I see NO proof Sir Issac Newton said these things. I don't remember you quoting him. And what about this video? If you're selling it, just tell me that, and I'll know you're lying.

Watcher wrote:Why I think the Theory of Evolution is "debunked'. (or at least some of it)

Please entertain me along this Alice in Wonderland viewpoint and enter into a different Matrix. Isn't this forum all about sharing ideas? Some of those ideas may be collectively accepted, while others not. I will do my best however to bring forward my reasoning and will read any rebuttals and rest assured, be willing to enjoy this very process of exchange.

Although evolution has never been my strong point, I'm game. Especially considering we're speculating on the hypothetical. <grin>

You are a legless lizard just born and on the ground; but in the bigger picture are currently involved in the evolutionary process of growing wings. Sorry for you there are no short cuts or leaps to take advantage of. So you just sit there and chill hoping to find another creature of the same sort that is very close to you as so that you can transport your basic male genetic code. Woot Woot! What is your biological classification and species? I know, we will call you Dinner. You can't run anymore, nor fly yet. Don't worry... at least two of you somewhere "may" actually get a chance to mate and have offspring that "may" have a fighting chance to grow a feather or two. Keep your head up or at least do so while it is dark out. (thought borrowed from Ken Wilber and altered)

I think you forgot its legs. If it ever has any chance at taking flight from the ground, it's going to need a good running head start or be able to leap. Unless it squirms up a tree and launches itself from on high? Then again, why would a legless lizard on the ground grow wings? I can't see how it would be beneficial to its evolution and survival. But you never did describe the landscape it is supposed to be living in. Maybe it's a desert? The point being, evolution has a way of directing life that is beneficial for its survival. For example, since we're speaking of lizards with feathers, there was in fact a dinosaur that was covered in feathers and did not fly. It's a reptile! What business do feathers have on a scaly dinosaur? The circumstances must have existed that forced an evolutionary change in some species of dinosaur that led to feathers, and eventually birds. Oh, wait, you never said anything about actual wings or flying! But you did admit to the possibility of mating and a potential offspring with the genetic code to possibly grow wings. And that's all it takes. Life will always find a way.

Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). Source: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

While I personally believe it takes that little spark of God that exists in ALL life to make life, I can not deny the possibility that life arose from an organic soup of proteins and amino acids and has been evolving ever since. Just because Darwin's concept of a tree of life may have been proven as false today, tomorrow newer evidence could be found that would prove it as true again. And I just read in one of my science magazines that scientists are on the verge of creating synthetic life in the laboratory.

I would say based on observation that this is not correct. An Ape and a kangaroo are not going to genetically bump into each other and come up with a new species that can hop from tree to tree while being able to carry their offspring in a handy new and improved side pouch even if it is beneficial (collectively) to do so.

This is not how evolution works. Trans-speciation is usually a dead end. Look at the mule, for example. Personally, I believe you had it right the first time, random genetic mutations.

I would also say based on observation that an intelligent intervention (or Interference) would need to occur that "could" genetically merge the DNA of both creatures AND come with something of LIVING interest. "Any Way You Slice It" it is not probable with strong consideration being given the Web of Life.

While I would like to agree with you, I can't. Although I personally believe there was a creator, I see no reason for divine intervention to explain the diversity of life. The original blueprint is our DNA and the circumstances of life dictated which direction it took. So if there is a creator, then He/She/It/Whatever more than likely laid the plans, including the natural laws of our universe, before producing the masterpiece. But I can't rule out the possibility of a tweaking every now and then.

Natural selection makes more sense with repect to the selection of a mate that aids the natural ongoingness of our existence. What I am meaning here is did you know that your nose can smell and process DNA? Were you aware that when you smell a female (if you're male) your brain processes who "is and is not" a suitable partner for procreation?

Yes, I was aware of this. But that's only one small part of the equation.

The study also shows romantic love is hormonally based and last on average of 90 days which just long enough to "lock up" the situation (if you will). One could say it is sort of a "insurance clause" to ensure appropropriate blending and offspring. Who would have thought... and I suppose just some of my thoughts... please share yours...

Actually, you witness the same thing in the animal kingdom. I don't remember the species but there is a bird that builds a structure and adds all sorts of colorful objects to attract a mate. It's called putting on our best behavior until we are sure one way or the other.

By Web of Life I am meaning that we are finding out that there is an interconnectedness (or integeral) pattern between ALL of life.

Uh huh, and it's called a holographic universe.

Nature (as we call it) has all sorts of "tricks in the bag" (if you will) to ensure balance. Balance between this and that. Currently in our wisdom, we are upsetting this balance and will reap the rewards of doing so. In the end, we all know that nature will win.

Unless you happen to be the capital planet for the Foundation. In all seriousness, the reason I'm referring to Asimov's Foundation trilogy is because on the capital planet, nature lost. Almost every mile of territory was covered. The planet was one huge city. Although such a scenario is highly unlikely, the possibility does exist.

One could successfully argue that survival of the fittist (when/if applied to adderance to the laws of nature) something better (or more complex) will always emerge.

Not necessarily. Survival of the fittest only means the strong survive. I believe it takes a new set of circumstances to force change.

So, what is this thing called nature? Seams Intelligent! Intelligent design is the term used for the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

While I truly mean no disrespect, this is a cop out. It is the lazy way out. Rather than search for an answer to discover what makes something tick, we assign it to the realm of a deity. I would believe any creator would want us to search for the answers.

One could also successfully argue that the universe is self aware, as experienced by us, currently, right where we find ourselves. So nature, giving us the oppurtunity, to be here long enough (evolutionary speaking) is giving us something bigger than just eating and pooing (crude definition of a lifeform).

The universe can't be anything but self-aware! We are living proof of this. And since it is holographic in nature, this implies purpose, IMHO. So we're in agreement on this point.

I almost forgot to tell you, check out a book titled The Self-Aware Universe by physicist Amit Goswami. Although I haven't read it yet, this book is sitting on a huge pile of others that are just waiting for me to tackle.

Speaking of tackling, I will need to tackle the rest of your post later...

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

Watcher wrote:Why I think the Theory of Evolution is "debunked'. (or at least some of it)


You are a legless lizard just born and on the ground; but in the bigger picture are currently involved in the evolutionary process of growing wings. Sorry for you there are no short cuts or leaps to take advantage of. So you just sit there and chill hoping to find another creature of the same sort that is very close to you as so that you can transport your basic male genetic code. Woot Woot! What is your biological classification and species? I know, we will call you Dinner. You can't run anymore, nor fly yet. Don't worry... at least two of you somewhere "may" actually get a chance to mate and have offspring that "may" have a fighting chance to grow a feather or two. Keep your head up or at least do so while it is dark out. (thought borrowed from Ken Wilber and altered)

Ok,

I'm not going to get in the whole holographic universe stuff because to be frank - I had never heard of it until coming on this site however, I shall certainly be looking in to it.

On the evolution thing however - the above portrayal of evolution is simplified to the infinite degree. To take the example used above literally:
Darwin never said that lizards (for example) would make the leap (pardon the pun) from legs to wings in a few short generations. There certainly would not be a case where a lizard would be legless or wingless - this in itself goes against the very idea of natural selection. No female would see a male with no legs or wings as a viable mate to continue the species.
Evolution occurs over millenia, not over a few short generations - for example, using the lizard case; the lizard would begin with legs, feet, and everything else - over a fantastically huge period of time this would begin to change, so lizards with smaller feet but still with legs would start to arrive based on random genetic mutations - mating between lizards such as this would carry the genetic code forward and onwards...this would continue and continue until the feet at the end of the legs would become so small they would no longer be worthwhile - the legs themselves would then continue to evolve into another structure using the same method of random genetic mutations and again over many millions of generations. You can see this actually happening in some amphibious creatures that are a live today - they have very small leg like protrutions on their bodies - these are the left overs of their legs which if allowed to continue when studied in several thousand generations time these stumps will surely have disappeared.

Personally I do subscribe to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. I dont agree with a creator type being who has supreme control over everything - after all - if everything has a creator - who created the creator? Where does the creator live?
If the creator created the world for man - why were homosapiens not the first beings to 'rule' the world? Why were dinosaurs here first? If the world were created for us and it is all encompassing to have all the things we need for survival - how are we able to have enough influence over the world to alter its being? Global warming for example? Surely the said creator would have 'created' the world so perfect that 'he' would not have allowed mere humans to alter it?
Using telescopes set out in to space (Hubble) we can now see the beginning of planets - we (well...not me personally but others far more intelligent than me lol) have worked out how planets are made and how they die - if there were a creator surely when we were looking at this creation of worlds we would see his hand involved somehow? Or does the creator merely create the atoms and molecules etc and leave the rest to......evolution..which itself would deny the existance of a creator - the creator alledgedly created the world - "let there be light" not "let there be atoms and let them do what they like".......

Basically humans have developed to a level where there has to be a reason for everything. Back in the days when scientific knowledge was so limited (the world is flat for example) there was simply no explanation for how we came to exist and therefore there must be some creator or god who made humans the way we are. You can imagine the early scientists sitting round a table discussing it "but humans are so perfect, how did this come to be" - at this time the vast majority of the globe had yet to be discovered so it is of little surprise that they were unable to arrive at the correct scientific conclusion and so therefore the best they could come up with was that we were created and put here. This also provided a fantastic way of imposing laws on the population - after all - who would listen to a scholar? No one. So they construct an elaborate web of a creator - one who is all seeing, all knowing and will judge everyone based on their actions - and so the population at large then begin to feel scared and so change their way of acting so as not to anger the 'creator' and not be judged in a negative way - you can see how this would have been taken on board - think back to the time when people believed the sun rising every day was a miracle...this was the level of scientific understanding we are dealing with.

People will believe what they believe and its not my place to tell them to stop believing it - however, I cant help but think that the world would be a much better place if religion were defunct. How many thousands of people have died because of religion? If there were a creator would he allow murder on a grand scale in his name? I strongly doubt that.

Something interesting about the Bible is that students studying in many seminaries are usually taught that the Bible is a collection of semi historical stories, letters, and accounts and that its not meant to be read from beginning to end like a saga of God's plan but is to be referenced by comparing accounts from different parts simultaneously".. like history.

However, pastors and priests, almost never pass this on their parishioners. Why? Because if you believe the Bible to be merely human accounts then it's no longer sacred and it would no longer be viewed as the inspired word from God-on-high and infallible. Priests would rather inspire people with hope and guidance using the mystique of the Bible's supposed divine infallibility". because they don't want to educate you with reality. They want to placate you with divine bullsh*t because its what you want to hear.

People are generally uneducated, unrealistic, and prefer simple answers to the big questions which is why religion does well with them. It's the same reason why people of ages past who had less access to education (or were outright denied it) needed religion, were controllable through religion, and why more educated people of present day have less use of religion. Education and the pursuit of scientifically proven knowledge is the enemy of religion which is why you believers base your arguments using silly quotes from scripture as your version of the facts.

If the Bible is the infallible divine word of God then it would contain no contractions and leave nothing to speculation. The fact that it does contain contradictions (even innocent ones) and that it requires speculation and blind faith to bridge cryptic passages into understanding simply proves that it is in fact only semi historical stories, letters, and accounts.

fuzoid wrote:
I almost forgot to tell you, check out a book titled The Self-Aware Universe by physicist Amit Goswami. Although I haven't read it yet, this book is sitting on a huge pile of others that are just waiting for me to tackle.

Funny thing is... me too... this book is sitting on a huge pile of others that are just waiting for me to tackle!

BuckyOHare wrote:I'm not going to get in the whole holographic universe stuff because to be frank - I had never heard of it until coming on this site however, I shall certainly be looking in to it.

It would behoove you because this is one of the examples I use as my empirical evidence for the possible existence of a god. Let me know when you had a chance to read up on the topic. I would rather you were able to debate intelligently regarding this theory instead of being blind sided. Although I recommend The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot as a starting point, there are a number of excellent online sources to choose from. One of the most scientific [that I'm aware of] is by Dr. Noel Huntler. You can read it here: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh ... nction.htm.

Personally I do subscribe to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. I dont agree with a creator type being who has supreme control over everything - after all - if everything has a creator - who created the creator? Where does the creator live?

Remember, evolution and the existence of a god are not incompatible. But I do agree with you to a certain extent. While I do believe in a creator, I do not believe He/She/It/Whatever lords over its creation like some dictator or control freak. I personally believe everything was put into motion to evolve in accordance with natural laws. Meaning I do not believe God intervenes in the affairs of of the created with the exception of some tweaking.

Interesting question, who created the creator? As many times as I've heard this question, I have never heard a satisfactory answer. So I'm going to throw my theory out there to be picked apart, or stomped on, or whatever...

To create something implies time. However, physics (Relativity) tells you time truly does not exist as we currently understand it and it is actually an integral part of our universe. Hence the term space-time. What if God is completely outside time of any kind? If time does not apply to God, then making the claim He always existed becomes a little more acceptable. I don't expect anyone to understand this because to be quite frank, our limited capacity cannot comprehend no time, infinity, eternal, forever, etc... So as far as our limited capacity is concerned, if God exists, then He must have had a beginning as well. But Relativity tells us this is not necessarily the case! Time is relative to the observer (in this universe). For example, at the speed of light, time stops. So to a photon, it took no time for it to travel from our nearest star (or the entire width/length of our universe). But to an observer on Earth, it took 4 years. So if God does exist, He is always in the NOW!

If the creator created the world for man - why were homosapiens not the first beings to 'rule' the world? Why were dinosaurs here first?

Actually, dinosaurs were not the first! But I do understand the question. Why were they here before humans, correct? The problem with this question is, it is egocentric. Who says this planet was created for humans? Perhaps it's nothing more than a science experiment and dinosaurs outlived their usefulness? Anyway, the question you are asking has its roots in religion and not all believers in God believe in religion.

If the world were created for us and it is all encompassing to have all the things we need for survival how are we able to have enough influence over the world to alter its being? Global warming for example?

See above response pertaining to egocentrism. But to answer your question.... Free Will!

Surely the said creator would have 'created' the world so perfect that 'he' would not have allowed mere humans to alter it?

Why not?

Using telescopes set out in to space (Hubble) we can now see the beginning of planets - we (well...not me personally but others far more intelligent than me lol) have worked out how planets are made and how they die - if there were a creator surely when we were looking at this creation of worlds we would see his hand involved somehow?

Why? What do you expect to see? A giant finger stirring a pot of organic molecules? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that since our universe does follow physical laws, any creator would have created them to specifically govern how our universe was going to unfold? Meaning stars and planets forming from dust?

Or does the creator merely create the atoms and molecules etc and leave the rest to......evolution

Bingo!

which itself would deny the existance of a creator - the creator alledgedly created the world - "let there be light" not "let there be atoms and let them do what they like".......

It does nothing of the sort! And while I assume you are an intelligent person (you write and think like one), I'm getting this strong impression that you know nothing of physics. What are atoms made of? Quarks! And what are quarks made of? Well, microscopes have not been able to delve that far into the quantum realm but physicists believe it is nothing more than compacted pure energy (strings). What is energy? Just another form of light. In other words, everything you see around you can be said to be made out of light. EVERYTHING!

We're getting very close to the holographic universe so I won't go any further.... just yet. I want you to be able to digest a little about the theory first.

Basically humans have developed to a level where there has to be a reason for everything.

It's called Cause and Effect. Although some would call it karma.

Back in the days when scientific knowledge was so limited (the world is flat for example) there was simply no explanation for how we came to exist and therefore there must be some creator or god who made humans the way we are.

You would be very surprised to discover how accurate scientific knowledge was back in the day. Heck, it was the Greeks who coined the term atom! They were the first to believe everything was made from infinitesimally small particles called atoms. This doesn't sound very limited to me! BTW, you can blame Catholicism for slamming the lid on scientific development. Can you imagine how much further along we would be technoligically if they would have kept their hands off science?

You can imagine the early scientists sitting round a table discussing it "but humans are so perfect, how did this come to be" - at this time the vast majority of the globe had yet to be discovered so it is of little surprise that they were unable to arrive at the correct scientific conclusion and so therefore the best they could come up with was that we were created and put here.

Perhaps this is the way you imagine it. But not me.

This also provided a fantastic way of imposing laws on the population - after all - who would listen to a scholar? No one. So they construct an elaborate web of a creator - one who is all seeing, all knowing and will judge everyone based on their actions - and so the population at large then begin to feel scared and so change their way of acting so as not to anger the 'creator' and not be judged in a negative way - you can see how this would have been taken on board

Only after Catholicism took over. But not before. In fact, some of the worlds greatest thinkers were prior to Catholicism. And many others during.

think back to the time when people believed the sun rising every day was a miracle...this was the level of scientific understanding we are dealing with.

Maybe stoneage peoples, but not the enlightened.

People will believe what they believe and its not my place to tell them to stop believing it

Bingo!

however, I cant help but think that the world would be a much better place if religion were defunct.

Agreed.

How many thousands of people have died because of religion? If there were a creator would he allow murder on a grand scale in his name? I strongly doubt that.

Why? What makes you believe a god would intervene in the affairs of humans?

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

Dude that was kinda pathetic...you have no idea about...anything to do with the bible, and that little that you know you incoherently blurt out with no regard for facts...im amazed that anyone could actually be so wrong about something...honestly, think before you type

Ir0nStein wrote:Dude that was kinda pathetic...you have no idea about...anything to do with the bible, and that little that you know you incoherently blurt out with no regard for facts...im amazed that anyone could actually be so wrong about something...honestly, think before you type

You know, similar things could be said about religious nuts. I don't exactly see how wrong I am, though. So would you mind pointing it out, or are you just going to sit around like an idiot? Like quite a few very religious people who completely ignore current facts that prove their religion wrong, but instead focusing on anything that does. I could say I'm a little like that, too. So go ahead, open my mind.

Watcher wrote: You are a legless lizard...

I love quoting myself as it makes me feel special... The idea of calling the legless lizard "dinner" was nothing more than a ha ha on the missing link(s) of Darwins Theory. Perhaps you're right fuzoid and it was more a desert

Now on to the story of Noah and "genetics". I'm sure there is be some resistance to the ideas being put forth. It is important to stop and remain opening minded in any pursuit of truth, no matter where it may lead you. Sometimes things are right under our noses and we stil do not see them. This is not to say that I see them, I however enjoy the flair for the dramatic. Yes, I took the red pill. But just so your aware I'm still digesting it...

I have come across a different understanding on Scripture. This was based by adding/extracting additional (forbidden by Church) texts/information into the consideration of human history. The book of Enoch is a good example but there are many many more. All of these exclusions from Scripture I see as the path of decent into human religion. The truth will not be confined nor will it be bound to just human interpretation. One can say sometimes it requires faith to digest, which is being defined here as something not yet seen, but felt. This path is a personal one and it may or may not be for everyone.

From what I have gathered there have been many races that have lived on this planet, and or, are currently living on this planet, along side of us humans. Yes read that statement again if need be, Biblical referencing oddly enough collaborates this (much to my surprise). I use the word "surprise" since I was amazed I had missed all these "in my face" insights and had not even gathered the notions being presented with the text, until such time that the forbidden text which more clearly presented the historical account were considered. It only gets stranger from here...

Lets start here...

It doesn't take a religious mindset to do this, just a curiosity of "who are we" and "where we came from". Science has answered many questions with regards to these two pursuits with some very very obsure answers. Some answers have attempted to bring to light an understanding of ancient cultures and myths. Most of the answers have helped us dispell the holy (intentional non-capitization) grip the early church had on us, the populace. To that extent, we are most grateful. (I'm sure the human race didn't mind me speaking for it.)

Genesis 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.

There will be war "between your seed and her seed"? Hmmm... Can we be talking about the possibility of two different genetic races to be at war from that moment onwards? Not to mention that already in this early verse is the oddity of forecasting the final prophecy which very clearly would be in part meaning the later Crucifixion (and you his foot will be wounded). Not to mention is there a possiblity they seem to know each other..?

Not to mention earlier in this story;

Genesis 3:1 Now the snake was wiser than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3:5 ...and you will be as gods

A clear reference being given already of a/other lifeform(s) that can contextualize and represent themselves and that is looking into the topic from the Babylonian-Roman-Greek perspective, and it brings witness to something other than a mere human existence (is the world of which we are aware through our senses). Something else maybe going on... perhaps humans aren't the only ones that have occupied this planet.

I think now that the simpest questions are not only the hardest to answer, but the most important to ask... --Northrop Frye
<end part one>

<part two>

Proper understanding of Scriptures requires two things. First you need to be willing to go back to the original Hebrew text and research key words and phrases. Second, you also need to study the ancient Hebrew culture. Content without context is simply not enough. (Quoted from John Klein.)

In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer Lucifer is a title, or role/position given by God. This entity fell from grace (as the story goes) and was strip of the title.

I was in error here and would like to make a correction; "Ha Satan" was the title chosen by God and given to a cherub whose real name we do not know. The title meant "The Adversary" (or also known as the "enemy" or "accuser"). When this cherub rebelled and was tossed out of heaven, God literally took away his identity leaving only the title conveying dishonor. (My mistake was) Lucifer was the subjective name given to him by the Babylonians, based on his own claim that he comes as an angel of light. (Quoted: Devils and Demons).

I had made mention that this entity has numerous reappearances on the earthly playing field in our history and can be discovered with any study into myth. Ra (pronounced Rah, and sometimes as Ré) is an ancient Egyptian sun god is but an example. This leads us up even to today with organizations we all know such as the Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, "enlightened") and their planned events based around the movement of Venus. It is a matter of playing connect the dots (a joke... if you understand that connecting the dots of Venus at sunrise makes an inverted pentagram shape in the sky).

Anyhow, lets move forward...

Genesis 6:1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, the Sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.

Most biblical scholars believe that the Sons of God are heavenly angels. This is supported elsewhere in Scripture, including apocryphal sources. (The concept that these beings could take on physical bodies that would allow them to pro-create with humans fell into disfavor with church officials later on and they explain the text as meaning offspring of Seth)

According to the Book of Enoch, these being were the Watchers. According to ancient lore collected by Raven Grimasssi, the Watchers once had bodies of matter but evolved into light long before humankind came into exsistence. The Watchers were associated with the stars, perhaps meaning come from the stars, or stars that descended to earth.

An offspring from this union was called a Nephal or Nephilim in the plural sense or yet another translation can be found in two ways "giants" or "fallen ones".

There are three other sets of being talked about in Scipture; in Hebrew singular titles were Teraph, Seraph and Cherub. Note the Nephilim were not found amount these titles which leads more support to offspring of one of the three. The Cherubim (also known as archangels) are of the highest and most powerful order literally surrounding the throne of God. They have six wings, four faces (man/lion/bull/eagle) Source: Ezekiel 1:10 / Revelation 4:7. The names will always end with "el" which is suffix meaning God. (Micha"el"/Gabri"el"/Rapha"el"/Uri"el") Each have a position/role which the name suggests.

One-third of the original six rebelled. So as the story goes... the fallen two Cherubims were Ha Satan, and Adaddon.

Seraphim are the Burning Ones or Healing angels. Teraphim are the lowest order, and are the only ones that can take on human form for extended periods of time. You may even entertain one unaware. The word comes from "ayir" which means "watcher" or also called 'idols" in different cultures.

<end part two>