Creation vs. Evolution

[freelight]

perspectives......

perspectives......

That video wouldn't play here for me so I found it on youtube. I thought Dawkins by far more than held his own, when he was allowed to get a word in. That woman doggedly, and painfully, refused to listen to reason.

'Theistic evolution' is made up of people honest enough to see the evidence for evolution (kudos for that), while having cherished, unmovable faith based theistic beliefs. So to avoid cognitive dissonance, they find a way to amalgamate the two. This is their right but hardly the middle ground IMO.

1) Evolution occurred - factual, based on masses of scientific evidence. Just the facts, just the evidence, nothing added.


2) God did it that way - religion based on faith but lacking scientific evidence.

Science is not just the middle but all the ground. Faith is an add on to the science, IMO.

- Science can only go as far as it is able it analyze and prove the evolution of life thru chemistry, dna or material means, while faith goes further into the metaphysical reality, dynamic and consciousness of that Infinite Intelligence behind all that is. While conventional science relates and confirms itself in the material processes of life, 'spiritual science' is that realm of 'knowledge' intuited in the soul of man in the invisible dimension of existence, where he relates to the deepest aspect of his 'being' (his own God-self or God-presence). So conventional science can only go so far, whereas faith in the invisible Spirit or OverSoul permeating creation is a psychic/spiritual recognition, the foundation of 'religious experience'.

Faith may be an add-on from an atheist's POV, but to a theist it presupposes a deeper trust in the invisible Spirit whose providence originates and includes all natural phenomena.


pj

 

[Zeke]

- Science can only go as far as it is able it analyze and prove the evolution of life thru chemistry, dna or material means, while faith goes further into the metaphysical reality, dynamic and consciousness of that Infinite Intelligence behind all that is. While conventional science relates and confirms itself in the material processes of life, 'spiritual science' is that realm of 'knowledge' intuited in the soul of man in the invisible dimension of existence, where he relates to the deepest aspect of his 'being' (his own God-self or God-presence). So conventional science can only go so far, whereas faith in the invisible Spirit or OverSoul permeating creation is a psychic/spiritual recognition, the foundation of 'religious experience'.

Faith may be an add-on from an atheist's POV, but to a theist it presupposes a deeper trust in the invisible Spirit whose providence originates and includes all natural phenomena.


pj

The conscience is the greased pig in this debate, plus common sense shows over and over that in this matrix the need for design and laws of governance between the complex life on this planet.

The wild geese doesn't believe they know! and they know through memory passed down to each generation, which wasn't implanted by chance or raffle ticket.

 

[noguru]

The conscience is the greased pig in this debate, plus common sense shows over and over that in this matrix the need for design and laws of governance between the complex life on this planet.

The wild geese doesn't believe they know! and they know through memory passed down to each generation, which wasn't implanted by chance or raffle ticket.

Even an atheist/agnostic realizes that instinct in wild geese is the result of a cause and effect relationships. There is no such thing as pure chance. There are events that are not planned out by any human like mind, and that may be what we call random. But nature progresses according to certain inherint principles and processes. I say this because even when I was an atheist/agnostic, I never thought the universe was not governed by these inherint principles and processes.

 

[Hedshaker]

- Science can only go as far as it is able it analyze and prove the evolution of life thru chemistry, dna or material means, while faith goes further into the metaphysical reality, dynamic and consciousness of that Infinite Intelligence behind all that is. While conventional science relates and confirms itself in the material processes of life, 'spiritual science' is that realm of 'knowledge' intuited in the soul of man in the invisible dimension of existence, where he relates to the deepest aspect of his 'being' (his own God-self or God-presence). So conventional science can only go so far, whereas faith in the invisible Spirit or OverSoul permeating creation is a psychic/spiritual recognition, the foundation of 'religious experience'.

Faith may be an add-on from an atheist's POV, but to a theist it presupposes a deeper trust in the invisible Spirit whose providence originates and includes all natural phenomena.


pj

Thanks freelight, your opinion is always welcome

But lets not forget the elephants in the room. Evidence, parsimony, occam's razor....... giddy up

 

[freelight]

One Light, many colours........

One Light, many colours........

Thanks freelight, your opinion is always welcome

But lets not forget the elephants in the room. Evidence, parsimony, occam's razor....... giddy up

You know I love diving into the metaphysics of it, exploring each dimension within the greater context of the subject. From a higher cosmic or spiritualist perspective, 'creation' and 'evolution' are but names for 'life' in their various modes or movements. It might not be so much a 'tossing' of 'God' into the mix, as it is the 'mix' originating from within 'God', that unknown, invisible substance from which all life, energy, mind, spirit, matter and all the elements derive. Conventional science can only 'test' or discover patterns in the material realm of observable effects, while behind it all....a deeper causal reality permeates. - I know....back to the blurring of lines here between Spirit and matter. From a theosophists view, its just a perspective tieing all things together, within an evolutional context. A theosophist naturally holds everything within a theistic or spiritual context regarding the evolution of life, a hierarchal order of progressive evolution.

Life is what it is, and it moves according to its own inherent tendencies by various laws or principles. We can see this from a wide-spectrum, and apply it within an atheistic or theistic worldview.



pj

 

[Hedshaker]

You know I love diving into the metaphysics of it, exploring each dimension within the greater context of the subject. From a higher cosmic or spiritualist perspective, 'creation' and 'evolution' are but names for 'life' in their various modes or movements. It might not be so much a 'tossing' of 'God' into the mix, as it is the 'mix' originating from within 'God', that unknown, invisible substance from which all life, energy, mind, spirit, matter and all the elements derive. Conventional science can only 'test' or discover patterns in the material realm of observable effects, while behind it all....a deeper causal reality permeates. - I know....back to the blurring of lines here between Spirit and matter. From a theosophists view, its just a perspective tieing all things together, within an evolutional context. A theosophist naturally holds everything within a theistic or spiritual context regarding the evolution of life, a hierarchal order of progressive evolution.

Well, that all sounds like a fun thought exercise for those who are into that stuff but doesn't shows us anything about evolution. That would be science that does that. Feel free to dive into the metaphysics of it if you must but let's agree to stick with real world, empirical evidence in the science class. That way there's a chance of learning something to the benefit of us all, regardless our personal beliefs. ')

Life is what it is, and it moves according to its own inherent tendencies by various laws or principles. We can see this from a wide-spectrum, and apply it within an atheistic or theistic worldview.

pj

Immutable is the word I would use, but let's be clear. For science to function, it must be a process blind to "world views". We leave the the supernatural at the lab door and look at what the data tells us in the real world and deduce what we we can from that. We are all free to think whatever we want in the privacy of our own minds but in the science lab and the science classroom we stay with the empirical formula.

It may sound like an atheistic world view to you but for me the real wonder, strangeness, mystery is buried in the notion that nature does what it does all by itself. And unravelling that mystery through the beautifully simplistic scientific method is the real magic, simply because there's no magic involved. Have you considered that? It's worth a thought you know.

 

[MichaelCadry]

IMO, I want to thank freelight for his insightful determination to realize that God is part of the equation here. Same with noguru and Selaphiel!! God did not say, let us make man in our image, if His image was an ape. C'mon. Where do you get your science from?? I believe in science and I believe in the Creation. It's not all that hard to do. Faith is the belief in someone or something that you can't SEE first. Faith is necessary now until God proves Himself. When man is ready, God will reveal Himself, which IS very soon, which I base on personal experiences of mine. That's why I can say soon, even though I do not know the day, month or year. If you want my wild guess I would say one day to 5 years from now, He will reveal Himself. Does that give you something to go on? Like I am saying, God created the creatures and beasts, and then He made man in His own image. The creatures and beasts contain the apes and chimps, not man. C'mon.

I'm saying that God created each time the different stages of man as man on earth, the homoerectus and homosapien, etc. So don't think I don't know that much. But it's His decision to create man a bit differently each time. But He is certainly not an ape and creating 'man' in His image. Don't you understand??

I love you noguru and freelight for saying God is part of the equation!! Now you're not putting all of your eggs into one basket, thank God! We will live forever in God's beautiful Universe and fly in spirit at the speed of light. We'll need to since it is so vast. But at least we will not be inside 'earthly' bodies which limit our speed now.

Much Love In The Hereafter Forever and Ever,
Our Future Holds Much Promise,

Michael

P.S. What do atheists believe happen to them when they die. That that is it?? What a shame (Que lastima!)!!! Just because we have similar DNA as apes and chimps does not mean that our DNA is unique under God's Creation.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Also, listen to this, from Pahu in Science Disproves Evolution.

June 20th, 2013, 08:26 AM

Fossil Gaps 2


The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]




Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

 

[Jukia]

Ah, another citation to Dr. Walter Brown's pseudo science. How helpful.

 

[noguru]

Also, listen to this, from Pahu in Science Disproves Evolution.

June 20th, 2013, 08:26 AM

Fossil Gaps 2


The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]




Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Pahu might as well be an automaton programmed completely and strictly by Walt Brown. He is impervious to any other input or thinking. Is that a rational stance in your opinion? I think he might actually be a Stripe sock puppet.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Pahu might as well be an automaton programmed completely and strictly by Walt Brown. He is impervious to any other input or thinking. Is that a rational stance in your opinion? I think he might actually be a Stripe sock puppet.

Well, a pahu is a percussion instrument that makes a loud, hollow booming. Or has someone noted this already?

 

[noguru]

Well, a pahu is a percussion instrument that makes a loud, hollow booming. Or has someone noted this already?

Very interesting.

The pahu or pa'u is a traditional musical instrument found in Polynesia: Hawaii, Tahiti, Cook Islands, Samoa, and Tokelau. Carved from a single log and covered on the playing end with a stretched sharkskin, the pahu is played with the palms and fingers of the hand. It is considered a sacred instrument and was generally kept in a temple (heiau), and used to accompany a repertoire of sacred songs called hula pahu/ura p'au.

 

[alwight]

Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

"Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations.
By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion need not conflict."

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight and Gang,

You might be misunderstanding me here. I've already written this earlier, but I am saying that our Adam and Eve were not the first humans or Adams created on earth. I believe there was a caveman or pre-caveman named Adam who was created by God. I'm just saying that there were more than one Adam and Eve. It is written, "And He called THEIR name Adam in the 'day' THEY were created. That's why we find human bones older than our own Adam and Eve can be. So I have already been through this, but I am saying that our own Adam and Eve were hardly the first Adam on earth. Our KJV is just a record of our most recent Adam and Eve. But it explains in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 that God created man and that was a separate time than when the Lord God FORMED our Adam and made Eve from one of his ribs. No, I believe there was a caveman, or even pre-caveman initially created as the first man ever and God called his name Adam. But he was not an ape or a chimp. Hope this clarifies my views on things. I already said this earlier in this thread, so don't act like it's something new. If you missed all that I said earlier, let me know, and I will explain it all again here.

Ciao,

Michael

 

[noguru]

Dear Alwight and Gang,

You might be misunderstanding me here. I've already written this earlier, but I am saying that our Adam and Eve were not the first humans or Adams created on earth. I believe there was a caveman or pre-caveman named Adam who was created by God. I'm just saying that there were more than one Adam and Eve. It is written, "And He called THEIR name Adam in the 'day' THEY were created. So I have already been through this, but I am saying that our own Adam and Eve were hardly the first Adam on earth. Our KJV is just a record of our most recent Adam and Eve. But it explains in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 that God created man and that was a separate time than when the Lord God FORMED our Adam and made Eve from one of his ribs. No, I believe there was a caveman, or even pre-caveman initially created as the first man ever and God called his name Adam. But he was not an ape or a chimp. Hope this clarifies my views on things. I already said this earlier in this thread, so don't act like it's something new. If you missed all that I said earlier, let me know, and I will explain it all again here.

Ciao,

Michael

By "caveman" do you mean Cro Magnon man? If so do you realize that Cro Magnon was archaic Homo Sapien Sapien? Some YECs after being confronted with our most current fossil hominid evidence think that Adam was Homo Erectus, which would be an ancestral species to Homo Sapien Sapien. Either way, I do not think anyone is saying Adam was a chimp or non human ape. Just in case you are unaware here is wikis article on the current classifications of primates.

Primates

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

Thanks for your wiki. I didn't want to read it all, but I see what it is saying, that apes and humans are in the same family. Eeek! Family, per se. Anyway, I would not be surprised to discover that the first human Adam would be Homo Erectus or Homo Sapien Sapien. If God said he was Cro Magnon man, I would not be surprised. Only God knows how the first Adam looked like. I'm not privy to that and probably won't be until after I die. Still, I don't mind anyway. I do know that God is a Spirit, ahd His Spirit resided in Cro Magnon man and Homo Sapien man. He was Supreme in understanding, even though His cohort (man) was simple at that time. Do you understand me? God was still Omnipotent, Intelligent beyond English words, and the same with His Imagination.

But yes, I did write on this about halfway through my thread and said that Genesis chapter one dealt with God 'CREATING' man and calling his name Adam; and in Genesis chapter two, the Lord God later 'FORMING' man from the dust of the ground and calling his name Adam. And in Genesis One (Gen. 1:21), God created the fowl from the waters, whereas in Genesis Two (Gen. 2:19), the 'Lord God' 'FORMED' the fowl out of the dust of the ground. You can definitely tell it is not the same story, but deals with two or three or more different time slots.

Anyway, it says in Genesis One that God created the beasts and animals, and birds, before man; and in Genesis chapter Two, it says the 'Lord God' saw that the man He formed was lonely and formed the beasts and animals, and birds (fowl), from the dust of the ground and brought them to the man to see what the man would call them. Still man was lonely and there was not a help meet for him, so God formed a woman, Eve, from Adam, which was Eve, the mother of all of this generation's children and adults. I guess that will do it for now.

May God Be With You, Not An Ape, But A God,

MichaelC

 

[Eeset]

To Michael and everyone. It makes no difference to me how life in all its forms began or evolved on Earth. We are here and so are bugs, birds and an unimaginable number of other life forms including all the plants. Moses gave his people an explanation. They obviously wanted to understand so he told them. But whether Moses was correct or not that means nothing to me.

What is important is a focus on the future. We clearly see that all life dies. Whether it is a tree that may live a thousand years or a dog that lives 12 years all physical life on this planet dies. The question for the ages is "what next". An atheist says nothing remains after death except for decomposing bodies. Theists of all ilks say no something continues. That debate has raged across all civilizations throughout all time.

Each person will die. While each lives they must face that question and find their own answers yet often with assistance and guidance from others. But in the end it is an individual road each of us must walk.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dearest Eeset,

I love your post! It is basic, simple and pure. Something well-needed around here. Yes, everything you said is true. Wouldn't it be awful if living one lifetime down here were ALL that it was about? The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So be it (Amen).

To Him Where He Is (Selah),

MichaelC

 

[noguru]

Dearest Eeset,

Wouldn't it be awful if living one lifetime down here were ALL that it was about?

No, not for me. Why would you think that?

 

[alwight]

Dearest Eeset,

I love your post! It is basic, simple and pure. Something well-needed around here. Yes, everything you said is true. Wouldn't it be awful if living one lifetime down here were ALL that it was about? The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So be it (Amen).

To Him Where He Is (Selah),

MichaelC

If there really are no gods don't you think that humans would look at and deal with their own mortality just as they do now with a variety of religious beliefs?