• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did God create the world?

When did God create the world?

  • last Thursday

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • before 6000 years

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • before more than 6000 years

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • nobody knows

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • maybe he did not create it

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • maybe there is no God

    Votes: 8 26.7%

  • I do not know

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • some other answer

    Votes: 11 36.7%
  • Total voters
    30
Irredentist said:
These criteria are biased to exclude nomadic cultures. Take the Mongols for example. They did not have monumental architecture or large population centers, but they did have shared communication strategies, and systems for administering territories, and most of us would consider the Mongols to be a civilization.
Click to expand...

The sedentary component has always been considered a feature of a civilisation for as long as I can remember. A culture is not necessarily a civilisation.
 
NWO_Spook said:
The sedentary component has always been considered a feature of a civilisation for as long as I can remember. A culture is not necessarily a civilisation.
Click to expand...

So were the Mongols not a civilization, even though they had communication, administration, and a social hierarchy, simply because they were nomadic pastoralists? What is the basis for excluding non-agriculturalists from the definition of civilization? Or is it simply that the ones who wrote said definition all happened to be sedentary agriculturalists?
 
Wayne Jr said:
Your link says the iron core solidified 565mil years ago, but you're saying the core wasn't there at all. Your link does not support your claim. The material was there all 4.5Bil years.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the core wasn't there at all!


Since Earth started life as a growing clump of rock, it's easy to assume that the core is the oldest part of the planet, but that's not quite the case.
Today, it's divided into two regions: a solid ball of iron in the inner core, which is surrounded by a swirling pool of liquid iron.
When exactly that inner core solidified has long been up for debate, with conventional thinking placing it somewhere between half a billion and 2.5 billion years.



The Rochester team says that a newly-formed solid inner core could be responsible.
Click to expand...
Ancient crystals suggest Earth'''s core is 4 billion years younger than the planet
 
Irredentist said:
So were the Mongols not a civilization, even though they had communication, administration, and a social hierarchy, simply because they were nomadic pastoralists? What is the basis for excluding non-agriculturalists from the definition of civilization? Or is it simply that the ones who wrote said definition all happened to be sedentary agriculturalists?
Click to expand...


A sedentary lifestyle that built cities was always considered a feature of a civilisation. I didn't write the criteria, but I remember them from high school and later in university. Those that weren't sedentary in nature were referred to as cultures, however, things may have changed since I left uni, but I do not know.
 
tosca1 said:
So far........we haven't discovered any lifeforms at all. And yet, to say that life is teeming on earth would be a gross understatement!


How can earth have hoarded all the so-called random chances that had caused life to exists and thrive - and nothing else around us had benefitted from any WIND FALL?

How can there be not a single life anywhere in our solar system?
Click to expand...

You're the god person, you tell me how is it possible there is no life elsewhere in the universe? What does the bible say about the subject?
 
bongsaway said:
You're the god person, you tell me how is it possible there is no life elsewhere in the universe? What does the bible say about the subject?
Click to expand...

It's not impossible, therefore it's probable...we may find out some day...
 
Irredentist said:
The fertile crescent was indeed the home of the first agricultural society, what we call "civilization". But it is not the earliest evidence we have of human society or culture, and it is is not the original source of the creation myth that we find in the Bible and many other religious traditions. Rather, it comes from the proto Indo Europeans, who were a nomadic pastoralist culture who lived in the Eurasian steppe, not sedentary city dwelling agriculturalists.
Click to expand...

Link? Are you denying the "out of Africa" theory? Are you claiming "original man" was Aryan?
 
I just mis-read my own topic!
I read "When did Google create the world?" - by mistake.
 
Royal PITA said:
Link? Are you denying the "out of Africa" theory? Are you claiming "original man" was Aryan?
Click to expand...

There's no one link I can give you that will explain all of this. I would advise doing some research into the proto Indo Europeans, the wiki page is a decent place to start.

I am not denying the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution. Early migration of homo sapiens out of Africa occured 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, long before the events I am discussing, which took place in the fourth millenium BC. The proto Indo European migrations spread Indo European languages and culture across the globe, and is the reason that the northern Indian language of Hindi belongs to the same language family as English, the one we are speaking right now. Along with other diverse languages such as Russian, Greek, Latin, Pashto, French, German, Farsi, Gaelic, Spanish, and many others. All these languages descend from the same original language, the proto Indo European language, which was spread far and wide, and eventually evolved into the diverse language family we see today. It makes complete sense that they would have spread their religion at the same time, influencing the later beliefs of the areas they migrated to.
 
Irredentist said:
There's no one link I can give you that will explain all of this. I would advise doing some research into the proto Indo Europeans, the wiki page is a decent place to start.

I am not denying the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution. Early migration of homo sapiens out of Africa occured 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, long before the events I am discussing, which took place in the fourth millenium BC. The proto Indo European migrations spread Indo European languages and culture across the globe, and is the reason that the northern Indian language of Hindi belongs to the same language family as English, the one we are speaking right now. Along with other diverse languages such as Russian, Greek, Latin, Pashto, French, German, Farsi, Gaelic, Spanish, and many others. All these languages descend from the same original language, the proto Indo European language, which was spread far and wide, and eventually evolved into the diverse language family we see today. It makes complete sense that they would have spread their religion at the same time, influencing the later beliefs of the areas they migrated to.
Click to expand...
Maybe it went down that way, but lots of cultural ideas and stories jump language families just due to proximity, trade, shifts in political power, migrations, etc. I don't think we need to assume there was, for example, a super ancient proto indo european flood myth to explain why both the Sumerians (indo-european) and the Babylonians (semitic) had a clearly related flood myth, when there are much shorter paths for cultural dissemination.

If it went down the way you described, I would think you could sort features of the flood myths by language family and arrive at tight groupings where the features of the myths closely relate to the features of the languages, but it seems like the groupings are more geographic than linguistic, until you get to those flood myths that are almost certainly appropriated from Christian missionaries (I say almost because it is hard to date oral traditions, but for example the near Eastern flood myths all have different names for the hero: ziosudra, utnapishtim, Noah, etc., but then you get huge swaths of Asia (at least according to one encyclopedia of flood myths which does a piss poor job of citing sources for anything) all having stories about a Noah or some very close variation, but no ancient written sources for them. I don't think it is a leap to think this is due to missionary endeavors, but if you asked me to prove it, I do not think that I could.)

Not saying you are wrong, I just think there are more parsimonious paths to describing how the myths get shared than to assume they predate our written sources by several tens of thousands of years.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
never, gods do not exist and he/she did not create this planet.
 
Do you know the "Last-Thursday-ism"? :)
 
Rumpel said:
Good morning to you, then! :)
Click to expand...
Good morning to you as well, though I am soon for bed.

I said he was present, not that I was him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom