ED Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 YES!!! It is time to abandon the Theory of Evolution. It's a very ridiculous theory, very strange. I'd rather rely on what my faith tells me. Our universe is just a product of some rebellious Teens in a spiritual universe. Out of boredom They've created us to see us deal with the challenges They've conceived and everytime we fail, They are just having fun! Who cares for the Theory of Evolution, this is what my faith is telling me. It's something that I just feel inside. PS. I suggest you guys read The Demon-Hunted World by Carl Sagan. But why see evolution as such a bad understanding and as a fact? Everything you see around you evolves and is subject to an evolution/change (in a broader sense). I can’t think of anything which is immune to an evolution, even religions. Among so many religions in this world and same time as much many versions of creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Yes, good point. Why are we attacking the evolution theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Yes, good point. Why are we attacking the evolution theory? Because theories(s) of evolution is present and very strong in us. Driving force you might say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 But why see evolution as such a bad understanding and as a fact? Everything you see around you evolves and is subject to an evolution/change (in a broader sense). I can’t think of anything which is immune to an evolution, even religions. Among so many religions in this world and same time as much many versions of creation. Semantics is the problem here. If by evolution you mean adaptational changes, no one denies that. Please see my previous post on the semantics of evolution and the language implied. Changes within the species are not permanent changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Please forgive my ignorance but what is the anthithesis of evolution? Is it creationism? What is creationism? It is hilariously funny that we are talking about this subject while the Mars probe is sending photos of 65 million year old rocks and this is going on simultaneously. Geogia proposes to rename "evolution"; http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Yes Edo, the evolution in the general sense of the word is omnipresent and nobody is denying that. Evolution is a great thing indeed. The question here is about Darwin's evolution theory. Things change, evolve and transform over time. But if you look at each instance of evolution they don't just happen on their own. There is something that propels things to go higher, more ordered and evolved. If you don't teach a dog tricks it will never learn tricks and evolve on its own. If an effort is not made in a country its science and culture will not evolve on their own. If computer chips are left on their own without research there never will be a next generation, faster, evolved chip. So what makes the life forms to evolve? There is a hypothesis suggested by Darwin's theory which is logical and plausible and there have been many evidences that would support it more less. But there has not been a real proof. To state this doesn't mean to be against evolution or science. On the other hand, it is funny how some people would like to make this an object of blind faith and turn it into a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Our consciousness of the individual reveals itself alone. Our knowledge can't pass beyond the limits of our own being so our conceptions of God and soul and other things are merely our conceptions not those things themselves. The universe is infinite while our ideas and conceptions are finite, since we are finite beings. Thus God is not an object of knowledge, but faith. You shouldn't approach this by understanding or reason, but by a moral sense, nor should you conceive it, but rather feel it. All attempts to embrace and try to interpet the infinite in the conception of the finite are just accomodations of the frailty of humans, which you and science will be fain to admit. Here thought retreats in conscious weakness, and our intellect is most obviously aware of its own insufficiency. This is why you cannot ask these questions nor receive answers through the realm of reason for that which is unreason. It is here that we as humans display our stupidity by dogmatizing this, and trying to map out Gods nature and qualities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 (edited) There are those who believe that with the limits of knowledge derived from sense perception the limits of all insight are given. Yet if they would carefully observe how they become conscious of these limits, they would find in the very consciousness of the limits the faculties to transcend them. The fish swims up to the limits of the water; it must return because it lacks the physical organs to live outside this element. Man reaches the limits of knowledge attainable by sense perception; but he can recognise that on the way to this point powers of soul have arisen in him — powers whereby the soul can live in an element that goes beyond the horizon of the senses. Edited January 30, 2004 by ArmenSarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Please forgive my ignorance but what is the anthithesis of evolution? Is it creationism? What is creationism? It is hilariously funny that we are talking about this subject while the Mars probe is sending photos of 65 million year old rocks and this is going on simultaneously. Geogia proposes to rename "evolution"; http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/ Wow, could it be? You have found the answers to everything? Well, why didn't you tell me this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Please forgive my ignorance but what is the anthithesis of evolution? Is it creationism? Dear Arpa, the reason I got intereseted in this thread is that unlike countless other evolution threads, this was not a "creationsim as the anthithesis of evolution thread but rather a "let's ditch evolution as it ain't doin us no good anyway" thread. I have to say the points raised are interesting but I still don't see enough grounds to ditch the theory. I look at all these species of domesticated dogs that we humans have created. Some look ugly, some look cute. They definitely varry a lot in terms of physical appearance, their strengths and weaknesses, personalities, and essentially their "identity". They are still dogs I guess ... Then as I mentioned before, I look at a horse, a donkey, and a zebra or a leopard, a tiger, and a kitty cat ... and I just can't get myself to accept what is seemingly right there before our eyes. A common ancestary would very trivially and very cleanly explain the amazing similarities between many current day species that are considered "different" yet share sooo much in common. Sure maybe in a simulation done on a computer it takes 5 billion years for an earth covrered meteres deep in Ecoli to have a viable mutation or evolution from one form to another ... but I do know that our science of computing isn't NEARLY close enough to being able to model the AMAZINGLY complex interplay between something as