stretch your mind: Questions of origins

Remember the most popular story ever told states that man came before woman, if you look at the societal conditions for this have happened you see for starters, the Supreme Being is assumed to be male, and automatically an assumption is that he made his own kind first. Female came afterwards.
The sex that was dominant at the time of all write-up of the gospels was male, and would be inconceivable that they would score an own goal on the subject.
On question of jinsia, remember there are multiple forms of reproduction, and for our own kind does requires male and female reproduction systems that have evolved to be contained in different vessels. If you are trying to trace your way back to day 1 then you would need to throw in loads of assumptions as to why some species felt that they could reproduce be self (asexual reproduction) and the bog standard run of the mill sexual reproduction. There are conditions that necessitates that one form can thrive while another would be impractical, say need for nature, need for protection and the like prescribes that sexual reproduction would happen since say, the gestation period needing one set of parent to nature the womb, the other to provide and protect etc.

To emphasize evolution, my crazy minds feel that human were initially hermaphrodite and over time the chromosomes as it got put together did alter to favour that the species separated into the distinct male and female as a result or the need for nature and nature. The Y and X chromosomes hence came to be and as we are told, that drives the building of the body as we know it. You ask what happened with the "not needed bits", my only answer would be that the chromosome knew how to deal with that, eliminate it in favour for what it is. My justification you ask!!! There are rare occasions where humans still reproduce a hermaphrodite. and even in the pure Y or X chromo build, we do find that sometimes male characteristics are found in females, while female characteristics could also be found in males, and there-between. This means that process of evolution is still happening and the chromosome is not done yet... I ask myself will I need the pinkie finger 2 Billions years from now? It simply is there not doing very much....

For your own sanity, do understand that the jump from the single cell organism to what we know now did take loads of time and the intermediate creatures thrived for hundreds of years before changing yet to another creature etc etc. It is said crocodiles are from really way back, meaning they have not changed a great deal in looks but definitely in size (became smaller) adopting to new environmental conditions and diet of zebras and wildebeests. Assume now that since their staple is dwindling even further, who knows, maybe their land excursions will be greater, and who knows, will forget how to swim too as is said was the case for man (Still trying to re-learn how to swim myself).
 
A thought provoking video (Note: Creation camp view)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No provoking at all, more of a comedy...

1.10 I love the way he talks about luck of evidence as though his creationist camp has any...
We get back to emotive language... saying did man evolve from apes while you are sitting at a zoo doesn't explain much, just throws up confusion, what the *** were these ones I am looking at doing to miss the boat?
2.09 Asking lay person to dig deep into that recesses of the brain rarely used is comical for this one sided, obviously funded by Jesuits or a similar grouping is not helpful.

This is the drivel I tend to keep away from since it is not helping the discussion, just wanting to pick at themes their own camp can't articulately answer. When asking what was there before is simply nuts.

Ask the creationists about that very question, ok, Supreme Being created everything.... ok.... what was there before the Supreme Being?, and believe me, in the days when we built churches bigger and mightier than any structure around would mean you would be roasted at the stake. Damn you they will say, there was nothing before Supreme Being, He is the eternal, the .... and duly pray for your soul as you turn into cinder.


He is asking if we evolved from monkeys, fish, birds.... what is he on this guy?
I dispair...
 
No provoking at all, more of a comedy...
I'm curious of what is comedy about the video!
Yes they use humorous language (that might somehow displease the other camp), but cant find anything comedian.
I would be happy if you point it out
 
Ask the creationists about that very question, ok, Supreme Being created everything.... ok.... what was there before the Supreme Being?, and believe me, in the days when we built churches bigger and mightier than any structure around would mean you would be roasted at the stake. Damn you they will say, there was nothing before Supreme Being, He is the eternal, the .... and duly pray for your soul as you turn into cinder.
But don't forget that is just their framework of interpreting evidence. That there must be Creator God. Just like evolution framework where there must be millions of years, random blind chance, natural selection and mutations
 
Let the scientists bombard you with their unproven THEORIES.
But, if you're looking for a very clearly stated answer, Go read genesis 1. Let summarize it for you.
It says: In the beginning God created ..............
1. Before the beginning (of the universe and everything in it) there was God.
2. That God created - He is the creator of the universe and everything, including life.
3. The beginning of life is a result of the work of creation from the CREATOR.
 
I said comical since, any fool with a camcorder and an ounce of brain cell to format a video would go out with pre-conceived ideas about a topic and hone in on what they want to hear from their so called interviewees. I personally seek informed, non-prejudicial material to educate me on this subject, material that don't have a stance of bitching about the other camp but those that tries to explore within their own understanding and what other groups understand about the issues we are discussing, with respect of the other and not the trivial stance of this particular video.

Sample questions asked in the video
1). Did we evolve from monkeys
2). Did we have lungs
3). How come we evolved from fish..

I say…. Discussion null and void as per the content of the video. I only forced myself to watch to the end to make a comment else would have not wasted 6 minutes of my life watching that.

See videos of Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair discussing religion, informed arguments and crucially respect of the point of views (A longer version is available on BBC iPlayer or on youtube).
That's why I said, in the early days, if you dared to not tow the line of the teaching, they simply burnt you at the stake

No cameras no crew... Can they simply tell me how they achieved putting a video out without those expertise (be it very amateurish..) no graphic artists but for some reason, they have a lower third graphic stating their Name and organisation they are coming from ... They are arrogant, stating that no one in their rightful state of mind should have a view that is different from theirs. The premise of this video is laughable since they say these are the deductions from believers of the evolution theory and duly boarded a bus or some vehicle and randomly interviewed the people. That is not a deductive means of performing a survey, a meaningful survey that one can speak of.

I am of the creationism camp but of a free mind to not simply entertain the views of the other but of questioning what my own camp have to say on the issue. Pointing me to Genesis doesn't answer the question. Someone, maybe of the same entrenched believe as our broadcaster was involved in writing that up, trying to get perspective of why we are here. Over hundreds of years we have been told that these words are final, the words came from Supreme Being and no questioning of this fact is allowed and in some religions never a candidate for discussion. That does not progress the inner question we all have, is there an actual purpose to LIFE? Telling me that there is a life thereafter simply is dodging the question and is also similar to the mumbo jumbo they are trying to show in their video, with scrolling onto screen words like I think. Such answers on thereafter simply tells me that, well, The Supreme Beings representatives here on earth have no answer and I should wait till I die and get some concrete answer to my question.

UmkhontoweSizwe: Did once try to read the bible, a mission to read cover to cover, and a few lines into Genesis, "You really can't make this things up" I told myself. Very homourous I found it, precise directives, In the beginning.... There was God... full stop, no way ever to question about this crucial fact, where did God come from.... Oh! Am told, God was there on his own... Well, you can't help but ask, really..... never got round to picking it up again after those few lines, but still born into the religion.
 
Internet is extremly slow, so I will have to find somewhere to look Video.
I have watched a lot of debates btn atheists and theists enough to tell you there is no where to find unbiased material as long as it is written by human being. They all have their own biases. It is just that some don't camouflage it.
for now I reserve my comments till I see Hitchens video :coffee:
 
Kontikarwak

There must bea "beggining" of everything.Now let s aasume and let not us call this beggining is GOD.

So how can we start to explain the begging of nothing.

Logic inanimbia kabla hata kujadili mwanzo au chanzo cha kitu chochote basi lazima hata hicho kitu tunachafuta chanzo au mwazo wake pia kina chanzo. So tunaweza kwenda mpaka infinity ty tunakatafuta ha chanzo cha chromosome au cell lakini wote inabidi tukubaliane somewhere lazima kuna "supernatural "power( let assume its not GOD in this case). ambayo ndiyo base.

Bila kukubali kuwa kuna supernatural power somewhere ni kujidanganya. nadhani hata wanasayansi wanachofanya ni kujaribu kutoa maelezo kuonyesha hakuna supernaturality kwenye mambo ya universe but still kila explanation moja watayatota itazaa maswali 1000.

But again kwa mwanasayasi kufikiria supernatural power itaonekana ni uvuvu. To them everything must have an explantion. Nadhani mwansayasi akitumia nenoa neno NATURE papaer yake inakuwa discredited. So nakubalina nao wanaopendelea kutupa sababu mbalimbali but naamin kuna "mwanzo "
 
We shouldn't. The assumption by itself now compels us to answer what we don't know. Why do we have that logic in our thinking? The answer lies in our own existing here on earth, the existing comprising of a start:-being born, a middle:-living and an end:-death. We are transposing that logic to things we have no understanding of and assuming it takes same steps as our own little existence.
Assumptions kuwa, kuna driver in charge again compels us to associate that driver to being the creator, na kuwa everything around us will be attributed to the driver. You end up limiting the scope in which a discussion can be had.

Summations like God made man in his own image…. Please read that line again… see the absurdity of its conclusion. His image, why just image, why not the power to create, the powers attributed to him as well. I know I may not be the best specimen of human, but looking at the mirror unadorned doesn't really answer my query, the God with all his said powers, wisdom creative flare could be happy with what I am looking at in-front of me. The same would be the conclusion of billions of people still living, if only they had not succumbed to the notion that everything will be made better in the life thereafter:- frolicking in the clouds, eating honey and listening to harp music.

Was the creation that the supernatural being started finished or is a work in progress. The scriptures tell me that He looked at his creation and was happy. Now, I read of active volcanoes, I read of the sea claiming chunks of land every year, while new land gets formed from such erosion. Can I assume that job was not complete in this case?

We need to explain things to the best of our ability, with the best information at hand, na vitu ambavyo hatujui, tuseme, hatujui, na sio kusema hivi sasa tuamue kuwa a supernatural thing knows about them.
 
........

We need to explain things to the best of our ability, with the best information at hand, na vitu ambavyo hatujui, tuseme, hatujui, na sio kusema hivi sasa tuamue kuwa a supernatural thing knows about them.

So what do u think the best , unbiased explantion and with best information. according this subject
 
So what do u think the best , unbiased explantion and with best information. according this subject
I think science leads us to data and result, just there. How do you make sense of data depends on framework of interpretation you have. Interpretation of evidence is matter of belief. Because for anything in the world to make sense, not only science, but also philosophy, talks....et al, there are things that must be assumed and given, else you will just get no where.

And the war is just there, at initial assumption, normally called pressupositions.
Ooh! Let me link you good debate between two professors I enjoyed long ago
Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein Mp3 « The Domain for Truth
 
Listening to the Domain of Truth....


The best answer so far that I can give is we don't know, nobody knows:- a very unbiased answer to the question of how come we are here. what is behind it all if any.
The conclusion however acknowledges that the two camps each offers society a viable means to channel their energies once the mud slinging of we know best has been ignored. As in the Christopher Hitchens V Tony Blair discussions amongst others concluded, science endeavours propel us into being inquisitive, and learn more about our universe since we don't simply assume that ok, a Supreme Being made it happen so we can just take it at its face value. For the evolutionist camp, this has led to formation of religions. Arguments may arise now on my next line, but please bear with me....

Since we can't speak of what was happening prior to religion, I will take my argument as from when religion became a force in the world. Religions have forged humanity to what it is now; we have associated ourselves to a particular religion. Humanity on the lines of religion offers certain teaching pillars of Christianity, pillars of Islam all are used to guide the moral aspect of the human being.
Wars have been fought over religious grounds as well as doctrines not necessarily based on religion (Hitler for example). Religion has been in part a stabilising effect in human behaviour and who knows without that single effect what a world we would have now.
Note that I am foremost mentioning religion here because, atheism can not have been tolerated during the heights of religious movement, whichever religion one belonged to. Atheism may have come to being when tolerance on other faiths and non faiths was allowed to exist.

Is there a new religion? I guess so, earlier religions were taught on the lines of, this is the fact, recite it and you will inherit something in the afterlife. New religion however has started to look at the self, respect of life, freedom of speech, freedom of reasoning (education/knowledge, expression), freedom to associate and the like, and even though it mingles well in the traditional religions it is coming forth since the time is right, views having had time to change and living circumstances being different from when earlier religions were being taught.
 
Back
Top Bottom