The gods Odin, Vili, and Ve then used Ymir's carcass to create http://www.suite101.com/external_link.cfm?elink=http://media.dickinson.edu/Germanic_Mythology/MidgardN.html - Midgard , the world of men. They used his flesh to create the earth, his broken bones to make the mountains, his teeth to make the rocks, and his hair to create the trees. From his blood they made the lakes and the sea and from his skull the brothers fashioned the sky, placing four http://www.suite101.com/external_link.cfm?elink=http://media.dickinson.edu/Germanic_Mythology/DwarfsN.html - dwarfs , Nordi, Sudri, Austri, and Vestri, at its corners to hold it up. Then the three gods used sparks to create the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Later, the gods found some driftwood on the seashore. They took the fallen ash tree and created man. And from the fallen elm tree they fashioned woman. Odin breathed life into them. Vili gave them intelligence and emotion, and Ve gave them the ability to see and hear. Thus were created the http://www.suite101.com/external_link.cfm?elink=http://media.dickinson.edu/Germanic_Mythology/Ask_and_EmblaN.html - first man and woman on Midgard.

I wonder how long it takes for some people to realiye that scientific theories are consistent yet they are not complete.

A position is built. I do not understand your objection, unless you had in mind some concrete buildings, brick buildings or some particular case on which I applied fallaciously a generalization. Since we earlier talked about "truths" I assumed you mean any type of building, and especially buildings of ideas, buildings which lead to conclusions which for some people are equivalent to truths.

The scientific ideas actually have always anti-ideas, because one necessary criterion of science is falsifiability. I cannot help noticing how you keep excepting your own beliefs from the criteria you pontificate to validate human knowledge. You may try to be objective, but you end up in being hypocritical. 

Science and scientists do try to explain what you say but they are aslo aware of the impossibility of an ultimate explanation. Since scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, must  be confirmed by observations, scientist know that they cannot make an infinitely precise observation or measurement.

1. Existance has no kind of limits and is immeasurable as a whole.
2. There is a Being(God) that is self sufficient.

And what's funny is that the two statements are not exclusive. Though I think that no. 1 is true and take it as a principle and no. 2 is yet to be proved. Not to mention that I can say that Existance includes God(s) and still be consistent.

1. There is a creator
2. There is evolution

The problem is that some people see these two as exclusive. As I said before, I don't.

The next step in discussions is the attept to prove one or another, if not both statements. That is to say if they are true or false. And that's another thing, since new statements need to be added to establish that.

Here's some:

1. there is a cause for everything
2. everything has a purpose
3. evolution doesn't explain everything

Now, to build an explanation you need only logic. Observation is what confirms or not the explanation. An explanation can be true, false or undefined. On the other hand, it can be flawed by misusing the logic or misinterpretation of the observation.

Ok, maybe I start to understand something from your last two replies. When you write "not any method is practical ..." it happens you actually mean "there's no practical method..."? Well, then the discussion did not progress a bit. Denying knowledge cannot have any other end but the defeat of the argument which brought the denial in the first place. "Every statement is wrong" is wrong by definition.

Menumorut, it's not possible to discuss with someone lacking an attribute, we humans in our fake ways, call it intelligence. If every statement is wrong, everything you have written (said, thought, also everything I or anyone else has) is wrong. Thus, you're wrong!  

Is Quantum Physics Archimede's Physics?. Is Euclid's Geomethry Riemann's? Do you think that there are limits? Off course there are but when a theory reaches them another theory is replace it. If I make a breakthrough in evolutionis I don't call the new theory Dynamic Cezar's Transgression of Existence.

You're sure. Scientists say it started with nothing and they cannot explain how this is possible. We could say it is God who creates everything from nothing. But, if we don't look if you can proof it or not, what is god? Can you tell me what it is? Is it the beloved father in heaven of what most people believe? Is he material, spiritual or what? I don't know if there is something like god or how ever we should name it, but I am very sure that he has nothing to do with the god of the christians, the muslims, the jews and the most of the others. So if the christian believe is wrong, creationism is wrong! The best explanation we have is that of the scientists! If there is someone a better explanation, o.k., but not these fundamentalist christian ideas (I'd like to write another word for ideas, but I am to handsome)

Very good arguments gentlemen, however we all need to refresh our perspectives by taking and using what can be known. There is always more to know or there would be no point in having an education process. During the height of Greek times a philosophical argument was waged over the �state� of the universe. Was the universe static (unchanging in its basic or elemental properties) or flowing (in a state of constant change).  The earlier world view had loosely favored �all things flow� however this more ancient viewpoint lost the battle for hearts and minds. The more politically correct static viewpoint was favored until the time of quantum physics.

The once supreme and rampant static viewpoint favored having god or gods. The real argument here is whether or not the long standing Supreme Being idea is a fundamental concept that has been hardwired into the human brain. Growing evidence suggests that it is certainly not the case and an early form of �evolution� was naturally accepted long before the (arguably) more primitive creation ideas first appeared.

Look at the complexity of these psychic form arguments (that every caveman knows?). The earth (universe) has been �created� to function in certain ways by an eternally constant power that lives in an eternally constant realm. Now this unchanging power in this spiritual place hidden from our non-spiritual eyes has the power to change things around otherwise they will stay the same for they have no power within to change themselves.  However they can and do change because the creator has created the inner mechanisms for them to change.

We should not start from the physical world when trying to determine the truth? Pray tell from what world should we start? I�m not even arguing for science or religion but for common sense at last. The world has been abused and mistreated by diseased ideas dressed up in a gleaming party frock of rituals, ceremonies and lavish splendor that basically pleads permission for our form of life to put down other forms of life to �enrich� our own and advance our own selfish causes.

Please tell me more about this invisible principle of existence that has nothing to do with existence but gives us life anyway. Let me take a rough guess here, you are talking about certain writings dating from around 500 BC that tell about Him (not She or It) and through His mighty powers all things on heaven and earth are made manifest. By studying these remarkable documents all the mystery of these things that are but are not will be revealed, (at least to those who take it on board and become believers). As everybody and his dog know a really tough time lies ahead for those who question the veracity of this Book.

Now you are showing an amazing grasp of the convoluted human condition!

• A person Principle of existence has a deeper capacity of being self-sufficient than a non-person principle. this because a non-person principle of existence cann't determinate itself, like a conscious being can



• A person Principle of existence is the only explanation for the existence of the human being, alive, self-conscious, rational



• Let's ad too what was sayed, that there are too many coincidences for the appeareance of life on earth, on other planets we can hardly find one or two of the ~10 (I think) conditions from earth: the water, the distance to sun, the constitution of the soil and air etc

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Oh darn, I knew I should have said 600 BC! We need to watch out for the religious sensitivities of others by giving the benefit of any such minor doubt.  Certainly much older material exists but did it belong the growing books of the Torah or did it belong to the religious works of others, like the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians?

You must already know in the ancient world the authorities were at their wit�s end as to how to make people behave themselves. That �city fathers� freely used religion as a form of mental control for the seething masses needs no explanation. Never mind the details but this cunning plan really worked and still does. Each form of civilization learned from others how to control the growing discontent of mobs in the growing cities through use of �sacred text�.

These texts covered hygiene, food preparation and so on but above all personal behavior in the sight of �the Lord�. There were always the upper classes to which you owed your kiss-ass reverence for they naturally represented the lord of lords, king of kings etc, etc. In turn these privileged few funded the growth of cities by financing public works and keeping up the flow of trade, imports, exports and all that.

That various religious documents represented the principal of existence in a personal way is true, but it depends on what you mean if more closely looked at in the real time and interactive social context as described above.

As for your interesting theory of life on this earth or other places I don�t really know. IMHO life can appear anywhere in the universe once the conditions are right. Bear in mind there are all sort of invisible kingdoms of life that really do surround us. No need to go anywhere else to find them, they find us. Germs and all that sort of thing are life forms that appear to act with a certain form of intelligence some are benevolent and others clearly are not in what they can do to torture us. Did God make all those hosts of invisible little critters as well?

The subject is creationism vs evolution. As I�m pointing out this particular subject does have a long history and didn�t just occur in recent times. Nothing new under the sun so Solomon said and this is a history forum. I can hardly apologize for bringing up some valid and provable points that need more looking into for further comprehension. Such an important subject has everything to do with the development of present negative social attitudes towards the natural world.

Don�t worry, my friend. Many don�t know about how early writings outlined evolution and learn even less about early or other religions. However it�s not we cannot know or learn about what the Tao or Buddhism said on the subject.

Chinese wisdom first developed apart from Buddhism. The practice of Buddhism spread from the homeland in Northern India into Southeast Asia at a much later date. The Chinese had their native worship and customs very early. They first used the Tao or Dow to express what they called the total way of truth and life. The formless principle of the universe gives Chi force to this world. From this profound teaching arose disciplines like I Ching, meditation and Tao Chi.

Similar beliefs existed in the West early on by use of the word Nature. The word can be said to mean the combined principals of the universe. Nature can be seen as the Tao, the force behind all forces, the interaction of opposites that began life. For the Tao to begin work opposites are necessary in energy exchanges like warm and cold, light and darkness, fire and water and so forth. The light or strong male side of nature called Yan and the dark or soft feminine side of Yin set the first interactions of life in motion.

Everything had an opposite; hot also cold, light and darkness, men and women and so on. All opposites are necessary and therefore good for they permit the world remain in balance. So nature (Tao) is the originator of universal life force (Chi).

In Chinese life their landscape paintings show a different relationship between humans and nature rather than the imperfect theory of human domination over other living things. The Taoists spoke of a harmony among all aspects of nature, and said, "Heaven and earth and I live together."

Clay is molded to form a cup, but it is on its non-being (the space within) that the utility of the cup depends. Doors and windows are cut out to make a room, but it is on its non-being that the utility of the room depends. Therefore turn being into advantage, and turn non-being into utility. - Lao Tzu

Knowing others is wisdom, knowing yourself is Enlightenment. - Lao Tzu

                                                 Greek Thought

The Greek period came and went long before Christianity, but the learning of the Greeks flowed directly into the Roman culture and the thought that shaped Christianity. The major Greek philosophers wondered about the nature of the world.

Writings about evolution begins with the Ionian philosopher Anaximander (611 - 546 BC). Very little is known about his life, but he wrote a long poem, �On Nature�, summarizing his research. This poem is now lost, yet some survives in extracts from other works. For him the world had arisen from an undifferentiated substance, the apeiron. The Earth, formed out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud.

Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem influenced later thinkers, including Aristotle. Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? We don�t know what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems taken from Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which tribes people are born from the stones of the earth. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Much like the first earth of the Hebrew accounts and other creation stories.

Although Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was the first known written attempt to explanation origin and evolution based on natural laws.

In the 6th century BC. Xenophanes of Colophon (died 490 BC.), who was a disciple of Anaximander developed Anaximander's theories further. He observed fossil fishes and shells, and concluded that the land where they had been underwater at some time. Xenophanes taught the world formed from the condensation of water and "primordial mud;" he was the first person known to have used fossils as evidence for a theory of the history of the Earth.

The Greek historian Herodotus (484-425 BC.) observed fossil shells in Egypt, and used them as evidence that Egypt had once been underwater. He also described a valley in Arabia, in the Mokattam mountains, where he saw "the backbones and ribs of such serpents as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps... " He ascribed these bones to winged serpents that had been killed by ibises. We now know that they were the bones of fossil mammals that wash out of the rocks every rainy season. Several other ancient historians briefly mention fossils in their writings. Finally, the famous Greek physician Hippocrates of Cos (460-357 BC.) is known to have collected fossils; in fact, modern excavations at Asklepion, the famous medical school of Hippocrates's day, unearthed a fragment of a fossil elephant molar.

Hence it is evident that the state (a self-ruling city-state) is a creation of Nature, and man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state is either a bad man or above humanity... Man, when perfected, is the best of all animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all... Justice is the bond of men...  - Aristotle