complex as a colony of millions of bacteria. There are just waaay too many variables, waaaay too many unknowns, and just waaaay too many things to keep track of, that I simply can't trust a simulation to disprove or prove anything like that, yet. Heck I don't even trust the result I get out of a simple series of multiplications and divisions as I KNOW how badly an algorithm can screw up with computer math, even though the algorithm itself is flawless in pure math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 (edited) I will try and make this very short, otherwise we may be arguing going back to Neansderthal days. The whole theory of evolution is fascetiously and deliberately corrupted by those who are embarasssed that they may have just a few grey cells more than the apes. The way I see it Darwin or any other have said that one species evloves to another. Her is why some are embarassed. Psalm 8, among many others. I highlighted verse 5; The insinuation here is that man is above the beasts and all those disgusting creatures, above the Animal Kingdom as we know it now, and that man is only one degree below gods, angels and other heavenly creatures. I aonder what the Jewish view is about evolution and creation. I bet you they are the last laugh. [1] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. [2] Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. [3] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; [b[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? [5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. [6] Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: [7] All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; [8] The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. [9] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! Edited January 31, 2004 by Arpa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I will try and make this very short, otherwise we may be arguing going back to Neansderthal days. The whole theory of evolution is fascetiously and deliberately corrupted by those who are embarasssed that they may have just a few grey cells more than the apes. The way I see it Darwin or any other have said that one species evloves to another. Her is why some are embarassed. Psalm 8, among many others. I highlighted verse 5; The insinuation here is that man is above the beasts and all those disgusting creatures, above the Animal Kingdom as we know it now, and that man is only one degree below gods, angels and other heavenly creatures. I aonder what the Jewish view is about evolution and creation. I bet you they are the last laugh. [1] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. [2] Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. [3] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; [b[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? [5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. [6] Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: [7] All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; [8] The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. [9] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! Arpa jan, what u have stated has nothing to do wheter if evolution is right or wrong.. the anti evolution arguements on this thread have been more based on factual prsentation then those of the evolutionist view... We arent using religion to argue against evolution, we arent using Gods name and the bible to arue evolution, so why do you guys (evolutionists) keep reffereing back to faith, because thats how you are used to arguing it probably.. But so far in this thread its purely factual, but i see we have a few definitions to learn of certain words.. prrof: The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. mutation: The act or process of being altered or changed. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality Time: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. As for evolution, i think what the first flaw of evolutionism is, is the definition of it :A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. According to this definition of evolution, the law of physics that states :no matter can be neither made nor destroyed" is false? Because how can you get a more complex organism from a globe of bacteria?? did it have all of the DNA in it just not ordered right?? LMAO... look, the theory of evolution contradicted itself so many times over it not worth reading all of it.. nor wasting space and posting em here,, the bottome line is at the end a theory which is "devised" to explain something is still devised by the evolutionists who make thre theory suit well with there explanation, until as anonymouse has pointed out, they stuble over a rock, find a new fossil, and restate parts of that theory.. (as for if we were to go the creationists view, it has not altered one word of its doctrine) If you guys are arguing what evolution has braught apon this earth today (all the organisms) then that where you falw in your argument.. lol.. You need to argue "HOW" it was that a globe of bacteria was smart enough to first suit its environment, (btw where did that come from, the bacteria??) then "naturally" it eventually gave itself forma dn shape.. and again i keep making the same points since my first post.. why you evolutionists dont argue against that?? argue successfully what it is that drove bacteria to grow and arm, to somehow invent its own DNA and RNA strands,,... COMMON PEOPLE!!! All we need here is to take a look at ourselves, and wonder... hmm we came from a souless globe of bacteria to us, the most complex peice of art that we are, the most complex mechanism and biologically most complex organism there is?? HOW? HOW HOW?? Chance made us have a soul, gave us the consiounce of right and wrong, went against the laws of physics as we know them today and created matter (our dna and rna, and whatever else minus the bacterial globe)... Now.. Thot, stop giving us links to sights that even some of the authors have doubted and resented evolution... next post i will show what i mean by this.. im tired, LOL.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I think this thread deserves an Oscar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 (edited) Here you go! Edited February 2, 2004 by ArmenSarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 YAAY we got an oscar!!!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 I will be digesting this thread and brake some heads as soon as I start answering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Actually even the Universe is based on the mathematical platform. So is life and death. explain please..how are life and death based on math....? thats total nonsense...what im saying rather is that math itself is a theory...what are numbers but a bunch of labels given to concepts or theories in our heads.....how do you really know that the square root of 4...a number..a concept..is actually 2?? what is a square root.??can you show me...physically what it is? no...mathematical theories are much like any other scientific theory....of concepts and ideas..that can NEVER be proven and be turned into actual factual information... im still curious to how you think life and death have mathematical platforms???please do explain..im rather eager in finding out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Angel, Mathematic is pure, nothing to be compared with other science... mathematical concepts are universal. adding one plus one equal two... Of course I do not conisder it as the independent certainty it was... have changed slightly my mind, because there was one thing lacking... Now mathematic is seen more as the result of the direction of conscienceness rather than an independent entity. Conscienceness creat the illusion of time, the illusion of past present and future, in this arrow, there is an order, what come first than next etc... this order is, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc... those bubble entities, exist from the process of conscienceness. Mathematic is a phenomenology of conscienceness and is not independent. How I see this now is that natural selection(not the Darwinism one) is the universal creator, by the billions of creations, some have properties to creat conscienceness which as a result will creat an order, this order will give rise to mathematic. there is universes where there is no 1 + 1 = 2, in those universes there is no arrow of time, no conscienceness... therefore no mathematic... if mathematic is not pure it is not mathematic, if mathematic is not perfect it is not mathematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 okley dokely....if you say so,...but i still see it as a psychological entity rather than a physical one...unless i can touch and feel...grasp the objects..i cannot consider them as existant...of course i agree that mathematics is a concept and rules and explains many things in the universe...but much like time it is psychological....we may represent numbers through objects...but i still see it as theoretical components....btw i still havent heard from anileve....im still curious to her response.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 AHH Domino is back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 AHH Domino is back... Just kidding buddy! Nice to see you around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Being material, we can form no adequate idea of the spiritual. We all acknowledge and believe in the infinity of space and time and the spirituality of the soul, but the idea of that infinity and spirituality eludes us. Even omnipotence cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds. Human intelligence can't grasp it, nor our language express it. As the ancient sages would say, the visible is necessarily the measure of the invisible. Where reason ends, faith begins, for reason is limited. wow!! couldn't have said it better myself... glad to see such humbling opinions out there!! we indeed are finite and so is reasoning. one can only FEEL God and our connection with the cosmos and everything in it...this is where brains won't help! rather an open loving heart is the only way...one that understands that humanity is one and that reverence for life is the highest virtue not fully grasped by many! we indeed are souls traveling through our journey of evolution and earth is only one stop on our path to enlightenment and selfhood... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 wow!! couldn't have said it better myself... glad to see such humbling opinions out there!! we indeed are finite and so is reasoning. one can only FEEL God and our connection with the cosmos and everything in it...this is where brains won't help! rather an open loving heart is the only way...one that understands that humanity is one and that reverence for life is the highest virtue not fully grasped by many! we indeed are souls traveling through our journey of evolution and earth is only one stop on our path to enlightenment and selfhood... Indeed. I would say that it is precisely that humanity has focused too much on science and reason, and has neglected its spiritual side, and its faith, and the rejection of an authority, a God, above us, that destruction has risen exponentially. It is precisely the idea that through science we will conquer nature, and conquer all, and become Gods, this idea is precisely what will eventually destroy humanity. This is an experiment, a test, which humanity will fail. Hehe. I am more inclined to believe in the alternate theory that alien civilizations created humanity and the knowledge that we know. But then again, I love reading into Zechariah Sitchin and the Annunaki, in relation to Sumeria. You should read The 12th Planet, by Zechariah Sitchin, or The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Indeed. I would say that it is precisely that humanity has focused too much on science and reason, and has neglected its spiritual side, and its faith, and the rejection of an authority, a God, above us, that destruction has risen exponentially. It is precisely the idea that through science we will conquer nature, and conquer all, and become Gods, this idea is precisely what will eventually destroy humanity. This is an experiment, a test, which humanity will fail. Hehe. I am more inclined to believe in the alternate theory that alien civilizations created humanity and the knowledge that we know. But then again, I love reading into Zechariah Sitchin and the Annunaki, in relation to Sumeria. You should read The 12th Planet, by Zechariah Sitchin, or The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley. well said anonymouse, James Frazer concluded in 1857 this model of anthropoligical importance: Magic>Religion>Science When science fails we go to religion, when religion fails we go to science, when things seem to have no obvious contradiction, we proceed ahead back to religion, then again to science. The cycle goes on... Since his first model it has been revised, they simply dropped the magic part and are left with Religion>Science Science in the sense of evolution will fail for all, people will have one other option which is religion. other than that they would be living oblivious to there surroundings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Indeed. I would say that it is precisely that humanity has focused too much on science and reason, and has neglected its spiritual side, and its faith, and the rejection of an authority, a God, above us, that destruction has risen exponentially. It is precisely the idea that through science we will conquer nature, and conquer all, and become Gods, this idea is precisely what will eventually destroy humanity. This is an experiment, a test, which humanity will fail. Hehe. I am more inclined to believe in the alternate theory that alien civilizations created humanity and the knowledge that we know. But then again, I love reading into Zechariah Sitchin and the Annunaki, in relation to Sumeria. You should read The 12th Planet, by Zechariah Sitchin, or The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley. Yeah mouse...read all of those..years ago..and Sitchen especially is very intruiging...but as for the spiritual - science balance - I disagree - its qway tioleted the other way...most people are just without a clue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.