Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Dear hedshaker,

What do you think of that 1.8 million year old human skull they found here near Tucson, AZ?? I know Lucy was suppose to be 3.5 million years old. But I don't know if Lucy was a human skull, possibly hominid. I told you that the Lord God has made Adam many times over. Well, that's all I'll say for now.

You take care dude!!

MichaelC

I'll be watching how it unravels. Science is a great self moderating discipline. Whenever there are hoaxes it's always other scientists that expose them.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

A little miffed, eh? I'm not playing moderator. I just said "Be Kind" to one of my brothers. You've told me time and time again that I am wrong for what I've posted. So what gives? I'm not saying you are going to hell, I'm saying you may have to come back on this earth again before the next and last resurrection. It will be a lot harder then though.

Much Love and I'm Sorry If I Offended You,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

There is no telling what these 'children' did in their previous life on earth to be living the life they are living now. They could have been aligned with Hitler, or Pharoah of Egypt, etc. Or just plain atheists. You are reincarnated as many times as it takes for you to be ready for Heaven. You have to learn what you need to in your lifetime, or you are bound to repeat your life over to get it right. And it gets worse with every lifetime that you put it off. That's why it is written in Revelation, "and the rest of the dead did not live AGAIN until the 1,000 years were fulfilled." See Rev. 20:5.

God Bless You!!

MichaelC

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear hedshaker,

There is no telling what these 'children' did in their previous life on earth to be living the life they are living now. They could have been aligned with Hitler, or Pharoah of Egypt, etc. Or just plain atheists. You are reincarnated as many times as it takes for you to be ready for Heaven. You have to learn what you need to in your lifetime, or you are bound to repeat your life over to get it right. And it gets worse with every lifetime that you put it off. That's why it is written in Revelation, "and the rest of the dead did not live AGAIN until the 1,000 years were fulfilled." See Rev. 20:5.

God Bless You!!

MichaelC

There is no evidence that anything at all happens after death.

Your , "They could have been aligned with Hitler, or Pharoah of Egypt, etc." is no more than an argument from ignorance. Besides, I've heard all the crackpot apologetics already. You should listen to noguru and think before you post.

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.

Not miffed in the slightest. Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dearest hedshaker,

The Bible is a best-selling book for a lot of reasons. It gives us evidence of what happens after death. It's not the best-selling book ever for nothing. You would think that it was a truthful book. Well, what do you know. You would rather I believe what you say instead of what this Book says. A'int gonna happen.

Great Love He Has For You,

Michael

 

[freelight]

points 2 ponder........

points 2 ponder........

Dear freelight,

Thanks again for your wisdom on Nature. It did not fall on deaf ears. Now does Nature just do what it wants, or does Someone Guide it?

May God Be Your Best Friend,

Michael

As we reflect on 'Nature',.....we might assume it in a 'non-personal' or 'personal' manner....yet it appears to have innate within it its own propensities, laws and principles,....some inward mechanism or 'intelligence' that guides it towards certain actions and reactions. It we look at 'creation' and 'evolution',....it appears to exist and evolve by some motivation and along certain lines, possibilities and patterns. It might be that these inner dynamics exist within 'The Creator' and are therefore naturally reflected within the movements of 'Creation', so that it is all really a reflection of 'God' in any case.

However to say that a personal 'God' is meticulously micro-managing and arbitrarily moving every little atom or orchestrating every situation and circumstance in the cosmos might be stretching it, since much of creation may be conducting itself along by self-sustaining laws inherent in the creation itself, PLUS the free will choices and actions of sentient beings that affect and condition how things unfold (lets consider life as a multi-dimensional whole).

This is not to say that 'God' or 'god-like' beings or co-creators of universes could not intervene at special times within creation.

There's more here to consider on many levels and how life/matter/spirit/intelligence interacts....and the 'personal' and 'non-personal' aspects of reality that all inter-associate, let alone other factors that govern the evolution of life and consciousness.



pj

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear freelight,

Excellent post from you. Just exactly what I figured. I understand that God is behind nature and nurtures it. But He has His Hand in these things. He has many angels to follow His orders on whether to have a tornado or whatever. Doesn't it say in Revelation, 'Blessed are those who die from henceforth, for they will rest from their labors on earth and begin their works in heaven. 'And I saw one like the Son of Man standing upon a white cloud and he cast His sickle into the earth to reap it.' Rev. 14:14.' I have a vision about this. It had to do with some tornadoes that went from Brandenburg, KY through Xenia, OH (Apr. 3, 1974). There was a black tornado too. I'd never seen a white tornado before in my life, but I was only 18 at the time. And they ran a path of 1,600 furlongs or 200 miles. There are 8 furlongs to one mile. And the tornadoes killed horses too. You just have to know that. This is true and is written in the Reader's Digest article in Oct. 1974, I believe. Keep hanging in there!!

Much Love and Prayers,

Michael

 

[freelight]

Experiencing 'God' personally.......

Experiencing 'God' personally.......

The problem is Paulie, just making stuff up, and/or embracing stuff that others have made rarely teaches us anything worth while, even though a stopped watch tells the right time twice a day. Talk of "greater psychic continuum or 'spiritual' dimension of existence" is all very romantic and I understand its allure, I do. But lets not let it cloud our thinking so much that it becomes detrimental to real discovery. We could go on for ever worrying about all manner of things that are "not proven to be the only reality"

Far more productive IMO to delve into the only reality that is available to us. And I have to say (again IMHO) infinitely more interesting and mysterious. I find more excitement in the launch of a new telescope or discovering the likes of higgs boson particle than ever I could listening to the drowning on and on about some supposed invisible psychic realm.... no offence

You know we mystics enjoy the 'spiritual romance' and 'poetry' of religious experience, of that realm of 'God' or 'Spirit' that relates to the essence of consciousness. The mystery of life is to be enjoyed, indeed in the field of 'science' as well as 'religion'.

Some insights from the Urantia Papers -

103:6.9 Science is man’s attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man’s experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man’s mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos

103:6.1 Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

103:6.2 When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings.

103:6.3 Religion has to do with the spiritual viewpoint, the awareness of the insideness of human experience. Man’s spiritual nature affords him the opportunity of turning the universe outside in. It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.

103:6.5 A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

Otherwise, we 'get' each other on our points of view, and have apparently been quite 'cool' and 'respectful' with that :thumb:

We can't rule anything out any more than we should rule anything in simply because we like it. The method for discovery we have developed in recent centuries has been the most successful in human history. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Final note: there is no such thing as theistic evolution, only the science of evolution.

Just my thoughts, No offence intended. All the best......

I have no problems with conventional science, but it is limited the realm of energy-matter, although elements of 'mind' and 'spirit' also interface and actually allow material observations to be made. Again, back to the fundamental reality of 'consciousness', apart from which nothing can be known.

Another tid-bit :

1:2.7 The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

The Urantia Papers hold to the importance of 'personality', and that only thru 'experience' can man relate to and know the divine Personality of God....since 'personality' is a gift and bestowal of 'God'. Therefore in the most intimate communion of man and God, it is 'personal' in nature (hence we come back to medium of 'human experience'). Only personalities can understand or relate to other personalities personally.

Personality of 'God'




pj

 

[noguru]

The problem is Paulie, just making stuff up, and/or embracing stuff that others have made rarely teaches us anything worth while, even though a stopped watch tells the right time twice a day. Talk of "greater psychic continuum or 'spiritual' dimension of existence" is all very romantic and I understand its allure, I do. But lets not let it cloud our thinking so much that it becomes detrimental to real discovery. We could go on for ever worrying about all manner of things that are "not proven to be the only reality"

Far more productive IMO to delve into the only reality that is available to us. And I have to say (again IMHO) infinitely more interesting and mysterious. I find more excitement in the launch of a new telescope or discovering the likes of higgs boson particle than ever I could listening to the drowning on and on about some supposed invisible psychic realm.... no offence



We can't rule anything out any more than we should rule anything in simply because we like it. The method for discovery we have developed in recent centuries has been the most successful in human history. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I just want to point something out. That even in a stringently scientific realm we use logical extension of the current evidence to draw a mental picture of the overriding forces and the broader scope which is formulated into a scientific theory through formalized hypotheses. Furthermore with some scientific ideas, we cannot fashion further empirical testing in order to gauge the accuracy of that model, or make and test predictions of that model. The reason is that the scope is either too broad/large or too narrow/small for our limited human faculties. This is an inescapable reality of understanding the philosophy of science. Let's take M Theory and/or String Theory as an example. This is why, in such cases, that researchers admit to the philosophy of such ideas as stretching to outside the stringent and limited realm of current science. And just because we cannot further test the veracity of that model through empirical testing, limited by our current state of the art in science, does not mean we are "just making stuff up".

I do accept that the likelihood of any such resulting conjecture can become increasingly difficult to gauge given the empirical limitations of science. But this does not mean our imagination necessarily results in fallacies. I also oppose people like MichaelCadry who seem to prefer willful ignorance of science, due to previous religious convictions, over honest and rigorous research in science. But let us not throw the baby of imagination out with the bathwater of deductive reasoning gained from the current empirical set in science.

 

[noguru]

I have no problems with conventional science, but it is limited the realm of energy-matter, although elements of 'mind' and 'spirit' also interface and actually allow material observations to be made. Again, back to the fundamental reality of 'consciousness', apart from which nothing can be known.

You have brought us back to that first question that is often posed in philosophy 101.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

Of course since we understand the difference between objective reality and subjective perspective we can answer that question with an acceptable degree of certainty. However the answer does lead us to some deeper philosophical issues;

Is physical existence contingent on knowledge, is knowledge contingent on physical existence, are they separable or inseparable?

 

[Hedshaker]

I have no problems with conventional science, but it is limited the realm of energy-matter, although elements of 'mind' and 'spirit' also interface and actually allow material observations to be made. Again, back to the fundamental reality of 'consciousness', apart from which nothing can be known.

But this is what I'm saying. There can be no mind without matter. Matter/energy first, then the development of mind/conciousness, remember? Unless of course a single instance of a body-less mind can be shown, without resorting to some "unknowable mystery", as that would be an argument from ignorance.

Take something like the human eye. It didn't just go wham! There it is, just is, without explanation. No, it took unimaginable time to develop and evolve. This we know through the wonder of science. So how could an all encompassing infinitely powerful god (or gods even) just exist beyond any form of enquiry and without the possibility of reasoned explanation? Even if we gave it credence there is no way to verify its existence. It is, in effect, a flight of human desire as there is no way of separating it from human thinking.

Another tid-bit :

1:2.7 The existence of God can never be proved by scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction. God can be realized only in the realms of human experience; nevertheless, the true concept of the reality of God is reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy, essential to religion, and indispensable to any hope of personality survival.

You'll have to forgive me paulie, but I don't find apologetics very convincing. The above is just what apologists always say when they hit the brick wall of reason, evidence and logic. Sounds a little too convenient to me.

So, whilst science may well seem limited to some compared to the mystical method, it is actually far superior for real discovery because it actually works and has a successful track record to show for it. Once we start looking for supernatural explanations we end up with an even greater conundrum than we started with. And one that can never be explained because we first have to convince ourselves that it is beyond "scientific experiment or by the pure reason of logical deduction", in which case even if it were real it might as well not be.

That's really all I have to say on the matter as further explanation will just be repartition.

All the best.

 

[Hedshaker]

I just want to point something out. That even in a stringently scientific realm we use logical extension of the current evidence to draw a mental picture of the overriding forces and the broader scope which is formulated into a scientific theory through formalized hypotheses. Furthermore with some scientific ideas, we cannot fashion further empirical testing in order to gauge the accuracy of that model, or make and test predictions of that model. The reason is that the scope is either too broad/large or too narrow/small for our limited human faculties. This is an inescapable reality of understanding the philosophy of science. Let's take M Theory and/or String Theory as an example. This is why, in such cases, that researchers admit to the philosophy of such ideas as stretching to outside the stringent and limited realm of current science. And just because we cannot further test the veracity of that model through empirical testing, limited by our current state of the art in science, does not mean we are "just making stuff up".

I do accept that the likelihood of any such resulting conjecture can become increasingly difficult to gauge given the empirical limitations of science. But this does not mean our imagination necessarily results in fallacies. I also oppose people like MichaelCadry who seem to prefer willful ignorance of science, due to previous religious convictions, over honest and rigorous research in science. But let us not throw the baby of imagination out with the bathwater of deductive reasoning gained from the current empirical set in science.

I don't see much there to disagree with. Our human imagination is a truly wondrous and useful tool while we keep it in check. You only have to read this board to see what happens when it is allowed to roam free. Case in point, our very own Michael

What I find objectionable about the mystical/supernatural notion is this insistence on knowing the absolute Truth(™) from what is actually profound, cherished beliefs, ie faith. Hypothesis and theories are one thing but beliefs alone do not truths make IMO.

 

[noguru]

I don't see much there to disagree with. Our human imagination is a truly wondrous and useful tool while we keep it in check. You only have to read this board to see what happens when it is allowed to roam free. Case in point, our very own Michael

What I find objectionable about the mystical/supernatural notion is this insistence on knowing the absolute Truth(™) from what is actually profound, cherished beliefs, ie faith. Hypothesis and theories are one thing but beliefs alone do not truths make IMO.

Agreed. And it is people who push their views as Michael does that lead me to be very cautious of anyone claiming to be a theist.

 

[dave3712]

...mind was created to image the almighty Reality that envelops us...

...mind was created to image the almighty Reality that envelops us...

