• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation vs. Evolution

inca

Active Member
He added a wish: <<proof of life elsewhere - preferably intelligent, though I'd settle for anything that can put a couple of cells together. There are indications that the first may be in sight - and I've been expecting number two 'real soon now' for the past five years. As for the third - well, your guess is as good as mine." (from the 1998 "Egogram") >>
Well, he probably isn't aware of Sumerian tablets or uses his right to disagree.
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
These designs were not invented by modern authors as the symbol of Ptah (Egyptian god).

But it's interesting the fact he joined Stanley Kubrick to make his film 2001 Space O. and the idea of the black monolith "helping" the evolution. He said "any technology advanced enough is not distinguished from magic" (Profiles of the Future, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984). The alien object imagined by Paul Davies is described in his book "Are we alone" (Basic Books, 1995, page 42). When the Bible Code was shown to Kubrick he reckoned "it's like 2001 monolith".
 

inca

Active Member
I have posted the Hebrew words in Genesis (usually Christians don't know anything about it) and evolution and genetic (for the ones who believe both are accurate science, I will say genetics is science, the other is theory disguised as "science") and how do this science can be interpreted in literal way (for the Jews who give so much attention to the metaphysical Hebrew letter of Torah that don't even have time to study the physical !) in case anybody is interested (perhaps Master Hoomer who read my posting about Lillith):
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=613&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=613&start=15
 

inca

Active Member
About Big Bang idea, choosing between Moses and Hawkings the discussion went to 9 pages already, the Moderator felt embarrased and hid the 127 replies and views disturbed with the details I was giving until finally I was expelled lacking more arguments; as usual several participants came along and little by little you see since they really didn't investigate beyond the surface they dissapear, vanish gradually until there's someone obstinated enough to defy another in a "mano a mano" struggle. I think you should witness that argument of 9 pages starting with Big Bang and ending in ancient Sumerian and Maya knowledge unacceptable for the defenders of neo-sacred cow called "science". But how many do really have an idea what they talk about?
 

(Q)

Active Member
Inca

*WHOOOOSH - hand moving over head*

Nope, didn't understand a word of your post.

He's right many UFO sightings are indeed hoaxes.

Others are explained by natural phenomenae. None were visiting aliens.

Stanley Kubrick to make his film 2001 Space O. and the idea of the black monolith "helping" the evolution.

He shows the duality of man when man discovers and masters the use of the tool and who eventually becomes a slave to it.
 
I agree with Death.

There's definitely a defensible argument in saying "I believe God created Man- through evolution". I used to believe that. The problem is, lots of phenomena that were once thought to be the act of God have now been widely accepted as normal occurances in nature, requiring no supernatural intervention- like gravity. No one says "God makes things go down- by using gravity". Still, I agree with Runt- there doesn't have to be a conflict (the Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution- they teach it at my Catholic school).

But to say evolution didn't happen is, well, really kind of laughable nowadays (check out your local museum for fossils on display-including ones of early man). Lots of books have been published trying to "prove" that evolution never happened, but these books are generally not taken seriously by biologists other than a very small percentage of highly religious ones (these books are frighteningly similar to all those books on Holocaust Revisionism).
 
Ok, coming into the convo pretty late here I will just state that like Runt, I believe creation was by the hand of evolution, by God, whatever that may be.

And as ErikaLee said, my fiance thinks the aliens brought about our existence here. I am not completely aposed to this, but I am lacking some real logial thought on that one however speculative that may be??

I am not a big person on proof, because I believe we will never truly have it. As a species we use what, like 10% of our brain, we would never ever be able to comprehend anything on a spiritual level even if it were drawn, spelled, or charaded out for us, we will never as humans beable to comprehend anything on a divine level..... That is just me...

Go Faith!!!! lol, j/k

ps. silly billy?? that is real nice : |
 
Hey!! lol

The problem is, Christians, Muslims- you name it- they all DO claim to understand the spiritual world. They have very complex and intricate beliefs about the spiritual world-beliefs which they all claim are not beliefs, but fact. Now, if we humans "can't possibly comprehend" God etc, then that's the end of the debate- no religion is valid, since they all claim to know about something which they can't begin to comprehend. The argument that humans can't possibly understand spiritual things is just a fallback argument that religions use when their beleifs don't hold up against logic.

Not a big person on proof? Well, neither were the witch burners or inquisitors of medieval Europe. :roll: We just have to be careful when beleifs in things without proof affect our behavior.
 
Yeah, sorry, but I do have problems with people saying that thier beliefs are 'True' or 'Facts' both of those things are a matter of opinion, you have to put your belief into them before they can be true. Not to say that these people don't believe thier beliefs are facts or true, and most certainly they have a right to, I would not say they are wrong, but I also have the right to say they are not facts or true to me. I am not one to use my beliefs to discreadit anyone else, just because I believe something, it has no effect on anyone else, it is my belief.

Saying we will never be able to comprehend God or spirituality doens't me we shouldnt' try, it just means that we don't have the knowledge or understanding yet. Just as thousands of years ago people had no idea or understanding of germs, it was not possible until science evolved, and now we do, but they still got sick and didn't know why?? I say we will never comprehend it because the use of our brain at this point wouldn't permit it. Trying to understand God is like trying to explain to your dog how to balence a check book, the comrehension just isn't there.... I dont think it is a fall back, I am no religion and I defend nothing, not even myself, I doesn't matter to me if anyone else agrees, I just state what I believe, and listen to others, I can decide if I agree with them and try to further myself because to me religion isn't about God or understanding things, it is about making myself a better person because only pure positve energy can be absorbed by God (which I believe to be an energy source).

But your last statement I totally agree with, I can see how things could easily get out of hand in a case like that. But like the Pagans, Lest Ye Harm None.... Killing in the name of religion is still killing.... War, that is another story, I have no opinion on that yet, well, actually I do, it is one thing to give your life to fate as to whether you live or die as you are fighting and taking other lives, but clearly different when you are tying someone to a stake and sitting back roasting marshmallows clear from danger, lol...
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
The Tao trying to help us understand the eternal ways of the universe is like us trying to tell a dog about internal combustion engine. But that doesn't mean he doesn't know the sound of the engine, or the smell, or the sight. But he doesn't understand why or how it works. We understand what we perceive around us. But that doesn't mean its the ultimate truth. It is however part of the truth though. Being that what the dog hears, smells, and sees isn't false. Its just not the whole picture. We are like that with spirituality. We hear, smell, see, etc.. what we perceive as spiritual. That doesn't necessarily make it false. They are part of the truth in some way or another. And they allow us to understand the universe better.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I'm certenly pro-evolution... there is too much Good evidence...

I'm certenly sceptical of the adam and eve stories and the aliens genetically engeneered us theories...
I don't buy thier evidence so far....

wa:-do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
ever hear of the 'old man on the mountain'... a sad to say recently departed rock formation here in my home state of New Hampshire... when looked at from the right angle five rock ledges would line up perfectly to form the profile of a man.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/whites/old_man.html

nature makes some remarkable things.. we also have Indian Head rock right down the road... another natural rock formation that looks like a person.

http://www.allroutes.to/profilesandfaces/

we are quite literally surrounded by faces...
so pointing out strange shadows on other planets or eaven here on earth isn't much proof for me... you see I've seen it done already.

as for Mayan blood sacrifice... if your hyperdimentional beings like vergins and teenagers then they must have been disapointed with the Mayans...
Most of thier blood sacrifice was done by adults and members of royalty with the occasional sacrifical captive warriors tossed in for variety... not virgins or teenagers.

wa:-do
 

inca

Active Member
Mr.Spinkles believe in modern evolutionist faith is laughable.

Mutation happens as an accident and not in organized manner, so evolution had no purpose if it’s based upon mutations. The evolutionist of the century (according to Stephen Jay Gould) was Dr. Dobzhansky who experimented with flies. Mutations is lethal. Are unknown the perfected mutants. The flies which were resistant to DDT are in fact weaker and take more time to develop normally, they are less skilled. Bacteria which are more resistant …due to plasmids (pieces of circular DNA), not because of DNA mutation. The genes don’t change to resist the antibiotic, the solution is already ready from outside. The bacteria resistant to antibiotics in fact are less skilled. Almost 60% of the mutant Echeria Coli resistant to Streptomicine are DEPENDING on it, they don’t grow in areas free from the antibiotic. That means they are destroyed in environment in which required food ain’t available. There are near 6000 genetic diseases set in correspondent genes but no mutation increased the efficacy of a human protein. I won’t use Creationist arguments neither amateur “evolucionist faith”, you need to read Nobel prize winner, biologist researching penicillin , Ernst Chain in his “Was Darwin Wrong?”, 1982, page 50 or let’s say, Dr. Lee Spetner, scientist and professor in John Hopkins University. Not by chance he says “IN ALL READINGS I DID IN SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGY I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE MUTATION WHICH ADDED INFORMATION”, or perhaps you need urgently to read Pierre-Paul-Grasse who thinks pretty much the same. Errors in copies can’t increase information. Graham Cannon in his “The Evolution of Living Things” can help you too.
About 2500 genes form an eye and not by accident, casual in a chain of happy coincidences in the laws scientists trust without Law Giver (!). in 4,5 billion years. In Basel University, 1995, it was proved a gene of a rat was able to produce eyes in flies, therefore there’s a MASTER GENE which commands all the process in arthropods, squids, mammals, etc. But, how was it possible a gene was in the common ancestral of those animals if the own ancestral didn’t have any eyes???? It was a pre-Cambrian bacteria! It didn’t exist even the complex genetic system. Mutations are rare in a single gene, it’s even worst in various genes simultaneously.
A Professor in Massachussetts University, Lynn Margulis (respected by the theory of mitochondria once was independent cell) always asks in the conferences to molecular biologists an unmistakable example of a new specie created by accumulation of mutations. ABSOLUTE SILENCE is the response of the collegues. According to biologist George Gaylord, even in favorable conditions of evolution the po-si-bi-li-ty or pro-ba-bi-li-ty (attention attention, theory not fact) of 5 mutations in the same nucleus is 1 in 1022. In a 100 million human beings and the rate of 1 mutation per day for each generation, such “favorable” event it would be expected once every 247 billion years or 100 times the age of the Earth. Such process never existed in nature. Check G.G.Simpson “The Major Features in Evolution”, page 96. You can also read the genetic yoke according to H.J Muller (Radiation Damage to Genetic Material), Christopher Willis, (Genetic Load), Scientific American, Volume 222, March 1970, page 98. Murray Eden in “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, Moorhead & Kaplan, 1967, page 71. Encyclopedia Britannica , 1976 (Mutations).
Perhaps to 99.9 % of the readers swallowing without checking, you can convince them about evolution and Darwinism, etc, etc. I’ll rather use my photographic memory and the files I keep on accumulating to “digest” before swallowing. I don’t wanna throw up after. Ignorance ain’t a sin. Sinner is someone who in spite of being ignorant grabs to its orthodox dogmas repeated in books after books and refuses to learn and to think. Refuses to be curious and asks the ones who think they know. All of us are ignorant in different degrees.
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg
www.sitchin.com/primate.htm
www.sitchin.com
(specially the last part of the latter)
 

inca

Active Member
For the ones who like to post but really they don't like to know and really study but just repeat the superficial themes books after books and who "jump" the information in the internet, I suggest you to check the posting I did in the previous page, May 06, 5:39 pm. Check the couple of links. Everyone can stand afford or against something, everyone has an opinion like a butt, but how many people do really know what they are talking about, whether science or religion?
 

inca

Active Member
Not only Sumerian and Biblical account (and other myths) reveal the scientific aspect about the use of clay and a case of genetic endogamy (incest) in the case of Adam & Eve (bone and flesh of the same relative avoid inmunity rejection when a marrow transplant) but the detail about the rib (with the marrow creating blood and Adam is a name linked to blood, red and soul-live allowing breathing, nephesh and neshama in Hebrew) is astonishing. Rib is more irrigated by blood and have more cartilage. There's a lot the science is discovering NOW:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-13412.html
www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514201.html
 

inca

Active Member
That statement 'look at the fossils at the museum' is an example of ignorance beyond imaginable. Wherever you check you'll see the parts of those creatures were already formed, no intermediary thing changing one thing into another specie in a hocus pocus magic imagined by Darwin before he knew what genetic has provided. Hence, what before was alleguedly done by daddy Chronus-Time in a deaf and dumb slow-motion evolution ...lacking evidence was changed into another -and convenient- formula called "macroevolution", that is, an evolution so fast that didn't require the evidence of specific fossils CHANGING one thing into another. In other words, since that happened so quick it wasn't required those fossils and we have to believe in such "gaps" or "missing links" without evidence. That's faith disguised as "science". As I explained before, mutations was the magic solution but it didn't help either cos 99% of the mutants are not the best example of survival of the most skilled, in fact are leftovers, things to be replaced and died. An albino, a giant, a being with two heads, leporine lips, Dawn syndrome repeating chromosome 21, hermafrodite poliploid with 6 fingers (probably black and giant and retarded) are mutants. Check 2 Samuel 21:18-22 as an example of a mutant.
Adaptation was confused with evolution but some idiotic people can't know the difference between one thing and another, they don't know the limits of the hybridation EVEN IN SIMILAR SPECIES (like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys producing tiglons or ligrons in the first case and mules in the second or the combinations between wolves and dogs and llamas and camels, etc) are limited by sterilization. So, Darwin's imbecility went saying the changes or "adaptations" would be so great that would jump the limits of DNA plan. That is ridiculous. Experiences bombing flies with gamma rays didn't change them into scorpions or spiders. They added eyes, set eyes on the wings, added a couple of feet or wings but by atavic law they got back to what they were in the next generations. So even with GENETIC ENGINEERING AND MANIPULATION TO DO SOMETHING NATURE NEVER DID WITH A DISTANT METEOR OR COMET, and continuous experiences, the beings didn't change as much as it was expected! Imagine the changing of an anphibious to a reptil or bird and then mammal and then getting back to square one, and then taking the same old path again or different course of evolution.... Ridiculous! Adaptation is something already PROGRAMMED in genetic. Antibiotic would never change an Echeria Coli into Shigella or Salmonella or Streptococus. People who believe in such fantasy are just part of the how-to-make-an-idiotic-to-believe-what-we-say with designs of bowed apes transforming into a tall man without that much hair (specially female). There was someone who wanted even to compare the hirsute and thick hair of animal with human female! The comparision between embryos would say we're closer to pigs, rabbits and chicken than chimps! But at the same time they show the photographs and the same old designs as an old fashioned leftover argument, they say similarities really don't prove evolution! Hypocresy all over the place, food for ignorant who don't have the slightest clue what is mutation. I defy any paleonthologist or biologist to defy the words quoted by Nobel Prize winner and those scientists I mentioned by name in my posting above. Who will be the moron who dares to defy what genetic has prove?
 

inca

Active Member
I want to remind you some decades ago they said tonsils and other parts of the body were evolution leftovers. And after they removed thousands of organs they found out far from being leftovers they were very important in the defense of the organism against diseases. They discovered that cos thousands of people actually DIED OF CANCER cos that imbecility and scientific cocky attitude. Then they had to cover these areas of the body when there was irradiation in onchology treatment.
Even if those parts were what they were saying (and it was not), the argument was ridiculous cos evolution as the name indicates didn't have to provide leftovers but NEW ORGANS. So, the argument was upside down, that would evolution in reverse, involution, degeneration. In fact today at least 3% of our DNA is litter (acacaca... adenine-citosine rather than adenine-timine, citosine-guanine).
So, I LAUGH everytime someone picks a book of paleonthology filled with words in subjuntive way (perhaps, maybe, it's reasonable to believe, there's a chance, it may be) than any other science field and shows a fragment piece of a bone and in speculative interpretation says that little crack would mean the eventual transformation into an organ....that's palenthologist faith not demonstrated whatsoever by genetics. Even National Geographic everytime they show their "official" and superficial themes (don't ask me to inform details about why) they admited they hired several artists to represent hominids based upon the fragments of fossils. All the designs were completely different! That's Hollywood technique, not science, mere speculation. You can't know the amount of hair, the color of the skin nor the hair in most of the cases. Usually the posture they imagined after some time it's discovered has been a fiasco during years cos it was imposible such posture.
Indeed, I would recommend to see the works of Rebeca Cann, an expert in genetic field who says all those fantastic millions of years about homind pseudo evolution really can be reduced to an African "Eve" between 180.000 and 20.000 years ago. Even choosing the older date, depends on the number of partners of that "Eve" analyzing mithocondria DNA. The analysis included research about time when men could've taken care of cattle, etc.
You can print whatever you want about your faith in evolution. I'll stand with Nobel prizes and experts in biology, genetic, mutation. In other words, real science.
Moral aspects of our existence belongs to philosophy theme.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
No one ever said evolution was organized or eaven intelligent... its a random process where good and bad things happin.... most mutation occures in the genes...

lets list some happy acciedents in mutation....
in humans... the include mutations of genes that give the carriers extra defences against diseases such as..
mutation of the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk heart attack/stroke as the genotypes are involved with the clotting of blood.
mutation of the Gbeta3-s has enhanced immune cell function in humans. a similer mutation among HIV positive women in North Africa has enabled them to not develop AIDS and to have children without passing HIV on to them.
a mutation of the lipid and lippoprotein production genes confers beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of Coronary Artery Disease...
those are just some of the mutations in the human geneome and many more positive mutations occure in bacteria giving them such things as immunities to anti-bacterial agents, environmental agents et cet...

funny thing is that when bad mutations occure they are spectacularly bad.. when good mutations occure they arn't really noticed... and why should they be? They don't harm the person with the mutation so we don't look for it...

if there is no evolution and aliens did it well... then who genetically engineered the lions and the Wolves and birds and the frogs? and who genetically engineered the aliens that engineered us?

wa:-do
 
Top