Vajradhara
One of Many
Bandit said:
all evidence to the contrary, it would seem.
Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!
- Thread starter Awaiting_the_fifth
- Start date
all evidence to the contrary, it would seem.
B
Bandit
Guest
Vajradhara said:all evidence to the contrary, it would seem.
well Vaj, i did say 3 times now i did not want to talk about it. so i guess every time i get quoted i will just say "i dont want to talk about".
I do not want to talk about it.
but do hit me up in 2006 for my updated theory on the mermaids.
Vajradhara
One of Many
Bandit said:well Vaj, i did say 3 times now i did not want to talk about it. so i guess every time i get quoted i will just say "i dont want to talk about".
I do not want to talk about it.
but do hit me up in 2006 for my updated theory on the mermaids.
there is another option, you know...
you could, indeed, not respond
that would demonstrate your unwillingness to converse on this issue clearly. well, more clearly that your posts which say "i don't want to talk about it", at any rate.
metta,
~v
Appears to me the poll would be more valuable if we didn't have such a dualistic mentality. Black v. white without colors and shades of gray is a man made operation...
Just as the creation story in the Bible is a manmade, so it the theory of evolution. Both have holes big enough to drive planets through.
Darwin's Origin of a Species fails to show an origin of a species. There is always a missing link (and then a miracle happens). As for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the arguments arise as to which came first and how woman was created...One book claimed to be written by the finger of God with conflicting stories right off the bat.
I'd like to see the poll revised to Creation-Evolution-Somthing in between-Neither-Don't know....then maybe you'll get some more accurate feedback.
Just as the creation story in the Bible is a manmade, so it the theory of evolution. Both have holes big enough to drive planets through.
Darwin's Origin of a Species fails to show an origin of a species. There is always a missing link (and then a miracle happens). As for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the arguments arise as to which came first and how woman was created...One book claimed to be written by the finger of God with conflicting stories right off the bat.
I'd like to see the poll revised to Creation-Evolution-Somthing in between-Neither-Don't know....then maybe you'll get some more accurate feedback.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
As the originator of this poll, if I may be allowed to defend my options...
For the exact reasons you give, I do not see any conflict between God and Evolution, in fact I would say that if HE exists, evolution is his grand plan.
Yet some people persist with the belief that the earth and all life was created in its current form approximately 6000 years ago.
I wanted to find out what percentage of this religious discussion group believe in either option.
For the exact reasons you give, I do not see any conflict between God and Evolution, in fact I would say that if HE exists, evolution is his grand plan.
Yet some people persist with the belief that the earth and all life was created in its current form approximately 6000 years ago.
I wanted to find out what percentage of this religious discussion group believe in either option.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
I personally do not believe that there was a beginning.
I believe in evolution, but I would rather call it transition, (we are not getting more advanced, we are just changing) and it is a transition of consiousness rather than of physicality.
I believe that the mind creates the body, as well as all of the physical world around us. The physical evidence of evolution is actually evidence of the changing consiousness which produces it.
I am fully aware of just how few people agree with me.
I believe in evolution, but I would rather call it transition, (we are not getting more advanced, we are just changing) and it is a transition of consiousness rather than of physicality.
I believe that the mind creates the body, as well as all of the physical world around us. The physical evidence of evolution is actually evidence of the changing consiousness which produces it.
I am fully aware of just how few people agree with me.
There are a tons of people who agree with you. But should one attempt to find them or enter discourse by beating the bush that isn't burning it will probably prove your point.
I find it easier, for me, to state what is in my mind and heart, and allow others to do so also, disagreement, differing pointis of view, must be deemed acceptable. But without the openess it will be quite easy for one to misinterpret viewpoit and agenda.
namaste,
wil said:
You base your conjecture on personal opinion, and the "opinions" of others, and ignore the opinions of others still. Your lack of evidence is not evidence in itself to disprove either "theory".
Darwin never attmepted to show an origin of a species. He only wanted people the think about where we might (emphasise might), have come from, and invited debate...which hasn't stopped since.
As for Genesis, again that is your opinion, based on what you refuse to accept as conflicting issues, while others see no conflict at all.
I see no problem with considering Evolution and Creationism as potentially viable theories about the development of life. One describes life developing slowly (as we consider time), while the other is a fast track description with fewer details, albeit the same idea. The only issue might be the origin of life.
In the Beginning was the Word...In the Beginning was the Big Bang! And the World was without form...and the Universe had yet to exist.
Seven billion years old, seven days old. Who is to say which is right, wrong, or if both are right?
Tell me, when did man conceive of a billion years? Certainly not when there were only 125,000,000 people on the entire planet (about 2100 years ago).
Instead of Billions of grains of sand on the shore, the Bible called it "countless as the grains of sand..."
We can't even count the total number of stars in space, and we understand "billions and trillions, and quadrillions", so even today we say they are countless. Do you understand the concept of sextillions, sentillions, Octillions?
The Bible it seems described Evolution in terms that those of the day could understand (and perhaps they understood better than us, for they accepted it, instead of psychoanalysing every aspect of it, hence they didn't get lost in the weeds).
Perhaps Darwin was attempting to put the Bible story of creation, into latter day terms.
my thoughts
v/r
Q
It was only the title....I guess a marketing tool.
I take it one comes here for enlightenment, I think we agree on many things...however Darwin overlooked stating his theory was updating or agreeing with the bible.
My confusion in Genesis, read litterally, not metaphysically is the difference in creation of man and woman in Gen 1&2, and then creating light and darkness as divisions twice...1st day and 4th day... the 'fact/truth' that the sky was blue, therefore water, therefor a need to separate the waters...Gen 1 God made beasts then man, Gen 2 God made man then beasts... the writers never coordinated their stories...
Don't get me wrong, I personally don't have issues with the stories, or Darwin's theory, some of both have great application....but imho gospel ( Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true) they are not.
T
truthseeker
Guest
I still don't see why creation and evolution is a conflict. Just as the sperm meets the egg and the seeds grow together - it eventually becomes a human being from two seeds that continue to evolve. The baby continues to grow and is no longer a baby.
This human is not guaranteed to take on the feature of the parents though their sperm and egg created it. My point is that it is very possible that God created energy to act independently, which science tells us that energy can act independently and energy can also be controlled. Man appears to be energy 3D. Now that our minds have evolved to a level of higher understanding, we are now figuring this out. It would be fitting that those who don't care to understand science would be comfortable with the creation explanation and it would be fitting that those who ask 'Why?' could make sense and dig a little deeper. Why must evolution insist upon a 6th finger? Couldn't evolution be of the mind as well? ATF, I agree that the mind creates the body. I've heard of monks creating their own enviroment through meditation. And as the brain is the center of energy within the body, it would be fitting that creation and evolution can not be so easily divorced just because of our level of understanding.
This human is not guaranteed to take on the feature of the parents though their sperm and egg created it. My point is that it is very possible that God created energy to act independently, which science tells us that energy can act independently and energy can also be controlled. Man appears to be energy 3D. Now that our minds have evolved to a level of higher understanding, we are now figuring this out. It would be fitting that those who don't care to understand science would be comfortable with the creation explanation and it would be fitting that those who ask 'Why?' could make sense and dig a little deeper. Why must evolution insist upon a 6th finger? Couldn't evolution be of the mind as well? ATF, I agree that the mind creates the body. I've heard of monks creating their own enviroment through meditation. And as the brain is the center of energy within the body, it would be fitting that creation and evolution can not be so easily divorced just because of our level of understanding.
wil said:
Agreed, to a point. There comes a time when we must decide what is believeable and what is not. Then we must decide what is truth and what is not.
That is the difference between Truth, and Belief. Truth is what is right, or wrong based upon what we learned as infants, or children, or in our heart of hearts.
Beliefs are subject to change, based on our upbringing, infleuence from others as we grow.
If however, our wards (parents, what have you), teach us at a young age that which goes along with our conscience of the soul (what is written in every human's heart), then core values become the basis for our beliefs, and as such, never waiver. Our Belief becomes truth...for good reason. A truth is followed by true behavior.
Children watch, and learn. And part of Truth is the promise of reward...It may take 20 years, but the truth will out eventually, whether good or bad.
(And the sins of the father will pass down to the third and fourth generation)...
Is that absolute truth or not? Did Evolution dictate this, or did the Bible?
Before you answer...consider this...I am become my father, and my son is become me...better or worse, it is as is.
v/r
Q
So it appears we are moving in a direction where we can agree that both Darwin and the Creation stories have issues with 'reality'...spose the debate of reality is for another thread.
We stretch our acceptance levels to merge the stories and have an appropriate days/eons, big bang v. instant canonification concept.
Or do we have to? Can we accept the parables and stories as such and explore the levels of understanding as our consciousness and experience levels increase?
Every book accept the bible changes, is updated as new information comes forward...the bible and reality requires us to change our perception as we get new information. It works as long as we spend time in contemplation with the thoughts that confuse...Like Ezekial thinking a space craft landing was God. Well gotta give him credit, his description is phenomenal and there was some enlightenment to be had when the level of technology is lightyears apart...
namaste,
We stretch our acceptance levels to merge the stories and have an appropriate days/eons, big bang v. instant canonification concept.
Or do we have to? Can we accept the parables and stories as such and explore the levels of understanding as our consciousness and experience levels increase?
Every book accept the bible changes, is updated as new information comes forward...the bible and reality requires us to change our perception as we get new information. It works as long as we spend time in contemplation with the thoughts that confuse...Like Ezekial thinking a space craft landing was God. Well gotta give him credit, his description is phenomenal and there was some enlightenment to be had when the level of technology is lightyears apart...
namaste,
wil said:
'suppose considering this isn't the thread concerning reality....
wil said:
Or perphaps some of us look at both and weigh them accordingly...
wil said:
No, because the stories are more than parables, and more than stories...they are warnings. So hard for man to accept at face value...
wil said:
Exactly, the world changes, people change, litergy changes, (Harliquen romance changes), smacking women around used to be sexy and sensual, resulting in passionate romance...not anymore...
Before that, not touching a woman was the apprapo, but that died out over a century ago.
Science books have changed over 200 times in the last 1000 years...as new information is discovered, and theories are revised... Oh, and some scientists have died because of their discoveries (because of religion...).
Be that as it may, the Bible, has not changed it's original content.
wil said:
Finally, the only person here not contending with reality, is not the one writing this post... Arrogance becomes no one, and ain't none of us smarter than we think we are...least not to those observing.
v/r
Q
Seems that may say more for scientists than those that selected and arranged 66 'spiritual' books out of hundreds that were around 1700 years ago... it fit their paradigm, the world they wanted to control.
Again I am not discharging any of it...just looking with open eyes, not the blinders many prefer. I realize their needs and reasoning, the conditions and societal times. They did miss some good stuff, like Thomas, which Mathew and Luke were derived from, and included an op/ed political piece (Jonah).
But christianity would not be in its steady decline if it would quit hiding what the leaders and scholars know to be true. Its base in Europe the former stronghold is almost completely gone....all that is left is beautiful old churches, not as santuaries but tourist attractions. The decline in the US and remainder of the world is steady as well...tis a shame.
Some think prophecy or warning...
namaste,
wil said:
Hmmm, Evolution itself is being attacked ad nauseum. Not just Christianity. And I didn't know we were discussing Chritianity per se. If we are, perhaps this part of the discussion should meander its way over to the Abrahamic faiths, instead of remaining here...but I leave that to the moderator's disgretion.
v/r
Q
Q
bob x
Well-Known Member
No, they expect people to examine the evidence.
Of course it is: do you expect every living creature that ever was to be preserved as a fossil, complete with dogtags around the neck saying where to find its parents? What we do see in the fossil record is what evolutionary theory expects to find; not what anyone would have expected from Biblical literalism.
You are mistaken. The origin of the goldfish is thoroughly documented: a Chinese fisher found a bright-red carp among his catch (Chinese carp are black) and saved it in a pail as a gift to the local lord (who rewarded him handsomely). The lord bred the fish in his carp pools, and segregated out all the colored ones which appeared. After a few generations, the colors started shifting unstably, settling on the golden color now seen. This is a classic example of speciation by "punctuated equilibrium."
The dog, on the other hand, is a classic example of speciation by "gradual drift". Many breeds of dog are still not separated from the wolf enough that there is any barrier to interbreeding (Siberian huskies interbreed with wolf routinely) while others are (good luck interbreeding a Chihuahua with a wolf). The process has been going on for thousands of years, and will take many thousands more before "dog" and "wolf" are completely separate.
You don't know anything about the subject, and don't care to learn. You don't have to learn if you don't want to, but if you spread uninformed falsehoods, you will be called on it.
I don't have to "try" to make you look stupid.
Yes, you want to spread your nonsense, and have no-one respond. I don't play that game.
I just wondered in here recently, thought it appeared a good place to contemplate, to have lively discussion. However we should attempt to behave as adults, imho.
I did make a mistake there...all organized religion has shown a decline in Europe, and the US is following...could that be due just to evolution..hmmm it is evolution.
But as far as creation v. evolution...it is pretty much just Genesis that is in the debate US and Europe, and I am ruefully uninformed as to what debates are going on in China or India and what is being taught or not taught in schools.
wil said:
You erred again I'm afraid, pertaining to organized religion showing decline in the US. In fact it has risen by 18% in the last ten years, from 60% believing and following a religious tract, to 78%. In addition, a great many scientists and scholars have revised their views on religion, and have joined in one form or another. Actually the number as at about 66%, given the various sciences involved. 75% of our Doctors claim belief in God, and the afterlife. Social sciences tend to be higher than the natural sciences, however the natural scienes are 59-70%, which is pretty high for such learned scholars...
v/r
Q
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Quahom1 said:You erred again I'm afraid, pertaining to organized religion showing decline in the US. In fact it has risen by 18% in the last ten years, from 60% believing and following a religious tract, to 78%. In addition, a great many scientists and scholars have revised their views on religion, and have joined in one form or another. Actually the number as at about 66%, given the various sciences involved. 75% of our Doctors claim belief in God, and the afterlife. Social sciences tend to be higher than the natural sciences, however the natural scienes are 59-70%, which is pretty high for such learned scholars...
v/r
Q
I also recall a recent poll about this, but I remember the numbers for scientists in the natural sciences to be lower than you give, and among biologists it is lowest of all. But, as one Christian who also happens to be a biologist, I can attest that there are many biologists who are faithful Christians, Muslims, Baha'is and Jews, all of whom consider the OT/Pentatuech as sacred. We need to have a conference or something.
lunamoth
lunamoth said:I also recall a recent poll about this, but I remember the numbers for scientists in the natural sciences to be lower than you give, and among biologists it is lowest of all. But, as one Christian who also happens to be a biologist, I can attest that there are many biologists who are faithful Christians, Muslims, Baha'is and Jews, all of whom consider the OT/Pentatuech as sacred. We need to have a conference or something.
lunamoth
Correct, according to the surveys 41% of Biologists did not believe in God or an afterlife. That leaves 59%. Is that what you saw? I was pointing out the plus or minus 6%, which gives the 59-70% ratio. Forgive me if I was out of line.
As an engineer who specializes in metalurgy, I have some idea of physics, at a micro level. And as an engineer who specializes in thermodynamics, I have some idea of energy/matter...matter/energy transference.
I don't call myself a "scientist", but I don't call myself stupid either (not trouncing you dear Luna).
My point is I understand that there is something beyond us all. I've seen it, (I've watched the burning of the sun, less than 6 inches from my eyes). I've controlled the heat of the sun (at it's surface), right here on earth. That's right, controlled the heat of the sun, right here, right now, on earth. In the heart of a ship. It's called a welding machine.
I've watched aluminum and steel meld together (yep, can be done and is done on a regular basis).
As soon as we say it is impossible...it becomes possible.
Now scientists are saying, maybe God is possible. Instead of looking for ways to disprove God...now they are starting to look for God's signature...
just a thought
v/r
Q