Creation vs. Evolution vs. "Emanationism"

[niranjan]

Niranjan,


Consider, also, the following excerpts from The Code of Manu, on evolution ... regarding the progression of Spirit (Life) through the various material forms:

"The first germ of life was developed by water and heat" (Manu, book i., sloka 8).​

"Water ascends toward the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rain are born the plants, and from the plants, animals" (book iii., sloka 76).​

"Each being acquires the qualities of the one which immediately precedes it, in such a manner that the farther a being gets away from the primal atom of its series, the more he is possessed of qualities and perfections" (book i., sloka 20).​

"Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending, and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. . . . Such is the inferior degree"(Ibid.).​

"These are the transformations declared, from the plant up to Brahma, which have to take place in his world" (Ibid.).​

This is exactly what the Kabbalistic Zohar tells us, by the way:

"The Breath becomes a stone; the stone, a plant; the plant, an animal; the animal, a man; the man, a spirit; and the spirit, a god."​

The Code of Manu, of course, is an ancient source. Darwinin Evolution was proposed when exactly?

Thanks for the info, pal.

 

[_Z_]

mind if i jump in here

i think that nothing comes from nothing, that there is a blueprint for everything that exists. there are two theories for this;

1. that everything was set in motion according to this blueprint and from before the universe existed.

2. that all things have potential in the aether, as they develop they take from the source or the blueprint.

so its probably both. atheists would say neither but that makes no sense, we are asked to ‘believe’ that the universe simply popped out of nowhere, maybe merlin the magician is an alien from another dimension and he did it with his magic wand!

.

 

[not666or777]

Really would there really be a divine entity that would rule over our evolution…

What everyone forgets is that we, I mean humans; have only been around for a little while….

I mean a little while!!!!!!!!!!

I mean no time at all.. we are only a spec on what could be the life of the earth… we are nothing…

why on “gods green earth” would there be something about us!!!!!!!!!!!!

When we are nothing but little tiny ants in the universe…

And by the way, I don’t hesitate to kill an ant, or by there means, a whole civilization of ants… in fact I would prefer to kill as many ants that are invading my house as possible. But, what does that mean to me? Well simply it means nothing, and for the rest of my life I will be killing millions of ants, insects, eating animals, and my government will be responsible for killing all kinds of people, which I will be a part of.

So divine is nothing when it comes to evolution…

People say that there may one day be an end of polar bears and we should care!!!!!! And we do but why…… I can say that millions of millions of animals have come and gone on “gods green earth” so what does it matter if a stupid bear that had white hair goes away….

Is that past of gods plan. No Fudging way. That is the way the earth works…


Long live Darwin and evolution

Thanks

And by the way you will remember as much when you die as when before you were born, which is surprisingly nothing…

So don’t fret child… I love religion and I don’t know why!!!!

 

[dauer]

why on “gods green earth” would there be something about us!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not?

And by the way, I don’t hesitate to kill an ant, or by there means, a whole civilization of ants… in fact I would prefer to kill as many ants that are invading my house as possible. But, what does that mean to me? Well simply it means nothing, and for the rest of my life I will be killing millions of ants, insects, eating animals, and my government will be responsible for killing all kinds of people, which I will be a part of.

Why wouldn't you hesitate to kill an ant? Are the actions of your gov't justification for killing millions of ants? You sound angsty.

So divine is nothing when it comes to evolution…

How do you know?

Is that past of gods plan. No Fudging way. That is the way the earth works…

Why can't it be both?

I love religion and I don’t know why!!!!

Are you hungry for meaning or purpose or an understanding that goes beyond the limitations of the intellect? Any of those, if they apply, could be reasons why.

 

[Impqueen]

Personally I believe in evolution, and I don't believe that the divine/the gods are creators of the universe but part of it. Although it may be that divine energy started off the big bang, I don't believe in a 'plan'.

This is an area of my belief I'm still figgerin' out the details for though....

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Hi, Imp, and welcome to the Forum.

You said you do not believe in a plan. It seems to me some kind of organization and guidance would be necessary, in order to explain the progress we have made. The natural tendence of nature is to move towards a state of entropy, yet we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Impqueen]

In terms of life the organisation is provided by the process of evolution itself. In terms of the universe in general I'm afraid I'm not an astrophysicist . However, according to my partner who's a science teacher ... "The concept that the world is naturally moving towards a more entropic state is only relevant when talking about energy levels at a molecular level. The fact that energy tends to disperse doesn't rule out the possibility of a universe that contains pockets of relative order, as long as you except that all the energy is following the laws of thermodynamics and spreading out where possible." Or something like that... Entropy =/= Chaos

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

"The concept that the world is naturally moving towards a more entropic state is only relevant when talking about energy levels at a molecular level."

--> I see no reason to make this assumption. It seems to me entropy should be just as valid at the cosmic level as it is at the sub-atomic level. The birth of galaxies, according to the idea of entropy, should never happen. Yet new galaxies are being born all the time, instead of dispersing their energy.

 

[bgruagach]

Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

"The concept that the world is naturally moving towards a more entropic state is only relevant when talking about energy levels at a molecular level."

--> I see no reason to make this assumption. It seems to me entropy should be just as valid at the cosmic level as it is at the sub-atomic level. The birth of galaxies, according to the idea of entropy, should never happen. Yet new galaxies are being born all the time, instead of dispersing their energy.

Astrophysics and atomic physics don't require either a Plan nor a Planner.

 

[Impqueen]

My understanding of entropy is distinctly incomplete, as I said I'm no scientist. However different laws do apply at different scales - the intermolecular forces for example are huge at intermolecular levels and insignificant at galaxy levels, the reverse is true for gravity.

What do you understand by 'entropy'? I tried looking it up on Wikipedia and, frankly, couldn't see how it applied to your argument, and my partner's explanations haven't helped much either....

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Imp,

(I like that name. I live in the Imperial valley in California....)

Entropy is the idea that things in nature tend to seek the most disorganized fashion. Let me give you an example. Take a box and fill one half of the bottom with one layer of red marbles. Fill the other half with one layer of blue marbles. Shake the box a few times. The marbles will tend to shift to a condition of disorganization (fully mixed). This disorganization or mixed-up-ness is entropy. The more you share the box, the more the marbles go into entropy.

Entropy usually works at the galactic level, but sometimes it does not — each molecule that is floating in inter-galactic space should continue to float further and further away from its neighboring molecules. However, some break the law of entropy, gather, and create a galaxy. They refuse to be merely a "fortuitous concurrence of atoms."

There are numerous galaxies that are at the very beginning stage, and there are galaxies at the young stage. (There are old galaxies as well.) The tendency of galactic matter to move from full entropy to "beginning galaxy stage" goes directly against the law of entropy.

Another fire I can throw into the iron is the age of galaxies. Galaxies that are in the beginning stage are quite young as compared to old galaxies. The fact is, these beginning galaxies have spent a great deal of time as entropic galactic material, only to "suddenly" go anti-entropic.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

BG,


You said,

Astrophysics and atomic physics don't require either a Plan nor a Planner.​

--> Why, then, does inter-galactic matter "suddenly" go anti-entropic? Why have young galaxies waited so long to appear?

 

[bgruagach]

Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

Imp,

(I like that name. I live in the Imperial valley in California....)

Entropy is the idea that things in nature tend to seek the most disorganized fashion. Let me give you an example. Take a box and fill one half of the bottom with one layer of red marbles. Fill the other half with one layer of blue marbles. Shake the box a few times. The marbles will tend to shift to a condition of disorganization (fully mixed). This disorganization or mixed-up-ness is entropy. The more you share the box, the more the marbles go into entropy.

Entropy usually works at the galactic level, but sometimes it does not — each molecule that is floating in inter-galactic space should continue to float further and further away from its neighboring molecules. However, some break the law of entropy, gather, and create a galaxy. They refuse to be merely a "fortuitous concurrence of atoms."

There are numerous galaxies that are at the very beginning stage, and there are galaxies at the young stage. (There are old galaxies as well.) The tendency of galactic matter to move from full entropy to "beginning galaxy stage" goes directly against the law of entropy.

Another fire I can throw into the iron is the age of galaxies. Galaxies that are in the beginning stage are quite young as compared to old galaxies. The fact is, these beginning galaxies have spent a great deal of time as entropic galactic material, only to "suddenly" go anti-entropic.

The problem with this interpretation of natural forces is that we're imposing a linear view on what is not necessarily something that has a definite start and definite end.

If we compare how galactic objects change through time it might make more sense to compare it to the cycle of water as we observe it here on Earth. Water sits around in lakes, rivers, and oceans and evaporates into the air, where it floats around until it gathers together and conditions induce it to fall as precipitation. It hits the surface of the planet and flows into the lakes, rivers, and oceans to go through the whole cycle again.

Where is the start and where is the end of the water cycle? Note too that the changes that occur were the result of various forces acting on the water, and conditions changing.

Perhaps the way matter and energy move, interact, and change from one state or configuration to another is nothing more than the normal cycle of interactions, without a discrete beginning or end. Perhaps these cycles exist at the macro as well as micro levels.

And perhaps they've been going on without the hand of any sort of intelligence directing things.

The mere fact that we have matter and energy in existence, moving through cycles that we humans can perceive, does not in itself prove the existence of a Divine Architect or Prime Mover.

 

[bgruagach]

Re: ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

BG,

You said,

Astrophysics and atomic physics don't require either a Plan nor a Planner.​

--> Why, then, does inter-galactic matter "suddenly" go anti-entropic? Why have young galaxies waited so long to appear?

Matter (at the atomic or galactic scales) don't "suddenly" go anti-entropic. The forces of gravitation, atomic bonding, and all the others are in a constant dance of change which result in things (molecules, atoms, organisms, planets, galaxies) to come into existence, move, change their form, and change again.

Personally, I find the metaphor of existence being the dance of the Divine, with galaxies blinking in and out of existence with each step of the Divine dance, to make a lot more sense than linear metaphors that postulate a single beginning and single end of the universe.

Oh, and galaxies don't "wait" to appear. They appear, or they aren't there. The ones who are waiting are the observers who anticipate something. And the observers are not required -- trees still fall in the forest if there's no one there to witness it.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

BG, You said,

"Matter (at the atomic or galactic scales) don't "suddenly" go anti-entropic."​

--> I think it does.

"The forces of gravitation, atomic bonding, and all the others are in a constant dance of change which result in things (molecules, atoms, organisms, planets, galaxies) to come into existence, move, change their form, and change again."​

--> This does not explain why, out in the middle of nowhere, atoms "suddenly" start congealing, and go on to form a galaxy.

link --> Crab nebula



Here we have the Crab Nebula, a baby galaxy. If entropy were followed, the Crab Nebula would still be nothing but a batch of atoms, slowly moving away from each other. But this nebula is nothing of the sort — it is a galaxy appearing out of nowhere, for no "good" reason.

"Oh, and galaxies don't "wait" to appear. They appear, or they aren't there."​

--> Using that line of reasoning, all galaxies would have started appearing at the same time, which is not the situation we have in today's universe.

 

[Impqueen]

I don't think anything happens 'suddenly' in astrophysics.... except maybe supernova. You seem to be ignoring all the vast forces that exist out there in the universe, Nick. Take the universe 'soup' of atoms and space... those atoms mooch about and now and again there will be more of them in one area of space than in another. This area is now denser, having greater mass, and generating a gravitational pull on the surrounding particles which get dragged in until a dense cloud is formed ... Anyway, you know how galaxies are formed, I'm sure. The point is things in nature tend to seek the most disorganised fashion as long as some other force isn't acting on them, in this case it's gravity.

The problem is here that we are all arguing our beliefs and attempting to use science to justify faith, which never works, not conclusively. I'm not discounting entirely the idea that gods have a hand in making things (as I said, not an area I've got fully figured out yet) but somehow I think they work with the universe as it exists, rather than changing it. I don't think they make the rules.

Quite a few creation myths start with something else, a being or matter or power which exists before the gods, who are formed/born/form themselves from this. I think that originator being/power is not a god, it is that energy and matter which becomes all, but it's not sentient, or at least not interested in an ongoing way. That's one of my theories anyway....

 

[Manichaean Seek]

Nick the Pilot,

I would stand by that the universe was created (the universe as we know it) by emanation about 443,367BC, 445,374 years ago. I am sure that the universe (that we do not know) before the emanation was existent in its pre-emanated form.

Andre

 

[Tao_Equus]

Nick the Pilot,

I would stand by that the universe was created (the universe as we know it) by emanation about 443,367BC, 445,374 years ago. I am sure that the universe (that we do not know) before the emanation was existent in its pre-emanated form.

Andre

Sorry but such a theory just flies in the face of empirically tested irrefutable facts in fields as wide ranging from archaeology to zoology and astronomy to z-particle theories in electro-weak forces. Such a young date for creation, or as you poetically label it 'emanation' do not have a single shred of real evidence to support them.

Tao

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andre,

I am not sure what you mean by a pre-emanated form, but my belief system may have something similar. Theosophy says before things existed, things were in an "unmanifested state". Unfortunately, this idea is never explained. Father is said to be (still) unmanifested, Mother is unmanifested-manifested, and the Son is fully manifested.

By the way, Theosophy says our solar system alone is about two billion years old.

 

[Manichaean Seek]

Sorry but such a theory just flies in the face of empirically tested irrefutable facts in fields as wide ranging from archaeology to zoology and astronomy to z-particle theories in electro-weak forces. Such a young date for creation, or as you poetically label it 'emanation' do not have a single shred of real evidence to support them.

Tao

Tao,

Sorry I had misunderstood Manichaean Teachings of the Order of Nazorean Essenes. A time period of 448,000 years is said to be allocated to humanity, whilst on earth. So, therefore the universe was created by emanation (that is creation by either a greater being or free radicals in the cosmos) in its current form, about, 1.2 Billion years ago. When it was created it is said that it is not in its current form (i.e. as we know it) so it is held that the universe formed in the way that we know it about 600 Million years ago. Such a theory is abudant amongst the Manichaeans, because it is always different to what 'science' says.

In addition, I instruct that before the creation of the universe (in the form before it is now) existed in its pre-created/emanated form. The time scales moves back to 1.6 Billions years. For 0.4 Billion years the universe, before it took a defined form was just, a vast space. In addition, it is held that the heavens were constructed in different time scales, in detail the 7/8 heavens could be broken into 365. 2 Billion years ago, the lowest 20 heavens were formed, 2.2 Billion years ago, the higher 20 heavens were formed, 2.4 Billion years ago the next 20 heavens were formed, 3.0 Billion years ago another 40 heavens were formed. At 4.5 Billion years ago another 30 heavens were formed, then at 4.8 Billion years ago, another 50 heavens were formed. So far 180 heavens were formed. At 5.6 Billion years ago 60 heavens were formed, at 6.0 Billion years ago another 40 heavens were formed. At 7.0 Billion years ago an additional 10 heavens were formed, at 7.5 Billion years ago, then at 9.0 Billion years ago another 30 heavens were formed. In the year 9.3 billion 4 heavens were formed. In the year, 15. 9 Billion the Land of Light was formed in its current form. The Land of Light has existence from 35.8 Billion. Fantastic theory!



Andre Francis