[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Sparkey]

On a different note, I've recently seen an article on "Discovery News" that examines political issues surrounding the desire of some to include Young Earth Creation teaching in the classroom.

"EVOLUTION Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States"

The discussion revolves around what has been labeled as, "language generated by the Discovery Institute, which has long pushed for the inclusion of biblical creationism and pseudo-scientific "intelligent design" into science classes in public schools."

The article concludes with:

Most of these new bills will likely die early in legislative sessions, explained Rosenau, because they are rarely considered of great importance or worth the very vocal opposition they engender.

In it may be found comments by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau, who works on policy issues for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

The academic freedom approach sounds good because it seems to protect students and teachers from being expelled if they want to argue about creationism, deny climate science, or refer to stem cell research in the classroom. The only catch, said Rosenau, is that it's a solution in search of a problem.

"No one has been expelled," said Rosenau.

The issue may not reach the Supreme Court where one could expect legal opponents to hash out 1st Amendment issues such as the Establishment clause, verses the Free Exercise clause.

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit

1. The establishment of a national religion by Congress, also known as the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation,
   
   or
   
2. The preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another (also known as "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.

Discussions of this nature date back to 1777 (and further) when Thomas Jefferson wrote and introduced a precursor of the Establishment Clause which was called the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom".

 

[Barbarian]

People still try from time to time to put anti-evolution material in public schools, but the real stopper is that almost all of it is religious belief. And the Dover decision pretty much put an end to that sort of thing. The issue will pop up here and there, and someone will blow the whistle, and then the courts will step on it.

The best the anti-science people can do, is to try to keep teachers from discussing evolution at all. In Texas, there's a frootcake appointed by Gov. Perry, who would like to do that. So the districts have simply changed "evolution" to "change over time."

She hasn't caught on yet.

 

[cupid dave]

And when we focus on Jesus to help us discern the truth it is better I think.
The bible is not the sole word of god. The bible is but one, in many facets of god.

yes, evolution matches the creation story. For 2000 years ago they did a great job. evolution matches observation for writing a creation story about how god did it. The bible is incomplete, not wrong, in the creation story.

1) Christ was the symbolic and physical representation of the ideal we call Truth.
Truth is our God, and the savior for our species which is totally dependent upon thinking for its survival.

2) As you said, God does not just speak to us in the words he gave to those bible writers.
But that He did speak the truth to them seems important.

3) God speaks to us in dreams and through the thoughts he sends messages to us in the way people have reported angels bring to them,
Angels are messengers who come into our Conscious mind from that ancient of ancient storehouse of experiential truth, learned facts about the real world.
Inside the kingdom within our psyche (soul) is this genetically preserved and reborn part of us all that is the Third Eye observing us and recording the experiences of importance in this lifetime we are now privy to.
That facility is the living God we call Christ, and the identity of the personal relationship Christians speak of.

In the language of the intercourse between the Unconscious mind and our Conscious mind, God speaks to us about his Father, the external almighty Reality that is our master and provider, both.

 

[Arch Angle]

I am not so sure he "sends" them as much as we can choose to, or chosen to, "see" them. I think the message is there all the time and we can "tune" when we are ready.

Yes, the bible answer the question "what am I", soI think it is true. The "I"here should not be confused with a single ego, but rather that which we may bea part of.

 

[cupid dave]

Not really. As I had asked earlier, was Christ as a fully man who walked on earth a mutant or a evolved monkey ?

He, (Christ, the son-of-God), was the spirit inside the body of Jesus, who was a son-of-man.

It was that spirit which had once before gone up into heaven that then, in 32AD, had come down from God, as seen by John the Baptist.
As if a dove, that spirit alighted upon Jesus as he came up from his own NDE, and it indwelled him until the day of the Transfiguration, when it left him as the son-of-man to suffer the Cross, temporarily forsaken.

 

[Sparkey]

He, (Christ, the son-of-God), was the spirit inside the body of Jesus, who was a son-of-man.

It was that spirit which had once before gone up into heaven that then, in 32AD, had come down from God, as seen by John the Baptist.
As if a dove, that spirit alighted upon Jesus as he came up from his own NDE, and it indwelled him until the day of the Transfiguration, when it left him as the son-of-man to suffer the Cross, temporarily forsaken.

cupid dave,

Sometimes I do struggle to understand what you've said. In this case, you've said that Jesus Christ was a man. You've also stated that (you didn't used these words, but words to the same effect) that upon him was poured out the Holy Spirit without measure. The issues centered on what we hear God say about beginnings is nowhere near as important as who Jesus is. I'm glad to have heard you say this so well. Of course, there remain questions. What does "NDE" mean? What is meant by "that spirit which had once before gone up into heaven"? Hopefully these questions in me have very quick and easy answers in you. If not, let's not derail the thread.

PS. No charts and diagrams please. Use PM if you feel they are absolutely needed, but even then, I hope not.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes cup,

If you don't mind. I am interested too.

I would also ask what evidence do you use for claiming there is a"god". I have a set, I would be interested in hearing yours.

sparow,

think of a warm wind through a screen. The passage of such wind will bedefined by the screen at that moment. That is the holy spirit through the body.It didnt "rise" per say, it just passed through and became wholeagain.

 

[Free]

yes cup,

If you don't mind. I am interested too.

I would also ask what evidence do you use for claiming there is a"god". I have a set, I would be interested in hearing yours.

Not in this thread or in this forum. Please use the appropriate forum for a given topic.

Let's keep this on topic, which is evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

Not in this thread or in this forum. Please use the appropriate forum for a given topic.

Let's keep this on topic, which is evolution.

Thanks, Free. Agreed.

 

[Adam]

NDE= Near Death Experience.

The spirit that had once gone up = Elijah.


Dave has gone round and round on claiming that Christ is Elijah who possessed Jesus' body when Jesus was baptised. He believes that Jesus is not Christ, but a vessel that let the spirit of Elijah in when John the Baptist nearly drowned him. He believes that John the Baptist's method for bringing people "to the light" was submersion to point of death where one would have an NDE, which is commonly reported as traveling down a dark tunnel to a light and hearing the voice of grandma.


Of course this discussion has nothing to do with evolution and any further discussion of it will certainly derail the thread (even without non sequitorious and inaccurate charts).

I have learned that all discuussions with Dave, no matter how they start or by what property or subject, all lead down to him introducing one of a short list of things he is interested in: Christ as Elijah, a spurious list of 22 species, a non-existent "7 Freudian Spirits," a pseudoscientific list of subjects invented by him to compare to the first few pages of Genesis that he refers to as "correspondences," and a few other precious gems in his worldview.

He only listens to the other side of a discussion to carefully filter what you are saying for some way to catapult into what he wants to talk about. No doubt, asking him questions is an open invite to change the subject.


Let's remember that the topic is "evolution."

 

[Adam]

What Free said.

 

[Arch Angle]

lmao,
the evolution of a topic to such a degree that we can't see the original? We things changing all around us all the time,and yet we want to hold onto "poof there it is".

of course you guys are correct.

 

[Adam]

All topics evolve to one degree or another. Some don't have the right "fitness" and they die only after a few posts. There has to be a balance in directing the evolution of a thread. We don't want it to spring a set of wings and teeth and devour everything that came before it, but we don't want every post to be forced to have blue eyes and blonde hair, either.

 

[cupid dave]

So my question is: Why should people not believe in Darwinian Evolution?

I have deliberately left this a broad question so you may interpret this how you wish.
I look forward to your responses.

Regards,

Ossie

Perhaps you ought jump back in here, and set some boundaries which would give the moderators and the opponents to my beliuef l]moire specific guidelines by which to limitsuch "a broad question so you may interpret this how you wish."

My adversaries object to my itemizing and expanding upon ideas and concepts pointed specifically at explaining exactly "Why should people not believe in Darwinian Evolution."

I have gone so far as to suggest that the virgin birth of Christianity actually refers to that Act-of-God by which Jesus, through some genetic mutation in the womb, evolved as a new creature in God, or the next "kind" of man.

Jesus is the new model who will ultimately replace all Modern Homo sapiens, i.e.; Homoousian sapiens.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


To wit, this seems to be in the context of your point about why we ought consider evoklution as inherent in Genesis if we wish to complement the truth found through Science.
Please correct me here, or support my input based upon what I understood your question/OP to ask for.

dave

 

[Vaccine]

Hello! Thank you for asking, I love it when I am asked why I don't believe in evolution! DNA has to be the biggest reason I don't believe in evolution. DNA is a language. Not that DNA is “like” or “similar to” a language but is exactly a language. The reason this is significant is the only known languages to exist are man-made or divine, yet, compressed into every cell in our bodies is a ribbon of information 6 feet long equal to 3GB of information. A book is information expressed on paper, the Hieroglyphs are information expressed on rocks, DNA is information expressed in chemicals. The Hieroglyphs can't be explained by natural selection, random mutations, gradual changes, or any other natural cause any more than DNA can. DNA is comparable to binary language, except it has 4 characters instead of 2, and has many, many similarities with computer code.



Gradual changes over time-

DNA is designed to resist change, with built in error protection “cells guard their code better than Microsoft”. Even when Doctors identify a gene causing a disease they have to go to great lengths to overcome this built in protection before they can even attempt to modify the problem gene. If intelligent causes (Doctors) have problems changing genes to improve it, I think those problems would only be multiplied for evolution. Scientists have a hard time making changes happen and don't observe changes happening either:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.-Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace",Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.



Natural selection-

Preferring one trait over another is not the same as adding a trait. In every example of natural selection a species undesirable DNA is eliminated or desirable DNA is perpetuated, but nothing is being added to the DNA. It's like thinking I can build something better by only subtracting material or keeping material.




Mutations-

This is the only possibility evolution has for adding material to DNA. Generally mutations in DNA result in death, cancer, or other diseases. Any mutation in DNA that would result in a completely different species should be regarded as nothing less than miraculous.




Another reason I do not believe in evolution is all the forgeries or distortions. Piltdown man is a forgery right down to the filed teeth. Earnst Haeckels drawings of embryos are a forgery, he used the exact same wood carving to print more than 1 image. And comparative anatomy is excellent evidence for a common designer, not common ancestor. Neanderthol man is actually a fossil of a man who lived to be 900 years old. Java man images are based on 2 teeth and a skullcap, yet there are drawings a half man half ape face. There are a lot more but my point is that there are forgeries and distortions.

To sum up why I do not believe inevolution, DNA is to biology what the telescope was to astronomy. The Copernicus revolution followed that discovery, I think we are seeing a similar revolution in biology today. I think the problem for future generations will not be convincing people we didn't evolve but rather convincing people we didn't come from aliens.

 

[cupid dave]

Mutations-

This is the only possibility evolution has for adding material to DNA. Generally mutations in DNA result in death, cancer, or other diseases. Any mutation in DNA that would result in a completely different species should be regarded as nothing less than miraculous.

So, then, you might agree that the first "man" was created, without a father or mother like himself, but by an Act-of-God which chemically fused two of the normal 24 Ape chromosomes together producing the new branch of life called man who thereafter has had only 23 chromosomes.

 

[Vaccine]

which chemically fused two of the normal 24 Ape chromosomes together producing the new branch of life called man who thereafter has had only 23 chromosomes.

I agree the first man was an act of God and had no mother or father. I see no evidence or reason to suggest God used Ape DNA to do it.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I agree the first man was an act of God and had no mother or father. I see no evidence or reason to suggest God used Ape DNA to do it.

I would suggest the next time you are around some homo sapiens, try to view them like David Attenborough would view other animals. Watch them eat. Look at their physique. Look at their predatory eyes. Look at their fingers and fingernails. Look at their hair. They sleep about one third of their life away. Look at how they mate and how mothers care for their young.

Study why humans are considered apes.

Study why all apes, including humans, are considered mammals.

If the Theory of Evolution was just another crackpot theory, why does mainstream science accept it? Why does the Roman Catholic Church officially accept it?

If the Theory of Evolution is false, what motives do scientists have for accepting it?

I don't find the idea of Evolution attractive at all. I just find it to be solid.

I don't find the idea of getting old attractive, but my reality is that I either die or grow older.


Things that are true seem to grow in popularity as time goes on, especially in the Age of Information.

 

[Vaccine]

I would suggest the next time you are around some homo sapiens, try to view them like David Attenborough would view other animals. Watch them eat. Look at their physique. Look at their predatory eyes. Look at their fingers and fingernails. Look at their hair. They sleep about one third of their life away. Look at how they mate and how mothers care for their young.

Study why humans are considered apes.

Study why all apes, including humans, are considered mammals.

I should have mentioned I used to believe in evolution. If you are saying we have a lot in common with apes and mammals, I agree. I just don't see how that is proof that we "evolved", if anything it only proves the same God that made apes made humans.

If the Theory of Evolution was just another crackpot theory, why does mainstream science accept it? Why does the Roman Catholic Church officially accept it?

If the Theory of Evolution is false, what motives do scientists have for accepting it?

This in not meant to bash science as a whole, just pointing out a few bad apples . I hope I don't offend anyone but since you asked:

"We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."-Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ..." H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.-29.Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

Piltdown man: This fossil evidence was presented in 1916. It was exposed as a forgery in 1956. Incidentially, that was the time during which Darwinian evolution was introduced into the schools. It wasn't because it was such a good forgery that it took so long to discover it, it's that the scientists refused to let anyone examine it for so long.
I could go on about why the mainstream accepts it, but I think I've made my point. Anyway, I would rather disprove evolution by showing how it is "bad" science instead of pointing out the rare "bad" scientist. I think most scientists are honest and in search of the truth, they just need to see things from a different perspective .

I don't find the idea of Evolution attractive at all. I just find it to be solid.

It's not that I hate evolution, I really have no feelings either way. I have spent a lot of time studying evolution and my goal is to present truth.
Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” DNA was discovered 10 years after he wrote those words. Darwin's Black Box by Behe is a whole book filled with complex organs which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. This is what Sir Fred Hoyle had to say about evolution "to believe life arose in that manner is to believe a Boeing 747 would result from a tornado striking a junkyard."
I hope i don't come across as harsh. I just want to show why I think "evolution" is standing in the way of progress.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I should have mentioned I used to believe in evolution. If you are saying we have a lot in common with apes and mammals, I agree. I just don't see how that is proof that we "evolved", if anything it only proves the same God that made apes made humans.

I agree that the commonality alone could simply just point to God making a wide variety of living things, and He simply chose to use similar parts in His creation. With such a wide range of living things and God using many similar parts, it should be no surprise to us to see living things that are very similar, such as chimpanzees and humans, HIV and HAV, or waterwheel plants and Venus flytraps.

But the fossil evidence says a lot more than that.

And . . . the results of Man's artificial selection over relatively short periods of time is consistent with natural selection causing extreme changes over extremely long periods of time.

This in not meant to bash science as a whole, just pointing out a few bad apples . I hope I don't offend anyone but since you asked:

"We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."-Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

I don't know who Mark Singham is, and I don't know who his "We" is, but he isn't talking about your average, respected scientist. If he is, he is incorrect.

I could see people glossing over or omitting evidence that is contrary to their own findings, but as a whole, science keeps itself in check, especially in the Age of the Internet. Many people are driven by the hope of fame and fortune, and if the truth works toward that, they will use that truth. Some people are driven only by the truth. Either of these types of people, if they found evidence to the contrary of someone else's claim, would not possibly gloss over or omit it.

This is simple logic that could only be glossed over or omitted by either the gullible or the ones who prey upon the gullible.

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ..." H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)

Scientific religion.

What nonsense.

People will say stupid stuff like this as long as their are idiots out there who will buy their book or their opportunistic buddy's book.

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.-29.Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

There's Mark Singham again. I can't even find this guy on Wikipedia.

Oh, that's right. Wikipedia is in on that conspiracy to promote Evolution and silence evidence to the contrary because there are simply too many ape lovers in this world who just couldn't possibly stand living in a world in which we aren't apes.

Something needs to be done about those delusional ape-lovers.

You know, they only claim that lemons are closely related to oranges to back up their claim that humans are related to gorillas. If it wasn't for that, those crazy ape-lovers couldn't care less about cherries and plums.

/SARCASM

Piltdown man: This fossil evidence was presented in 1916. It was exposed as a forgery in 1956. Incidentially, that was the time during which Darwinian evolution was introduced into the schools. It wasn't because it was such a good forgery that it took so long to discover it, it's that the scientists refused to let anyone examine it for so long.

The Piltdown Man example is for the people who can't reason.

Try making a Piltdown Man of your own in today's Age of Information and see how far you get.


Or, make a claim that is incorrect, but supports Evolution, and see if they gloss over the fact that your claim is incorrect for the sake of "preserving their lie".

Deep down you know they won't.

Now, you can put those two factual bolded sentences together and "go back" to "believing" in Evolution.


Science keeps things in check better today than it did in 1916 or 1956.

Scientific thought exposed Piltdown Man.

The more time goes by, the more ridiculous the Piltdown Man argument is going to seem. Bringing Piltdown Man into the conversation is like saying, "Hey! Isaac Newton studied alchemy, therefore his findings mean nothing!"