I don't see much there to disagree with. Our human imagination is a truly wondrous and useful tool while we keep it in check. You only have to read this board to see what happens when it is allowed to roam free. Case in point, our very own Michael

What I find objectionable about the mystical/supernatural notion is this insistence on knowing the absolute Truth(™) from what is actually profound, cherished beliefs, ie faith. Hypothesis and theories are one thing but beliefs alone do not truths make IMO.

You are paraphrasing Gen 1:26-27


Gen. 1:26 And God, (i.e.; the force behind the ever unfolding Reality), said, "Let us,” (the Natural Laws?), ”make man,” (mentally, in his spirit of mind, to model us, to see the unfolding Universe by using his mind), “in our image” (i.e.; by means of these natural laws, to model after our orderly organization): and let him (that spirit of mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."


Gen. 1:27 So G-d, (the force behind the ever unfolding momentary Reality), created man (an abstract mind/psyche, in his own image, enabled so as to image the ever unfolding momentary Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created G-d ( the creative force behind the ever unfolding Reality), him; male and female created he them.

 

[dave3712]

a rose by another name?

a rose by another name?

Honestly, what in the name of reason is the a point to quoting bible verses at people who do not subscribe to your religion? You might as well throw monkey bones around in a tasteful little grass skirt number :spam:

I am just saying what I think about the matter by quoting the scripture which concisely states the same point.

Think of it as an attribution and avoidance of plagiarism, that what was said 2000 years ago is the same things as I am pointing out to you here.

Above, I did t again.
My point was that mind did follow matter, but through evolution, mind became capable of imaging the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality as Truth became manifest in man's thinking.

 

[dave3712]

...but hypothesis is just a belief....

...but hypothesis is just a belief....

I don't see much there to disagree with. Our human imagination is a truly wondrous and useful tool while we keep it in check. You only have to read this board to see what happens when it is allowed to roam free. Case in point, our very own Michael

What I find objectionable about the mystical/supernatural notion is this insistence on knowing the absolute Truth(™) from what is actually profound, cherished beliefs, ie faith. Hypothesis and theories are one thing but beliefs alone do not truths make IMO.

Hmmm,...

Hypothesis is just a belief, the use of imagination isn't it?

My point is that, before Freud and Jung, people :imagined: spirits that made them do things they did not consciously intend, or come under the influence of urges and desires or impulses which they could only attribute to some force outside and besides themselves.

Now we can see that a subconscious state of mind inside us is the source for these evil forces.
Right?

Religious people using only imagination and absence and evidence for these seven evil spirits wrote about them in scripture, none the less:


1) Id = Lucifer
2) Libido = Satan
3) Ego = Mammon
4) Anima = Devil
5) Self = Beelzebub
6) Superego = False Prophet
7) Harmony = False shepherd

 

[gcthomas]

Hmmm,...

Hypothesis is just a belief, the use of imagination isn't it?

No, it isn't.

An hypothesis is a suggested explanation, based on evidence and theory, for observations that may not be satisfactorily explained by existing theories or other hypotheses. They should be testable, parsimonious, fruitful, conservative, and have a reasonable scope.

Not just imagination.

 

[Hedshaker]

No, it isn't.

An hypothesis is a suggested explanation, based on evidence and theory, for observations that may not be satisfactorily explained by existing theories or other hypotheses. They should be testable, parsimonious, fruitful, conservative, and have a reasonable scope.

Not just imagination.

Yes, and if an hypothesis is shown faulty after failing peer review it will be rejected. Try getting that level of self analysis and correction from the religious crowd.

But don't hold your breath

 

[noguru]

Yes, and if an hypothesis is shown faulty after failing peer review it will be rejected. Try getting that level of self analysis and correction from the religious crowd.

But don't hold your breath

Compared to science, theology is like playing tennis without a net. I think that reality is what makes people like MichaelCadry uncomfortable. So they try to overcompensate with condemnations and attempts at using guilt to manipulate.

However, I do have to point out that in the history of science some previously rejected hypotheses were re-applied upon further evidence and scrutiny. The concept that matter was made up of smaller particles, which were in themselves made up of smaller particles..., was first written down by a Greek philosopher that did not have the empirical resources to test that idea. This certainly does not mean that we should just accept any idea as scientific and/or accurate. And I know that some theists (and perhaps others) like to point this out as a weakness of science, and then inject without the same analysis their own theological (or not) ideas as science.

 

[Hedshaker]

Compared to science, theology is like playing tennis without a net. I think that reality is what makes people like MichaelCadry uncomfortable. So they try to overcompensate with condemnations and attempts at using guilt to manipulate.

Lol, without a ball even

Agreed. Anyone is entitled to believe as they wish so long as it doesn't try to harm another. It's their mind. But if one finds him/her self driven to religion through guilt alone they should check their self awareness.

:up: