...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] I say none because science has no place for spooks thinking like human beings or mating with each other to bring about physics. Science doesn't pray. There's no AE gnosis that doesn't involve adoration and worship and morality with reward or punishment after death. The 'intelligence sentience' requires no priesthood no grovelling suppliants prayers and sacrifices nor codes of right and wrong. It doesn't feel for us or care about us. The gazelle hurts when the lion catches her. Untold generations of Homo suffered unspeakable atrocities. The intelligence satience doesn't give a damn about that because it isn't an imaginary anthropomorphic deity desiring anything from us. Homo couldn't even speak before certain genes came to be in us sapiens only. Man created gods including Atum Amun Ogdoad and Ennead not the other way around. So please don't mistake my answer that AEs had more creation mythos and responsible agents (gods) than Ptah. The waters always existed and hill that appeared with their subsiding is not scientific cosmogony. No. It's only an expression of what every AE farmer saw every year: the high Nile rolls back leaving little hills of silt. On another note remember a Nubian king who studied atheist Greek wisdom killed the priest who came to kill him liked they killed each ruler after so many years of rule. Viva la seperation of science from religion! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: See for instance the link Tukuler posted. If you accept that and you see a connection between that and the origin of life, you're at odds with Darwinism, but not necessarily with evolution. [/QUOTE]Hmm, a link follower, eh? [qb]Glad you see that in my post no human invented Great Being have nothing to do with how the Universe built us up as part of itself. If I wanted to do that I'd introduce the[i] Ssimssum[/i], how the Eternal contracted to allow an infinitesimal yet ultimate dense result (tzimtzum) unfold into the expanding universe for the last 15 billion years. See? So I didn't get why something scientifically testable had to be tied to human intelligenced super spook philosophy essentially the anti-thesis to what I brought up, the Universe having an 'intelligence-sentience' of an entirely different order not involving conscious thinking yet is a consciousness of sorts. [/qb] OP doesn't see or think that's relevant to the topic. I know my idea's not the same as yours but in a similar groove. If in any relation to AE cosmology [i]Nu, Primeval Hill, Ogdoad, and Ennead[/i] are more relevant than Ptah Triad or Knum or etc., but Atum and Amun fit along with Nu, Hill and the gangs.[/QUOTE]Yes, I can see it's tempting when some see links with phenomena in physics and the ancient mystery schools and other traditions in Africa and elsewhere. We know a lot of apparent parallels are there, but it's good to have some restraint because like all humans Egyptians and other ancients recorded their knowledge through their own cultural lens. And some Egyptian knowledge was more informed by figments of Egyptian culture than universal truths that transcend culture. It's the latter that science will eventually rediscover, but if you get too far ahead of the evidence you run the risk of mixing the latter with the former. Evidence of the universe being conscious is part of a larger body of evidence that demystifies the "map of reality". We don't know how accurately forgotten ancient human knowledge approximates that map of reality that some factions of science are trying to reconstruct right now. [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]Yes: [QUOTE] The waters always existed and hill that appeared with their subsiding is not scientific cosmogony. No. It'sonly an expression of what every AE farmer saw every year: the high Nile rolls back leaving little hills of silt. [/QUOTE]This is the basis of all modern 'scientific thought'. Observing the real world and asking questions about it. It is a fundamental aspect of human cognitive development. Without the ability to observe phenomena in nature and begin to come up with explanations, whether theological, philosophical, cosmological or otherwise, there is no development of science as we know it. This did not start in Greece or 17th century Europe either. It is that ability for symbolic abstract thought that creates the environment for human cognitive evolution that created math and language in the first place. And hence the concept of "the word" and "toth" (thought), as a symbol of the cognitive principle behind a self organized, self created universe, is a fitting cosmological principle. Thought and speech are symbols of cognition as a supreme example of intelligent design arising in nature and within the universe. And we see that intelligence at work the more we understand the laws and rules at work in nature including ourselves. We don't need to know who Ptah is or the Ogdoad is or to worship them. However, it is important to understand their proper place in the evolution of human thought concerning the "origin of things" which laid the foundation of what we call science today. Also, back on topic, Darwin's theories are not against religion per se. Darwin's theories conflict specifically against Christian Creationism. There is a big difference. Christianity holds that the "word" of the bible is the proof of God's existence and must be taken literally. And the ultimate proof of this is Jesus Christ himself as the ultimate manifestaion of "Gods word". Therefore, if the Bible says that the universe was created in 7 days, you have to believe it literally to be a Christian. Obviously there is no scientific evidence for this, so thus the conflict between science and creationism. Intelligent Design as already mentioned, goes back to the pre-Christian forms of belief which combined theology, cosmology, math and science as one body of study or cognitive evolution. This is probably where much of the confusion stems from. [QUOTE] Creationism continues to have currency among a significant proportion of the American public, even though it has never had any scientific basis. The ferocity of the debate makes it difficult to remember that, at one point not so long ago in geological time, religion and science weren't all that distinct. In the late 1600s and early 1700s, intelligent design — the belief that you could find God's hand by examining creation — was seen as a way to glorify both God and the ordered laws of physics revealed by Newton. More Stories The most sophisticated form of the intelligent design argument, however, wasn't based on Newtonian physics. It was based in biology. In 1802, a theologian named William Paley published his tome Natural Theology. Hume had shot largish holes in the Newtonian design argument, and Paley as a consequence granted that astronomy was "not the best medium through which to prove the agency of an intelligent Creator." But, he argued, it was still possible to see purpose in the universe by looking to animal and human life.[/QUOTE] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/the-intelligent-design-theory-that-inspired-darwin/283693/ [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3