2. Motion causes an atomic particle to appear.
3. The particle/egg expands and explodes, forming the Universe
4. Out of this there is an evolutionary progression from particles to philosophers
5. This process takes billions of years
"He (i.e. Brahma, the creative principle) becomes the size of an atomic particle and... brings to life this whole Universe." (Laws of Manu 1:56-57)
*sighs* According to the Puranas, Brahma is the son of God, and often referred to as Prajapati. The Shatapatha Brahman says that Brahma was born of the Supreme Being Brahman and the female energy known as Maya. Wishing to create the universe, Brahman first created the water, in which he placed his seed. This seed transformed into a golden egg, from which Brahma appeared. For this reason Brahma is also known as ‘Hiranyagarbha’. According to another legend, Brahma is self-born out of a lotus flower which grew from the navel of Vishnu.
I wish people were not stupid. I really do. 56. When, being clothed with minute particles (only), it enters into vegetable or animal seed, it then assumes, united (with the fine body), a (new) corporeal frame.
57. Thus he, the imperishable one, by (alternately) waking and slumbering, incessantly revivifies and destroys this whole movable and immovable (creation).
Because it is TRANSLATORS who ALTER the meaning of the text to fit bias. Do I need to scream this out so that aliens from ******** ZIEST hear me?
Quote:
"After hundreds of millions of years he (i.e. Brahman, the Universe) split the egg into parts making heaven out of one and the earth out of the other."
12. The divine one resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought (alone) divided it into two halves;
13. And out of those two halves he formed heaven and earth, between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, and the eternal abode of the waters. 12 months of Brahma = 1 year of Brahma (3.1104 trillion human years)
Quote:
"By Tapas (i.e. heat) the power of meditation, Brahman (i.e. the Universe) attains expansion and then comes primeval matter... and from this comes life." (Mundaka Upanishad 1:1).
1. BRAHMA was the first of the Devas, the maker of the universe, the preserver of the world. He told the knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge, to his eldest son Atharva
Just kidding the REAL 1 1, or I (roman numeral) 1 is as follows. 1. LET a man meditate on the syllable 2 Om, called the udgîtha; for the udgîtha (a portion of the Sâma-veda) is sung, beginning with Om.
The full account, however, of Om is this:--.
Oh lookie. Lets find out which line this ACTUALLY is. Oh, tapas means MEDIATION. Not ******** heat. You s**t a** translator. No really, its the highest form of mediation. The earliest discussions of tapas, and compound words from the root tap (Sanskrit: तप) relate to the heat necessary for biological birth. Its conceptual origin is traced to the natural wait, motherly warmth and physical "brooding" provided by birds such as a hen upon her eggs - a process that is essential to hatching and birth; the Vedic scholars used mother nature's example to explain and extend this concept to hatching of knowledge and spiritual rebirth In ancient literature of Hinduism dedicated to love, desire, lust, seduction and sex, the root of the word tapas is commonly used.
Oh it can mean 'heat' but the word heat, should be translated as LUST, or 'birth' if you are going to use in the context of this line. And no were do I actually find it, in the place it says it is. So this person took some quote utterly out of context and put it somewhere where it should not be. Figures.
Quote:
The idea of Evolution is referenced in the ancient Hindu texts, as well as the cosmic egg from the size of an atomic particle that brought the Universe into being (the big bang).
Yeah sure, if you take things UTTERLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
Quote:
Are these really new, modern ideas, or are they actually ancient philosophy and ideas that have been re-worked and re-framed in modern times?
Now you are getting into this territory. I'm sure you don't want to go here.
Quote:
Perhaps Darwin did not actually come up with the idea of Evolution.
Its almost as if he built his knowledge after repeated observations of various people including himself.
Quote:
In his sixth edition of the Origins of Species (1888 ), in his preface he lists 20 or so scientists before him who held to the view of Evolution, apparently under pressure because people did not approve of him getting all the credit for the theory.
How nice of him, he is the one that brought the idea to the forefront. And thus the screaming masses could not bare it, and thus started a cycle of 'he is stupid, I'm right gawd did it' in the south.
Quote:
He notes: Charles Darwin : "Passing over the allusions to the subject in classical writers, the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon"
Unlike you he is giving credit where credit is due.
Quote:
With the foot note: "We see here (i.e. in Aristotle's Physics 2:8:2) the principle of Natural Selection shadowed forth."
Chapter 8. The relation between final causation and necessity
Why should nature act for purposes, and not simply due to (material) necessity?
Example: The rain comes in order to make the grain grow. But why could this not just occur due to necessary facts about clouds, sun, etc.? And similarly, why could it not be that teeth just grow as they do owing to various material causes?
Aristotle's response: This is impossible. These processes are for something and they occur quite regularly. But purposive things which occur only by chance are the exception, not the rule. There must be something that explains why these purposive things come about so regularly -- this must be because they come about for a reason or for a purpose.
Sounds like its supporting CREATION. Not evolution. GTFO and come back when you learn how to READ.
This is a fascinating watch on the origins of Evolution, which go back thousands of years before Darwin's time.
There is a difference in words here and the mean. Like the word p***y. Pusillanimous->p***y->cats are called cowardly-> shortened to p***y->p***y is now a word for cats-> women get associated with cats-> p***y becomes a slang word for her v****a
Words change over time. Do you deny this?
Hmm I wonder at your choice to include "p***y" multiple times. Perhaps you should make a thread on the female anatomy and/or a solicitation thread of some sorts.
Words do change over time. In fact the word "evolution" didn't exist way back in the day. Still, the concept was there in the form of philosophy (animals changing into other animals, the origins of life on earth, by pantheistic and later by naturalistic means)
Quote:
Quote:
It is a four part video and if anyone is interested the other parts are on youtube (it has some great quotes).
I can find the quotes it uses just fine without having to watch a stupid video about some Illuminati mouth breathing idiot.
I've watched the full video, and it's kind of funny. He doesn't mention the illuminati once.
Quote:
Quote:
But for those who don't watch, I'll post the conclusion page to demonstrate the thought progression of the presentation.
Oh joy.
You know it babe.
Quote:
Quote:
1. The theory of Evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
No it did not. The theory of evolution, came from obeserving a change within animals. They needed a word to describe it. Evolution, or "a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development" It comes from THIS word. Evolute which basically is a geometry term but also used in biology. Its use for BIOLOGY didn't come about till the 1880's or so. So no. There is little to no way the world oldest religion has anything to do with the WORD and theory of evolution. Anyone that says it does it a TRANSLATOR of the word.
Words in various tongues can translate to various meanings. Just take a look at ancient hebrew. I don't know HOW people can translate that crap to something as 'legible' as the bible.
If you're saying that the modern theory of evolution didn't exist at the time in terms of biology, sure. But no-one's talking about that now are they?
It was the philosophy behind evolution (Thales and his naturalistic evolution ideas. Lacked the biology, but the good ol' idea was still there).
I already addressed the "word" bit. "Evolution" as a word didn't exist at the time, that doesn't mean that people didn't have concept for organisms changing or evolving over time.
Quote:
Quote:
2. Pantheistic Evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
Hmmm, I assume that you take this point to be true then? That Pythagoras studied under the Brahmins and adopted much of their ideas, both philosophical and religious in nature? Unless you have a better counter to it than saying that the word didn't exist at the time or have the same meaning.
Quote:
Quote:
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
A guy born before Socrates.
Did you know that the greek word for AMBER is the word we get the word ELECTRON from? I didn't know that. That's pretty interesting. Plus I wouldn't trust guys who think earth becomes water, and who thinks lodestones ((magnets)) WE LIVING THINGS. Yeah sorry. No.
Quote:
Diogenes Laertius tells us that the Seven Sages were created in the archonship of Damasius at Athens about 582 BC and that Thales was the first sage. The same story, however, asserts that Thales emigrated to Miletus. There is also a report that he did not become a student of nature until after his political career. Much as we would like to have a date on the seven sages, we must reject these stories and the tempting date if we are to believe that Thales was a native of Miletus, predicted the eclipse, and was with Croesus in the campaign against Cyrus.
Oh whats that? That's the sound of the video maker lying his a** off.
Well, that's you and me both in terms of people that would agree with the far-out beliefs of the ancient Greek philosophers. In fact, if you wanted to, you could enter into a whole different discussion on to whether these historical figures actually existed or not.
Anyways, Thales student, Anaximander, developed his ideas of naturalism as it pertained to the evolutionary idea further. He notes that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms (sound familiar to something? That the oldest life came out of the sea?).
Just because there are some crazy religious connotations around these ancient philosophers doesn't mean that they did not come up with some philosophies. Similarly, just because the modern theory of evolution deals with the biological realm... does not mean that Darwin came up with the idea himself. He got it from these guys (He admits that a certain scientist was the first one to apply science to the theory that the ancients already held). So wait, that means that the idea had been around long before Darwin, he was just the first to put a scientific spin on it.
Does it feel disconcerting to know that the assumptions behind the theory were based on age old philosophies, which are outside the realm of science?
Quote:
Quote:
4. Plato and Aristotle's Evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
I'm not suprized that there is hardly any mention of Plato in egypt even by himself. Socrates
I can tell something I have heard of the ancients; but whether it is true, they only know. But if we ourselves should find it out, should we care any longer for human opinions?
Phaedrus
A ridiculous question! But tell me what you say you have heard.
Socrates
I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters. Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. Oh lookie, THOTH, the bane of all conspiracy theorists. Get the philebus, and the phaedrus, in which Whats his face mentions egypt. Phaedrus 274c-275b; Philebus 19b, those are you search terms for the day children.
Again, far-out stuff that ancient philosophers said concerning metaphysical beliefs. Not surprising, and stuff that we would take with a grain of salt.
It deals with connections between Egypt and Greece. Egypt was a cultural center for learning, wisdom, and exchanging ideas at the time under the Persians, Plato studied there (as did people from all over the world including... India).
The question does have to be asked: Plato stated that souls of the deceased reincarnated, both in animals and humans. An idea that was unheard of in the west. Where did they get these ideas from? (hint, the East). Plato was a vivid studier of and spoke much of Pythagoras (btw he was known for many religious type things, not just the mathematical theorem everyone uses today. Some said he started a cult of numerology, some of his followers attempted to deified him. There was alot of interesting metaphysical ideas circulating at the time) who studied, at least, in Egypt
"Pythagoras left Samos in 535 BC, to study with the priests in the temples."
Quote:
Quote:
5. The ideas were followed through into the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
*sighs* Oh really? Well lets see proof. Lets see proof that BIOLOGICAL ******** EVOLUTION is There. And not a word that roughly means the 'same' as it. As in change. You are an idiot.
You're getting the topic wrong, again. I'm not suggesting that the biological theory of evolution was known or taught at the time.
Buuuut... the philosophical assumption behind the modern theory of evolution (animals changing into other animals, over large periods of time, by naturalistic means) ...cough...cough.... was an ancient philosophical idea.
Quote:
Quote:
6. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy
What philosophy? "change over time in species?" How exactly can biological evolution be a philosophy? The most I can the word CHANGE, is one. Joy, you have one tiny piece of the meaning of biological evolution taken out of context. You are a ******** idiot, collect your damn sign from the inbred rednecks on stage and go ******** your cousin.
Okay that was harsh.
I'm hurt... you would associate me with rednecks? I'm from the North, I just happen to live in a borderline state currently.
And again, you are conflating the issue as I've pointed out several times already. Ideas of evolution were bountiful back in the day, there just wasn't a "scientific" theory or explanation at the time. Evolution is rooted in philosophy, that's the point. Darwin got the idea from the ancients, and people near his time such as his grandfather, who was an ardent proponent of the ancient naturalistic evolution as a philosophy. "Biological Evolution" attempts to distance itself from its philosophical origins.
Quote:
Quote:
7. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
His name is JAMES BURNETT you idiot. He was a scholar of ETYMOLOGY. Or as you would call it, "linguistic evolution". You are an idiot that doesn't know who this man is. The guy studied LANGUAGES. Granted he studied evolution as well. But you are an idiot still. Lord Monboddo.
You said it yourself. He was an ardent evolutionist before Darwin came up with his theory. Gee, I wonder where Darwin obtained the philosophical ideas that would later go into his theory of evolution....
And he's not his father, he's his grandfather... and was a freemason... freemasons were a huge part of the enlightenment... freemasons hid their ideas from the world at large because at that time Christianity was a huge part of the culture.... one of their beliefs was naturalistic evolution from the ancient Greek philosophers, hence Mondobbo, make sense now?
Quote:
Quote:
8. Charles Darwin developed the idea.
Do I need to tell you how wrong this is or do you know from the thousands if not millions of people who know better.
Lol Darwin admits this, see his quote in the OP in referencing Aristotle. He claims that a scientist in his modern period was the first to apply science to the idea (admits it was an ancient idea). Darwin did indeed develop the idea, but he did not come up with it out of nowhere. He did not merely see observations in nature and come to his conclusions. He had a pre-existing worldview (passed down from Erasmus) of the philosophy of evolution and natural selection, and he built a biological basis for it (one of the first to make evolution "scientific" if you will, and not purely a philosophical, metaphysical idea).
Quote:
Quote:
Also, here are some interesting quotes from the presentation
Oh joy. Lets give interesting quotes from something else.
Quote:
"Indeed, the Hindus were Spinozists 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like evolution existed in any language of the world." Sir M. Monier-Williams, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Oxford, 1894
But first, lets find the CONTEXT of this quote. There is the WHOLE context.
Oh yeah I'm sure they knew about biological evolution:
In the Indian perception, says Swamiji,
‘. . .every being is a perfect Soul, and the
diversity of evolution and manifestation of
[one’s] nature is simply due to the difference
in the degree of manifestation of this Soul.
The moment the obstacles to the evolution
and manifestation of nature [within] are
completely removed, the Soul manifests It-
self perfectly.' .....The two causes of evolution advanced
by Darwin, viz. sexual selection and survival
of the fittest, according to Swamiji, are inad-
equate
TL;DR Appogetics for Hinudism and Evolution.
The hindu term for 'evolution' is NOT biological Darwism evolution. But SPIRITUAL evolution. Basically from acting like 'uncivilized' people to repressed Elizabethan people.
I never claimed it was biological evolution, I've said that like 3 or 4 times now? But that's the thing... in the Hindu mindset, it was kind of hard to separate the religious ideas from reality in their form of cosmology, evolution, and reincarnation...
Similarly it's hard to separate evolution from it's Philosophical origins Gasp
Quote:
Quote:
Hindu Cosmic Evolution
Quote:
1. The Universe is cyclical
2. Motion causes an atomic particle to appear.
3. The particle/egg expands and explodes, forming the Universe
4. Out of this there is an evolutionary progression from particles to philosophers
5. This process takes billions of years
1. I've heard people, in their take on the multiverse, say that our big bang happened due to left over matter of another universe, in other words the universe is cyclical. Universes beget universes, there could be many big bangs, other universes what have you.
2. It's all about Brahma here, the god, or "universe itself" if you will, all of the matter in the universe. The universe is creating itself. Though they state things in the ancient Hindu texts that have some striking... similarities with the Big Bang singularity, no?
3. Again, difficult to separate religious thought from ideas, but the parallels are there. They reference a cosmic egg, expanding universe, a particle begetting the universe (singularity) big bang right there.
4. Ok sure... and an evolutionary progression both in the universe on earth that accounted for the origins of life.
5. But they state billions of years. On the wiki page "The universe is cyclically created and destroyed in the timespan of 4.32 billion years." As far as creation narratives go, there is nothing that is closer to the modern theories with the big bang and evolution. That age is curiously close to the age of the earth (4.45 billion years). They almost calculated the age of the earth back then before Greek philosophers even existed.
Quote:
Quote:
"He (i.e. Brahma, the creative principle) becomes the size of an atomic particle and... brings to life this whole Universe." (Laws of Manu 1:56-57)
*sighs* According to the Puranas, Brahma is the son of God, and often referred to as Prajapati. The Shatapatha Brahman says that Brahma was born of the Supreme Being Brahman and the female energy known as Maya. Wishing to create the universe, Brahman first created the water, in which he placed his seed. This seed transformed into a golden egg, from which Brahma appeared. For this reason Brahma is also known as ‘Hiranyagarbha’. According to another legend, Brahma is self-born out of a lotus flower which grew from the navel of Vishnu.
I wish people were not stupid. I really do. 56. When, being clothed with minute particles (only), it enters into vegetable or animal seed, it then assumes, united (with the fine body), a (new) corporeal frame.
57. Thus he, the imperishable one, by (alternately) waking and slumbering, incessantly revivifies and destroys this whole movable and immovable (creation).
Because it is TRANSLATORS who ALTER the meaning of the text to fit bias. Do I need to scream this out so that aliens from ******** ZIEST hear me?
The concept of Brahma is different from other ideas of God. You could easily think of Brahma in terms of Pantheism, being everything, or the universe itself. Everything is "god" or the universe. Hence they had the ideas of pantheistic evolution and reincarnation inherent in their beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
"After hundreds of millions of years he (i.e. Brahman, the Universe) split the egg into parts making heaven out of one and the earth out of the other."
12. The divine one resided in that egg during a whole year, then he himself by his thought (alone) divided it into two halves;
13. And out of those two halves he formed heaven and earth, between them the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, and the eternal abode of the waters. 12 months of Brahma = 1 year of Brahma (3.1104 trillion human years)
That is a long long time. Wouldn't surprise me if they say that the universe is even older (they already have, from Planck, said that it's older than we though) in the long run.
Quote:
Quote:
"By Tapas (i.e. heat) the power of meditation, Brahman (i.e. the Universe) attains expansion and then comes primeval matter... and from this comes life." (Mundaka Upanishad 1:1).
1. BRAHMA was the first of the Devas, the maker of the universe, the preserver of the world. He told the knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge, to his eldest son Atharva
Just kidding the REAL 1 1, or I (roman numeral) 1 is as follows. 1. LET a man meditate on the syllable 2 Om, called the udgîtha; for the udgîtha (a portion of the Sâma-veda) is sung, beginning with Om.
The full account, however, of Om is this:--.
Oh lookie. Lets find out which line this ACTUALLY is. Oh, tapas means MEDIATION. Not ******** heat. You s**t a** translator. No really, its the highest form of mediation. The earliest discussions of tapas, and compound words from the root tap (Sanskrit: तप) relate to the heat necessary for biological birth. Its conceptual origin is traced to the natural wait, motherly warmth and physical "brooding" provided by birds such as a hen upon her eggs - a process that is essential to hatching and birth; the Vedic scholars used mother nature's example to explain and extend this concept to hatching of knowledge and spiritual rebirth In ancient literature of Hinduism dedicated to love, desire, lust, seduction and sex, the root of the word tapas is commonly used.
Oh it can mean 'heat' but the word heat, should be translated as LUST, or 'birth' if you are going to use in the context of this line. And no were do I actually find it, in the place it says it is. So this person took some quote utterly out of context and put it somewhere where it should not be. Figures.
From the wiki page "In the yogic tradition it is the fire that burns within that is needed for the sanyasi to achieve the very difficult goal of enlightenment" There is the allusion to heat for enlightenment (again, you can't separate the religious ideas from scientific in the Hindu thinking for ancient cosmology, they went hand in hand)
Quote:
Quote:
The idea of Evolution is referenced in the ancient Hindu texts, as well as the cosmic egg from the size of an atomic particle that brought the Universe into being (the big bang).
Yeah sure, if you take things UTTERLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
"However, the Encyclopædia of Hinduism, referencing Katha Upanishad 2:20, states that the Big Bang theory reminds humanity that everything came from the Brahman which is "subtler than the atom, greater than the greatest."[15] The Nasadiya Sukta, the Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda (10:129) mentions world beginning from a point or bindu, through the power of heat.[16][17] This can be seen as it being corresponding to The Big Bang theory. Several prominent modern scientists have mentioned Hinduism as the only religion (or civilization) in all of recorded history, that has timescales and theories in Astronomy that appear to correspond to that of modern science, e.g. Carl Sagan,[18] Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg,[19][20][21] Robert Oppenheimer,[22] Nikola Tesla,[23] Eugene Wigner,[24] Fritjof Capra [25] etc."
Yeah nope, as far as ancient creation narratives go, Hinduism is the closest thing to the modern Big Bang that there is. In fact, they are so similar, that you would have to overlook so many pertinent glaring things to not see at least parallels.
Quote:
Quote:
Are these really new, modern ideas, or are they actually ancient philosophy and ideas that have been re-worked and re-framed in modern times?
Now you are getting into this territory. I'm sure you don't want to go here.
Oh I want to go there (image removed for stupidity sake) and am going there, it's what this whole conversation is about right? What if all our modern ideas have their roots in ancient philosophy. They have merely been re-worked or re-framed for a modern, scientific audience. Yet the driving philosophical assumptions remain unchanged, as they have been around for thousands of years before the modern theory incarnations.
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps Darwin did not actually come up with the idea of Evolution.
Its almost as if he built his knowledge after repeated observations of various people including himself.
Yeah, it's almost like he had a preconceived idea or philosophy that was passed down to him from Mondobbo, you know about naturalistic evolution? And he found things to fit his idea (didn't come up with the idea merely from finding things)
Quote:
Quote:
In his sixth edition of the Origins of Species (1888 ), in his preface he lists 20 or so scientists before him who held to the view of Evolution, apparently under pressure because people did not approve of him getting all the credit for the theory.
How nice of him, he is the one that brought the idea to the forefront. And thus the screaming masses could not bare it, and thus started a cycle of 'he is stupid, I'm right gawd did it' in the south.
Those are 20 claiming credit for their parts or expertise in the discovery of the theory of evolution. His contemporaries and critics didn't like him getting all the credit for something, so he begrudgingly mentioned them and was like "yeah... it wasn't all me"
Quote:
Quote:
He notes: Charles Darwin : "Passing over the allusions to the subject in classical writers, the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon"
Unlike you he is giving credit where credit is due.
I like that. You couldn't have said it better. He did give credit where credit is due.
The ancients came up with the philosophy of evolution, and he merely took this philosophy and put a scientific twist to it 4laugh
Quote:
Quote:
With the foot note: "We see here (i.e. in Aristotle's Physics 2:8:2) the principle of Natural Selection shadowed forth."
Chapter 8. The relation between final causation and necessity
Why should nature act for purposes, and not simply due to (material) necessity?
Example: The rain comes in order to make the grain grow. But why could this not just occur due to necessary facts about clouds, sun, etc.? And similarly, why could it not be that teeth just grow as they do owing to various material causes?
Aristotle's response: This is impossible. These processes are for something and they occur quite regularly. But purposive things which occur only by chance are the exception, not the rule. There must be something that explains why these purposive things come about so regularly -- this must be because they come about for a reason or for a purpose.
Sounds like its supporting CREATION. Not evolution. GTFO and come back when you learn how to READ.
But of course. As I was saying, many of these ancient philosophers were pantheists. They believed in the religious and god-like attributes. It was Thales that instituted the philosophy of naturalism in the west, something which has stuck and was preserved throughout the ages.
Also, Darwin struggled with the origins of life on earth for years. At one point (in a previous post with arcoon, don't feel like re quoting) he mentions that spontaneous generation was a viable explanation to how life arose on earth.
At a later point, after that idea was well-disproven, he begins to talk about... sound familiar? The primordial soup idea, and life arising out of it by natural processes. He underwent many different ideas and wrestled with this concept. Some even say that he still believed in a God of sorts, but origins is kind of a sticky place to get into.
Hmm I wonder at your choice to include "p***y" multiple times.
Mainly because at the time I was listening to someone talking this this person who said the word p***y is basically utterly equating the to word v****a and how being compared to a v****a made him into a simpering little baby. When that is not what the word originally means and even to this day we use the word 'p***y' to denote COWARDICE. Not utterly a v****a.
Quote:
Perhaps you should make a thread on the female anatomy and/or a solicitation thread of some sorts.
Why would I make a thread on something that has little to talk about? Plus people have already made threads, and still do make threads on this subject. Oh not the subject of anatomy, but whether or not prostitution should be legal. My views are, and shall be always: If a porn star gets to go willingly into porn and get paid for it, why can't prostitutes do the same? Its all about our conviced notions of... modesty.
I thought you were really big on being 'modest' and not talking about creation myths that people believe in though it makes no sense in anything but the metaphorical.
Quote:
Words do change over time. In fact the word "evolution" didn't exist way back in the day.
Quote:
Still, the concept was there in the form of philosophy (animals changing into other animals, the origins of life on earth, by pantheistic and later by naturalistic means)
Oh so we should consider philosophy as fact now? Well if so, we are in the matrix and all are worthless batteries who can be sucked dry out of all our bio-electric energy.
Quote:
I've watched the full video, and it's kind of funny. He doesn't mention the illuminati once.
Do I need to go on about this, or do you actually get it? Whether or not the person who made the video you showed, actually MADE these videos, these people are definitely part of a whole channel. Lovely that is, is that not?
To tell you the truth, I was HOPING to be able to be proven wrong. But, I've learned that people like you who believe in a global conspiracy of science often believe in other conspiracies. Like 9/11.
Then again taking something from someone who believes that science is a religion it isn't hard to think they are so stupid, or pig s**t ignorant, that they would believe in conspiracy theories.
I was REALLY hoping this wasn't the case... I really was. I hate to be proven right for conspiracies I pull out my a**.
Quote:
You know it babe.
Quote:
If you're saying that the modern theory of evolution didn't exist at the time in terms of biology, sure. But no-one's talking about that now are they?
Should I give the video or do you want to do it yourself? Cause I can find the video where the person is saying that EVOLUTION is pagan. Pagan = Evil. Did you actually WATCH the videos? Cause I've been watching them, and its pretty much non hardcore christian= evil.
Quote:
It was the philosophy behind evolution (Thales and his naturalistic evolution ideas. Lacked the biology, but the good ol' idea was still there).
oh you just made a positive claim again. still have yet to find proof of this, proof of biological evolution, not just a word that roughly means CHANGE. Do I need to hammer this in any more. because obviously no matter how many times I saw this you don't actually GET IT.
Quote:
I already addressed the "word" bit. "Evolution" as a word didn't exist at the time, that doesn't mean that people didn't have concept for organisms changing or evolving over time.
Another positive claim. Still don't see the proof.
Quote:
Hmmm, I assume that you take this point to be true then?
I don't take anything to be 'true' again for all you know, I am nothing more then an elaborate hallucination.
Quote:
That Pythagoras studied under the Brahmins and adopted much of their ideas, both philosophical and religious in nature?
You keep saying that, but I don't see PROOF of it. You keep making positive claims, yet prove nothing. Sad day.
Quote:
Unless you have a better counter to it than saying that the word didn't exist at the time or have the same meaning.
The video says EVOLUTION. Not 'change'. It says evolution, that means I have to take the word as it means. And it means what I posted it means. Not existing back then. Which means that anyone who translates A word that means, 'change' is lying. They are purposefully translating something to mean something it does not. That is the point.
Did you know that many of the things we know about roman history is not completely true? That many people conformed to ideas and myths that the culture had while translating and interpreting Roman stuff? Oh yeah, that happened. As a matter of fact, take a look at the bible for a very ancient Jewish biased source of information. Sure the pharoh of Egypt would pray to a 'false god'. Sure. rolleyes
Quote:
Well, that's you and me both in terms of people that would agree with the far-out beliefs of the ancient Greek philosophers. In fact, if you wanted to, you could enter into a whole different discussion on to whether these historical figures actually existed or not.
Oh that doesn't matter, they are far more recent then the people I would argue about whether or not existing. Lao Zhu, the guy who wrote the Tao Te Ching, may not have existed at all, and the Tao Te Ching can merely be a collection of sayings and philosophy from various people compiled into a whole.
There is a lot more outside proof of these people existing to the a**l retentiveness of Rome and its logs, then Lao Zhu, or even Jesus. IN fact, did you know people believe that the guy who wrote Romeo and Juliet DOES NOT EXIST and it is a hoax? There are people who believe Beethoven never existed either. If you want to go down the path of historical figures ever existing you lump yourself into people who also deny HITLER never existed.
Quote:
Anyways, Thales student, Anaximander, developed his ideas of naturalism as it pertained to the evolutionary idea further. He notes that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms (sound familiar to something? That the oldest life came out of the sea?).
Keep name dropping and maybe one day you'll find one that works Little of his life and work is known today. According to available historical documents, he is the first philosopher known to have written down his studies, although only one fragment of his work remains. Fragmentary testimonies found in documents after his death provide a portrait of the man. However, we know from Aristotle that Thales, also from Miletus, precedes Anaximander. It is debatable whether Thales actually was the teacher of Anaximander, but there is no doubt that Anaximander was influenced by Thales' theory that everything is derived from water. Anaximander's theories were influenced by the Greek mythical tradition, and by some ideas of Thales – the father of philosophy – as well as by observations made by older civilizations in the East{dubious claim} (especially by the Babylonian astrologers). All these were elaborated rationally. In his desire to find some universal principle, he assumed, like traditional religion, the existence of a cosmic order; and in elaborating his ideas on this he used the old mythical language which ascribed divine control to various spheres of reality. This was a common practice for the Greek philosophers in a society which saw gods everywhere, therefore they could fit their ideas into a tolerably elastic system. Anaximander claimed that the cosmic order is not monarchic but geometric and this causes the equilibrium of the earth which is lying in the centre of the universe. Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.
Of course that in red is second hand account at best. Still doesn't sound like we came from fish, it sounds like an origon story for a people who were fishers. "We came from the belly of a giant fish, it got in a fight and its belly burst open and our ancestors burst forth onto the land formed from its corpse." Oh look at that, I just made something up out of the blue.
Quote:
Just because there are some crazy religious connotations around these ancient philosophers doesn't mean that they did not come up with some philosophies.
I can go in and prove ancient people knew about aliens. Do you want to go down this road? After all with the prevalence of 'gods come from the sky' there is there HAS to be something. The only explanation is aliens.
Quote:
Similarly, just because the modern theory of evolution deals with the biological realm... does not mean that Darwin came up with the idea himself.
Did I not say that? Several times? The fact that the modern definition of the word evolution means something wildly different then the so called 'ancient' form of it? How many times have I said this? Do you not get this? That the word evolution, is a MODERN one, and anyone that translates something to mean this word, is putting a word that does not mean what they think it means. OR rather, WANT it to mean.
Quote:
He got it from these guys (He admits that a certain scientist was the first one to apply science to the theory that the ancients already held). So wait, that means that the idea had been around long before Darwin, he was just the first to put a scientific spin on it.
Does it feel disconcerting to know that the assumptions behind the theory were based on age old philosophies, which are outside the realm of science?
You know, does it feel disconcerting that there is absolutely no passable unbiased scientific evidence for EVERYTHING you claim? Does it feel troubling that people translate things to fit their ******** biased as ******** points of view making it seem like people believed and said things they did not? I mean seriously. Jesus never said several things he says in the bible, did you know that? What he said is WILDLY different then the translations on store shelves everywhere. Ancient hebrew is an odd language, almost as odd as egptian, and to this day, we still don't know EVERYTHING about the translations, and we ALWAYS have to consider the place they were in, and the local thoughts and the CONTEXT of each and every single word for it to be translated correctly.
But no, lets hack and slash to fit modern bias.
Quote:
Again, far-out stuff that ancient philosophers said concerning metaphysical beliefs. Not surprising, and stuff that we would take with a grain of salt.
Oh so NOW you are saying people who are translating something might be biased and therefor their translations are inept? Like I said before, the Tao Te ching, I bought a cheep little penguin book translation of it, and would you like to know how many times the word "ATOMS, and ATOMIC" are in it when they are not actually part of the actual word meaning? All translations of things must be taken with a grain of salt, or rather a SLAB.
It deals with connections between Egypt and Greece. Egypt was a cultural center for learning, wisdom, and exchanging ideas at the time under the Persians, Plato studied there (as did people from all over the world including... India).
Even Wikki is a better place to go then a guy who believes in aliens. Oh yeah, two semi sea faring countries who are actually pretty close had trade big surprise. Yeah they were fairly close.
But we are talking about when Egypt was ruled by Persia. Lets look that up shall we? Here it is.
525–402 BCE and 343–332 BCE, 618–629 CE. That later one is common era, and thus can be dismissed. Lets find out when this guy we are talking about lived. Lets do plato.Based on ancient sources, most modern scholars believe that he was born in Athens or Aegina between 429 and 423 BCE. So lets see when he was supposed to have gone to egypt. I'd say he would have been a middle aged man? Since the 'sources' say he came back to athens at 40. So... it would be about thirty or so. Minus thirty years from 429, I'm giving you the latest date because I'm nice. That would be about 399. Oh darn. You feel into the area where Egypt was under independent rule. Remember BC counts DOWN, CE counts UP.
So sadly, he could not have been their during the rule of the Persians. Oh DAMN, is that a shame.
Note, how I don't deny he could have gone to Egypt, I just doubt he was there while the Persians were ruling. That was before, and after his time. Lets do these other scholars we have talked about as well.
Anazimander- Born 611 BC Died 546 BC. Too early.
Anaximenes of Miletus -Born 585 BC Died 528 BC. Too early.
Pythagoras Born 570 BC Died 495 BC . This is much better. This can be within the timeline! Huzzah! Now you just need to prove this guy went to Egypt and studied there!
Thales- Born 624 BC Died 546 BC. Oh damn, this guy was too early too. One of five. That is just what statistics say is your chances of picking out the right person who committed a crime that you never saw are. Or in other words, random chance.
Sad day.
Quote:
The question does have to be asked: Plato stated that souls of the deceased reincarnated, both in animals and humans.
Plato was a vivid studier of and spoke much of Pythagoras (btw he was known for many religious type things, not just the mathematical theorem everyone uses today. Some said he started a cult of numerology, some of his followers attempted to deified him. There was alot of interesting metaphysical ideas circulating at the time) who studied, at least, in Egypt
PROVE IT. Cause from where I stand, only Pythagoras ever went to Egypt when you SAY they did. Also, it is DEIFY. They attempted to DEIFY him, it is DEIFIED, when it DID happen. Like the first pope... kinda. Or rather in, the elder scrolls series, Tiber Septim, a guy who was DEFIED by his people. People defied him. This is the PAST tense. You are using a present tense sentence, and a past sense word. This does not work. Say the sentence aloud and tell me if it works.
Quote:
Pythagoras
"Pythagoras left Samos in 535 BC, to study with the priests in the temples."
It is not easy to say how much Pythagoras learned from the Egyptian priests, or indeed, whether he learned anything at all from them. There was nothing in the symbolism which the Pythagoreans adopted which showed the distinct traces of Egypt. The secret religious rites of the Pythagoreans exhibited nothing but what might have been adopted in the spirit of Greek religion, by those who knew nothing of Egyptian mysteries. The philosophy and the institutions of Pythagoras might easily have been developed by a Greek mind exposed to the ordinary influences of the age. Even the ancient authorities note the similarities between the religious and ascetic peculiarities of Pythagoras with the Orphic or Cretan mysteries, or the Delphic oracle.
Also, "priests in temples" can be ANY priest as most priests studied in TEMPLES. I can apply this to early Judism and PROVE he went and studied with the Jews. Do you want me to do that? I can pull stuff out my a** and prove it.
Quote:
You're getting the topic wrong, again. I'm not suggesting that the biological theory of evolution was known or taught at the time.
Sad day when I can prove you wrong, with the same person YOU are using to prove you right! but since no one wants to torture themself with this video. Basically he says that the Freemasons and secrete cults thereof made evolution cause they are evil. And pagans. Which is the same thing. Do you want me to trace Freemasons back to these scholars? Cause I can. There are people who have! Crazy people, but people nonetheless.
Quote:
Buuuut... the philosophical assumption behind the modern theory of evolution (animals changing into other animals, over large periods of time, by naturalistic means) ...cough...cough.... was an ancient philosophical idea.
Do you actually know the difference between PHILOSOPHY and reality? I don't think you do.
Quote:
I'm hurt... you would associate me with rednecks? I'm from the North, I just happen to live in a borderline state currently.
The bible belt is often were the least educated people reside. Figures how not only are they were the most red states are, but also the most religious people are.
Quote:
And again, you are conflating the issue as I've pointed out several times already. Ideas of evolution were bountiful back in the day, there just wasn't a "scientific" theory or explanation at the time.
THEN STOP CALLING IT EVOLUTION. Call it another ******** WORD. If it is NOT evolution, then it is NOT. Do not call it anything else. This isn't 'a rose by any other name' deal. There are specific meanings to the word evolution, which didn't come about till modern times. DO you actually understand anything I am saying? If you call a bird a plane, that doesn't make that bird A PLANE. It makes it a bird, and you are misinformed about what it actually is.
Quote:
Evolution is rooted in philosophy, that's the point.
No its not.
Quote:
Darwin got the idea from the ancients, and people near his time such as his grandfather, who was an ardent proponent of the ancient naturalistic evolution as a philosophy. "Biological Evolution" attempts to distance itself from its philosophical origins.
Only because so many people call people who believe in evolution people are 'believing' in it, and therefor dismiss them just like they dismiss the greek gods. PLUS for the forty-ith BILLION TIME, PHILOSOPHY IS NOT FACT. I can create a philosophy around a pink unicorn named steve who shits apple pies, that does not mean that unicorns exist and anything that is unicorn is relating to steve. Do you understand this? What if I described steve as something that only VAGUELY resembles unicorns? Does that still mean he is as we define today a unicorn?
Quote:
You said it yourself. He was an ardent evolutionist before Darwin came up with his theory. Gee, I wonder where Darwin obtained the philosophical ideas that would later go into his theory of evolution....
Gee, I wonder what the last video I linked says about it. Why don't you check the comments? *tilts head and smiles*
Quote:
And he's not his father, he's his grandfather... and was a freemason... freemasons were a huge part of the enlightenment... freemasons hid their ideas from the world at large because at that time Christianity was a huge part of the culture....
Do you want me to find the names of various people who were murdered just because they were masons? Cause I can. If you were a small group of people who lived with a group of others who would violently react to any notion of 'rebellion'. Or anything other then what they believe and how they act. Guess who else was a mason? George Bush. He was part of the Skull and Bones, who is a subset of the masons. Lovely what CONSPIRACY sites give you.
Quote:
one of their beliefs was naturalistic evolution from the ancient Greek philosophers, hence Mondobbo, make sense now?
Quote:
Lol Darwin admits this, see his quote in the OP in referencing Aristotle.
Did I or did I not put context on that exact quote he is referencing? Which supports you in NO ******** WAY.
Quote:
He claims that a scientist in his modern period was the first to apply science to the idea (admits it was an ancient idea).
Page number and exact book, and quote please.
Quote:
Darwin did indeed develop the idea, but he did not come up with it out of nowhere. He did not merely see observations in nature and come to his conclusions.
Do you want me to prove you wrong? Or do you want to show yourself out and actually PROVE SOMETHING FOR ONE ******** TIME.
Stop making positive claims of no substance.
Quote:
He had a pre-existing worldview (passed down from Erasmus) of the philosophy of
evolution and natural selection, and he built a biological basis for it (one of the first to make evolution "scientific" if you will, and not purely a philosophical, metaphysical idea).
Why don't you prove that Esra had major influence on Charles. Cause Esra died before Darwin could actually talk to him. A long while before. Cause I can prove, much to your detriment that Darwin was an avid christian actively searching for teh Jesus. When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity.
Quote:
I never claimed it was biological evolution, I've said that like 3 or 4 times now?
Must I keep going over how the word evolution does not mean what you are saying it means. I keep saying that the word EVOLUTION means something DIFFERENT then what you are saying, as well as the video maker is saying. It is a DIFFERENT WORD.
Quote:
But that's the thing... in the Hindu mindset, it was kind of hard to separate the religious ideas from reality in their form of cosmology, evolution, and reincarnation...
Are you seriously stating that their religion is their science? Or do you wish to clarify this point?
Quote:
Similarly it's hard to separate evolution from it's Philosophical origins Gasp
no its not.
Quote:
1. I've heard people, in their take on the multiverse, say that our big bang happened due to left over matter of another universe, in other words the universe is cyclical. Universes beget universes, there could be many big bangs, other universes what have you.
Multiverse theory is quite likely a fact. After all, how do YOU know that god is actually real? Nothing more then flawed head meats.
Quote:
2. It's all about Brahma here, the god, or "universe itself" if you will, all of the matter in the universe. The universe is creating itself. Though they state things in the ancient Hindu texts that have some striking... similarities with the Big Bang singularity, no?
No. It doesn't. Do I need to go over the creation myth again? DO I NEED TO POST THE WHOLE THING? Cause I can. I can keep proving you wrong. THE EGG DID NOT EXPLODE.
IT was SPLIT willfully, by the god, and became the heaven and the earth. Then it split, the god/egg and became the sages. How many times are you going to get a group of peoples faith WRONG?
Quote:
3. Again, difficult to separate religious thought from ideas, but the parallels are there. They reference a cosmic egg, expanding universe, a particle begetting the universe (singularity) big bang right there.
It wasn't a particle, it was a seed, that became an egg. There is no BIG BANG!!!11, no cosmic expansion from the big bang. NONE OF THAT. What you are doing is putting ******** BIAS on these stories. You are doing EXACTLY what people on shows like Ancient Aliens do to "prove" aliens visited us. Seriously, do you want me to link that episode? Cause I can find it. I can find the episode that PROVES the hindus knew about NUKES, and knew about flight, and space travel, and all of that stuff.
Quote:
4. Ok sure... and an evolutionary progression both in the universe on earth that accounted for the origins of life.
Abiogensis is not evolution. Get your head out your a**.
Big bang, is not abiogensis. Get your head out your a**.
EVOLUTION, is 'change over time' it is only the tiniest thread connecting it to the beginnings of life. Evolutionary biologists don't much concern themselves with the start of life. Just like cosmologists don't concern themselves much with the origin of life.
Quote:
5. But they state billions of years.
Billions going into trillions, sure.
Quote:
On the wiki page
I use Wiki because you aren't much worth hardcore research.
Quote:
"The universe is cyclically created and destroyed in the timespan of 4.32 billion years."
Differing translations WHAT THE ******** ARE THOSE? I Don't know, we must purge the false doctrine!
Quote:
As far as creation narratives go, there is nothing that is closer to the modern theories with the big bang and evolution. That age is curiously close to the age of the earth (4.45 billion years). They almost calculated the age of the earth back then before Greek philosophers even existed.
Oh and the Mayans had the most accurate calendar ever. Oh and again, its TRILLIONS not billions. I trust my source, unlike YOUR source, which can be proven wrong. Plus again, if it is billion years, does that PROVE they knew the age of the universe? Or does it prove they made up a large number? Cause if you like, I can prove the Mayans made the most exact calendar ever, even compared to Greeks, and Hindus. I can prove that they predicted the destruction of the dinosaurs long before the evidence of the meteor came about. I can prove they predicted the ICE AGE. Do you want me to do that? Just because they made something up does not denote they actually had all the information that we do now.
Quote:
The concept of Brahma is different from other ideas of God.
No he is pretty similar to lots of gods and goddesses I have researched. As similar as Zeus is to Thor in fact.
Quote:
You could easily think of Brahma in terms of Pantheism, being everything, or the universe itself.
And the Tao is everything, it is the unknowable, it is the known, the Tao is all. The Tao though is NOT a god.
Quote:
Everything is "god" or the universe. Hence they had the ideas of pantheistic evolution and reincarnation inherent in their beliefs.
No it is pretty evident that it was a GOD, and not just the rocks and trees and junk. I mean do trees talk to you? Do rocks talk? Do rocks build cites? Do rocks fire nukes? Nope.
Quote:
That is a long long time. Wouldn't surprise me if they say that the universe is even older (they already have, from Planck, said that it's older than we though) in the long run.
Lets find the oldest object we have observed. Lots of really old things. Oldest planet
Still nothing at a trillion. Damn.
But then again, time held no meaning until there was something to tell time by. Time is but a puff of smoke, space a wisp of cloud. And your mind is nothing more then a flying corn snake. Cookies for whoever gets that reference.
Quote:
From the wiki page "In the yogic tradition it is the fire that burns within that is needed for the sanyasi to achieve the very difficult goal of enlightenment" There is the allusion to heat for enlightenment (again, you can't separate the religious ideas from scientific in the Hindu thinking for ancient cosmology, they went hand in hand)
So you are saying that their religion is science. Heh, heh. Heh. I can make you regret this. But I'll give you a chance to save yourself. Cause I am nice. Kiddo.
Religious what? INTERPRETATIONS. Or Post diction as it were. Lovely. Discredited for the post diction. Post diction got us retarded things about the roman culture which were not true. Post diction got us things about the Egyptian culture which was not true. Try doings things in the ACTUAL CONTEXT, instead of personal biased interpretations.
Quote:
Yeah nope, as far as ancient creation narratives go, Hinduism is the closest thing to the modern Big Bang that there is. In fact, they are so similar, that you would have to overlook so many pertinent glaring things to not see at least parallels.
Do you want me to go on how the Maya predicted the dinosaurs? Cause I can. I can predict the ICE AGE, with them. Again, that doesn't mean they had all the knowledge we do now. You are stupid, go collect your sign from the rednecks on stage and let them heckle you for being so uneducated. Seriously, inbred rednecks with only grade school education are smarter then you are being.
Quote:
Oh I want to go there (image removed for stupidity sake) and am going there, it's what this whole conversation is about right?
Do you really?
Cause I can prove that the interpretation of these people you are quoting from, the Romans a lot of the stuff about them that we THINK we know are actually falsehoods to conform to modern myths. Cause I can pull up THIS, which you will just LOVE. Cause the romans, yeah no. A LOT of what they were, is not what most people know. In fact a LOT are lies made by early CHRISTIANS, and now people believe them without a doubt. Even if that is not actually HISTORY.
But this conversation is about the word evolution. Not about people who demonized the vile, the horrific, the demonic, SHOCK! *GASP* *deep voice* pagans. *Gavin screaming*
Quote:
What if all our modern ideas have their roots in ancient philosophy.
Its almost as if everything can have its roots in everything. Particularly now, since information of various cultures is readily accessible.
Quote:
They have merely been re-worked or re-framed for a modern, scientific audience.
And that doesn't denote bias HOW?
Quote:
Yet the driving philosophical assumptions remain unchanged, as they have been around for thousands of years before the modern theory incarnations.
PROVE IT. Prove that biological evolution was there when Plato was running around having orgies in Rome. Cause this is what we are talking about.
Quote:
Those are 20 claiming credit for their parts or expertise in the discovery of the theory of evolution. His contemporaries and critics didn't like him getting all the credit for something, so he begrudgingly mentioned them and was like "yeah... it wasn't all me"
Begrudgingly? were any of these people on the list? You made a positive claim about Darwin's mind set. NOW YOU NEED TO PROVE IT. So lets see the proof. Do it, do it now.
Quote:
I like that. You couldn't have said it better. He did give credit where credit is due.
At least Darwin doesn't site sources who believe in a global conspiracies and the NWO. You however, did. Sad day.
Quote:
The ancients came up with the philosophy of evolution, and he merely took this philosophy and put a scientific twist to it 4laugh
Philsophy is not ******** FACT. Do I need to go over this over and over and over again until your brain can actually process it?
B
Quote:
ut of course. As I was saying, many of these ancient philosophers were pantheists.
THEY ARE PAGANS! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE! THEY ARE HETERICS! KILL THEM ALL!!!!1112 This is like saying 'the sky is blue'. No s**t sherlock. Most people through all of man kind were what? PANTHEIST.
Quote:
They believed in the religious and god-like attributes. It was Thales that instituted the philosophy of naturalism in the west, something which has stuck and was preserved throughout the ages.
Another positive claim. Are you ever going to actually PROVE your claims? Cause I proved with my last link that philosophy is bullshit.
Quote:
Also, Darwin struggled with the origins of life on earth for years. At one point (in a previous post with arcoon, don't feel like re quoting) he mentions that spontaneous generation was a viable explanation to how life arose on earth.
And it is. In fact we proved that the building blocks of life can form in a highly toxic environment. Even panspermia is a VALID way of explaining life.
Quote:
At a later point, after that idea was well-disproven,
Oh really? It was disproven? Why don't you PROVE LIFE DID NOT HAPPEN that way. Oh right, NO ONE CAN. Because we don't have a ******** time machine. we can infer with what we know and what experiments say can happen. Ever hear of the Razor? the simplest answer is the right answer. This isn't a Resident Evil game where you have to find the ruby and the crank in order to open a door. This is where all you have to do is shoot out the lock, or pull out the hinges and move on.
Quote:
he begins to talk about... sound familiar? The primordial soup idea, and life arising out of it by natural processes
.
Do you deny that protocelluar material can not form in a toxic environment?
Quote:
He underwent many different ideas and wrestled with this concept. Some even say that he still believed in a God of sorts, but origins is kind of a sticky place to get into.
No not really. "god is beyond space and space" there you go. Now god can't be disproved. Until we go beyond time and space. Then he'll be 'in another universe'. That's the way things go. Or do you deny that ancients believed gods were on the top of mountains, and in the skies? Or far underground?
