jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (75 posts)

Evolution or not?

  1. pennyofheaven profile image80
    pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago

    Creation or not?

    The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name
    The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
    The named is the mother of myriad things
    Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
    Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
    These two emerge together but differ in name
    The unity is said to be the mystery
    Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

    Source: http://www.taoism.net/enter.htm

    This seems to me to be pointing to evolution and creation. What do you think?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No - it does not seem to be pointing at anything of the sort.

    2. kess profile image59
      kessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Most live their lives divided against their own selves.
      As long as that situation continues, they are unable to see Life even though they are alive.

      The unity that is needed without is the same unity that is needed within. But the unity within must come first before you can even approach that which is without.

      There is a division/two within that needs to be merged,

      Then you are able to see the division/two without.

      This is the beginning of Truth and the way of all things for so it is with both the least and greatest .

      1. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agree.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          penny - you can't get away with that.  cool

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Haha ok

    3. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You shall have to elaborate; I don't see Evolution mentioned here.

      Another thing is who told this to the person who wrote it. Please name the source.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        paarsurrey - with respect, good luck finding the source of Taoism.  It's as old as...well it's old.

      2. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Lao Tzu is the source of the original writing that was in ancient Chinese. Even Chinese of today debate about the translations.  Just like the bible though it has many translations. The link I supplied provides you the site of its translator if you are interested.

        The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth.

        In the days that the Tao te Ching was written, heaven was not referring to heaven in the Christian understanding. It was referring to the universe.

        So science believes our universe and everything in it came from the big bang. If the nameless is the origin as in Taoists understanding then it is possible it is pointing to what science points to.
        That which can be named is the temporal aspect of our existence. Things that can be created and destroyed.

  2. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    It has nothing to do with creation or evolution.  It is about what we con't know, the division between the whole of everything and what wwe know about it and how to operate within the reality we create that is the partial mirror of the whole.  In other words, it is about balance and how not to go rocking around when we don't nkow what we are doing.  The way is the way of thinking/behaving, the division between the concrete and the abstract.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Westerners rarely understand the Tao. Not even sure why one would try and use it to analyze scientific facts in this fashion. It is purely an internal tool - yet they always attempt to apply it externally. I wonder why that is?

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely - it is kin to the Buddhist stages to enlightenment - except the Tao does not talk about attaining anything except harmony in oneself, and a way of thinking that is far superior to our western logic strings that run pointlessley from origin and back to origin.  Now if we could only get the religionists onto the 'way' !!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well - they do the same with the bible, which I consider to be a purely internal tool - they externalize it and argue about "creation."

          Not really sure why they do this, because when they run into actual external events - such as evolution - they perceive a clash.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps they are looking for unity rather than division?

            1. arb profile image79
              arbposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Pennyofheaven, Sometimes a simple reponse reveals more truth than hours of complex analysis. Perhaps unity! What a novel concept.

        2. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is your opinion.

        3. profile image51
          ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Some people are inclined to see anything that is NOT of their own cultural traditions as "far superior." This is not the WAY.

      2. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You might be surprised how many Taoist use it to analyze science and vice versa... and in this fashion. A lot of them Easterners too.

        Oh and to add: Internal and External. You cannot have one without the other according to the passage.. As they merge.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No I would not be surprised that you think this is the case. And it was "emerge" not "merge," according to the passage. lol lol Dear me.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Cool! Yes you are quite right. Emerge but then to emerge they had to be merged yes?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No. I was not previously merged with a building when I emerge from it - except by an extreme stretch of the meaning of the word "merge."

              I really suggest buying yourself a decent dictionary.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Haha Why would I do that when I have you to correct me, wouldn't that just spoil the fun your having?

                Taken in the context of the whole passage. They were one. Is that not merged? If it isn't well then they emerged out of one.

                The unity is the mystery, the singularity. Where emerged that which can be named. Where emerged also that which cannot be named.

                First there was the singularity then structure then form. then the ten thousand things.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I see - you were not actually interested in what other people think then?

                  Taken in context.

                  Un-merged? Maybe. Emerged - no. A dictionary would help.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                    pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I am. Ok maybe I do need a dictionary to understand your logic.

      3. profile image51
        ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        People who say "X doesn't understand the Tao" generally prove that they don't themselves, given the real motivation behind saying so.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth. If the big bang created the heavens (universe) including earth is it not possible it is pointing to that? It is nameless and therefore eternal.

      God is eternal according to creationists and for some creationist God is also responsible for evolution.

      The named is what is temporal, things that we can describe, the nameless is that which we cannot describe and is eternal. Manifest and the unknown then.

      Yet it says these two merge together but differ in name. So how can there be division?

      So in everything manifest there is the eternal.

      Sounds like God is in all things to me?

  3. spookyfox profile image73
    spookyfoxposted 6 years ago

    You're using a very ancient philosophy and stretching it out to fit a modern 'battle' of ideas. In those words there's no mention of a being (a god), nor the origin of life.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No it does not mention God it mentions the process of creation which some might perceive as God if they believe God created all things.

      Most philosophies are ancient aren't they? So what does the origin of heaven and earth mean to you? Not the origin of life?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Heaven=delusion

        Earth=reality

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Heaven in Taoism represents the universe not heaven in the Christian understanding. So is our Universe a delusion?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Only to the religious who think we go there when we die.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes agree, Taoist don't believe that, some creationists don't either.

            2. profile image51
              ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Funny how adamantly opposed some people are to concepts they don't really understand.

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So true,

                Even when the last star
                has imploded
                and only blackness remains,
                the Tao will be Tao:
                emptiness in emptiness,
                silence in silence,
                nowhere,
                yet everywhere;
                beyond existence,
                yet the essence of life.

                The Tao is Tao

                By Jos Slabbert

                1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                  pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Very nice!

        2. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh and the origin is a singularity. Just like the big bang.

  4. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    I would appear that creationism and evolution are processes which can not be proven by man.

    Personally though looking at evolution it is the only cycle that doesn't cycle.  No where in the history of mankind has anyone recorded that "hey come over here this ape is having another human baby."  Humans still have human babies, apes still have ape babies and nothing but speculation as to this maybe how people came into existence has ever been presented.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are wrong. Evolution is well proven. I wonder you have the temerity to express an opinion at all. There is a perfectly rational, proven and understandable explanation why humans have human babies and apes, ape babies.

      Oh well. Jesus will do huh? lol

    2. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes you are quite right, perhaps that is because what is eternal cannot be described in our finite view of the infinite. The intellect, when in the way, cannot see past itself. Where as the creative can. It cannot describe fully what it sees without the intellect. If the creative side of our brains and the intellect worked together perhaps a description can be formed. More often than not though the intellect is lord over thee.

      I too have wondered why the other apes stopped evolving. If evolution is well...evolving....then you would think the other ape species would by now have a sense of "self" as we do. When I think about it, any animal with a brain should evolve.

      They are the lucky ones in my view, they do not have a sense of self and do not need to get that out of the way to realize their connection to all things.

      1. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        No offense, but you should seek a real undeerstanding of evolution before posting statements as such.  This is a simplistic distortion.  It appears that you have a gross misunderstanding of the process.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Apparently so. Would you like to share your understanding? Since evolution is still a theory, I am interested to know what I have grossly misunderstood.

          Your post is not offensive to me. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is not a reality.

          1. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            It's that you are implying that the goal of every primate species is to evolve into humans.  That's like saying that whales should evolve into hippos.  It's just that we all have different mutations at different times along the way.

            So, why have humans not evolved superior strength like some other primates?  Does this make sense?

            http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/why … mans-0665/

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No I wasn't implying that all species should grow into human beings. Whilst we may have come from a mutation, I doubt that it is an ape that is our common ancestor. Or the ape would have evolved much the same way we have. Perhaps the ape lost some mutations along the way and we didnt? I don't know.

              1. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                I don't think it is known, what common ancester we share with other apes.  But all apes, including us, are evolving from the lines of that common ancester.  We did not evolve from apes, we, essentially, ARE apes.

          2. simeonvisser profile image84
            simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Please visit http://www.notjustatheory.com/ and then come back.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So it is a theory correct or not?

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Correct.

                Just Like

                The Big Bang Theory

                Inflationary Theory

                Chaotic Inflation Theory

                Steady State Theory

                Theory of Cold Fusion

                String Theory

                Super String Theory

                Theory of Everything

                Theory of Pangaea

                Theory of Abiogenesis

                etc. etc......

          3. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You have grossly misunderstood that the apes, and all species are still evolving.  And that evolution does not have self-awareness as its destination, indeed--it doesn't even have a destination.

            Evolution is really very simple.  It observes that members of a species vary due to random mutation.  It observes that individuals who better exploit or 'fit' the environment have more offspring.  That is all.  That's the whole thing.

            As theories go it is not exactly tenuous, just the comination of one certain fact and one a really quite obvious fact, and a rational conclusion that as a result, species change over time.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I do understand what you are saying. And I don't disagree. I think the point that is being missed here is that random mutation is just that. Ours would have had to be different if we have a sense of self. A consciousness that differs to ape species.

              The evolution theory explains the biological evolution however where it is not clear is how consciousness has evolved.

          4. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            I would suggest that you find and thoroughly understand the definition of a Scientific Theory. 

            Because of the fact that you don't really comprehend the definition, you make the gross error of thinking that a nonsensical Myth has the same validity.

            Forget your definition of the word "theory" which you learned in high school.  That is not relevant here. 

            Scientific Theory is defined differently.

            TY

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So are you saying then that they have the physical evidence (mutation) of that which we came into being from? Heres an extract from the link given....



              This suggest there is no physical evidence. Just documented explanation for our observation?

              It is close but not proven. What does that say for you then? It is law because they say it is. Still a theory in my opinion.

              Creationists claim the same thing. The bible is documented explanation for their observations. Not proven of course. It explains to them how creation was formed.

              Tell what the difference is because I am not getting it obviously.

              1. Jerami profile image74
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That makes    logical    sense to me.

      2. Beelzedad profile image58
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Since intelligence is just one of many branches of evolution, we can make the assumption that not all animals will reach the same state of evolution with the same results as any other animal.

        That would be like asking why all tails aren't the same, and why do some animals have them and others don't?

        We can't say that the ape has "stopped evolving" because evolution is an ongoing process covering vast periods of time.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No not all animals. However if ape is our common ancestor you would have thought they are not that far behind us in evolution. Perhaps we are the ones that are behind? I don't know.

    3. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If what you said actually had anything to do with evolution, you might have a point. smile

  5. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Well Mark,

       If apes are our ancestor then why haven't we given them all the sames rights has their offsprings have?  They bring us into existence and we still treat them like animals-SHAME ON US SUBHUMANS.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry you do not understand. We human apes became self aware. We are still animals. We just have the power. Tricky - I know.

  6. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Since we are all animals Again I say why haven't we treated apes or missing links just like we treat ourselves being as we are all from the same family??

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We do. We slaughter them with no less abandon than we slaughter ourselves. sad

    2. skyfire profile image74
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Heard of Speciation ? Why you mix 'survival instincts' with 'speciation' and then draw conclusion of animal rights based on human understanding of empathy ?

      Just because humans and apes are from same ancestor does that mean we should treat each other same ? WOW. Even hitler, stalin and talibanis killed thousands just to show the difference between their tribe or thought process. Don't tell me you don't see any animal instinct in this.

      In that case show me if household cat, mountain lion and wild cats which are branched out from same ancestor respecting each other and not at all thinking about attacking when they're kept in single cage.

      It's wild life out there, whether you digest missing links or not. wink

  7. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Very good that is partially correct only I believe the laws for our ape ancestor a much fewer then they are for it's offsprings.

  8. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    Skyfire,

       If we claim one thing and do another then that makes us liars or prejudice.  You're example of Hilter proves that point.  Years ago we treated women as not existent, and Black Americans remained at the bottom of the human dare I say animal lower ladder.

        If one is going to say this is what it is have and have nothing to back it up then this is recognized as we call it today Profiling.

         Now if we claim the animal kingdom as our own then we need to do more then Nothing about it.

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    We already do more than nothing about it, hence the animal creulty laws.  And belief in evolution is associated with being more concerned with animal rights.  So perhaps a first step to being more humane would be to be less hostile to evolutionary theory.

  10. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Years ago ? Many islamics tribes still treat women as non-existent and many families in india treat women as trash or as a way to keep family tree alive even in 2010. Racism still exists today. My sirname means 'black' in my native language and it contradicts with my skin color still in society people with my sirname are looked down upon. With what you can deny this ? Nothing.

    You're not in 2210, SpanStar. tongue



    I don't get ya. What's your plan, man ?

  11. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 6 years ago

    These things of hate and things exist because we choose them, we decide this is that and that is this.  We make judgements which should be made and that why hate exist the way it is today and like it's always been.  We tell ourselves lies and proclaim them as he truth.  If we could rise above these lies we tell ourselves then we can live a better life but to often we want to believe these lies and that's why so many races are divided.

  12. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Very True.

  13. Stuart Barnes profile image56
    Stuart Barnesposted 6 years ago

    It always amazes me when people try to make God small so He/It will fit into their frame of reference.  They say things like, "Oh, God wouldn't do that."  This just makes God small enough for a human to comprehend.  How ridiculous.

    We have senses to find out about our physical world.  These are for a reason.  If something is the way it is then no amount of us pretending that it is different will make any difference.

    If evolution was the mechanism of creation, so be it.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It always amazes me that people claim to comprehend a supreme being. Evolution just is - the fact that you need to attribute it to something that clearly does not exist is actually funny.

      lol

      1. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that the same as attributing our existence to evolution. Whats the difference?

    2. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would tend to agree with you, if that were indeed the case.

      But, there must be something we as humans do in fact comprehend about gods, or we wouldn't embrace them and worship them as we do. It isn't so ridiculous after all.

      And, it would also require some comprehension that would motivate one to make the connection that evolution was the mechanism of creation, or else no such connection could take place and no such belief would be held.

      The answer would simply revert to evolution as we have observed with our physical senses if no other forms of comprehension of a creator can be achieved beyond that scope. smile

    3. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes agree

  14. couturepopcafe profile image61
    couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago

    The seer dwells in his own nature, restraining the thought streams natural to the mind, otherwise he is of the same form as the thought streams.  Desirelessness towards the seen, signified by an indifference to attachment, is attained by the practice of mental suspension until only subtle impressions remain. 

    Pure consciousness is identified by ego as being only the mind.  The very existence of the seen is for the sake of the seer but the desire to live is eternal and the thought clusters prompting a sense of identity are beginningless.  The past and future exist in the object itself whether manifested or not, the mind is both perceived and perceiver.  The universe of sensory perception is small to one who remains undistracted in even the highest intellection, the mind freed from obscuration, whose attributes cease mutative association with awareness freeing the indweller to shine as pure consciousness.  This is the emergence of the nameless that has always been........at least that's the way I understand the tao.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds about right to me.

  15. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 6 years ago

    The story of Schroedinger's cat (an epic poem)

    May 7, 1982
    Dear Cecil:

    Cecil, you're my final hope

    Of finding out the true Straight Dope

    For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat

    But none of my cats are at all like that.

    This unusual animal (so it is said)

    Is simultaneously live and dead!

    What I don't understand is just why he

    Can't be one or other, unquestionably.

    My future now hangs in between eigenstates.

    In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.

    If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way

    And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.

    But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,

    Then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's zoo.

    — Randy F., Chicago

    Cecil replies:

    Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!

    Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!

    (Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse

    Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)

    Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented

    By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.

    What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,

    No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.

    Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles

    Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.

    If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance

    Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!

    No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge

    Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."

    Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck

    The comforting linkage of cause and effect.

    E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried

    To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.

    Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,

    And inside a tube we have put that cat at--

    Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,

    A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes

    (Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,

    One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom

    Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,

    A trigger device blasts the vial into bits

    Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime

    Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.

    The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is

    Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?

    Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't

    But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.

    Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),

    Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.

    To some this may seem a ridiculous split,

    But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough shit.

    We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':

    There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.

    Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.

    The act of observing disturbs the observed--

    Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing

    To see if a particle's moving or resting

    Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!

    We know probability--certainty, never.'

    The effect of this notion? I very much fear

    'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.

    Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,

    "We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'

    So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.

    God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.

    I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--

    In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.

    Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,

    Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.

    Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:

    Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

    — Cecil Adams

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … -epic-poem

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent on so many levels.  wink

 
working