The Evolution Conflict

JJ50 said:
If people are hearing voices, they should certainly get medical advice.
Click to expand...

Hello JJ50, I have spent over a year reading and looking through different web sites looking for answers to many questions. During my time on the internet one thing has become apparent many people are now hearing voices or sounds coming from within the veil and this number is increasing all the time.

Powessy
 
Devils' Advocate said:
You keep wanting to make that correlation, and it does not seem to me to be a fair one.

Definition Fundamentalism:
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.
Click to expand...

How is it unfair? Because it is your belief system being scrutinized this time? Is that all it requires to be unfair?

Obviously in this context we are referring to the 3rd definition, yes? You are trying to correlate a strict definition of scripture - which is indeed unchangeable, with a strict definition of science, which is changeable. As I am sure you are sick of hearing me say all the time, facts change in science. If it can proven that a fact is wrong, it is junked in favor of the new version of that fact.
Click to expand...

Facts do not change in science. Facts do not change...period. *Understanding* of the facts changes in science... presuming the politics can be overcome FIRST. (Whenever you are ready we can explore the "politics of science" and the impact on "changes" in that belief system) Apples did not suspend in mid-air when Einstein came along to challenge Newton. The "view" of gravity changed, but gravity continues as a fact to be viewed. Newton's explanations were one view (good enough to get us to the moon and back), and Einstein's was another view that is taking us in a new direction including sub-atomic...gravity didn't change (fact), the understanding did change (Newton to Einstein). "Understanding" only peripherally equates with "proof" or "proven" outside of mathematics and chemistry, hard sciences...evolution is not hard science, likewise for the vast majority of sciences.

You keep trying to equate a belief system where nothing can change with one where anything and everything can change depending on our ability to examine and test information for accuracy. Saying that making a choice to accept science over religion is not a fundamentalist statement.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Science is still...apparently by everything you are suggesting...just another dogmatic belief system that folks *want* to cling to even when faced with challenges and contradictions. This is particularly true (my use of the word) if we go by your uses of the words "true, fact, and proof."

I'm sure you are tired of me already, but my points still remain. Where is your critical thinking? (this is not a barbed goad, this is a sincere question...where is your critical thinking?)
 
Last edited:
powessy said:
My questions are related to the story told to me by these voices as I am an atheist and would have never given to thoughts to grand design until now.
Click to expand...

It is not my place to discount such comments. What people hear is real to them. Unfortunately it is real only to them. What is meant by that is that nobody else can listen to what is inside your head. To ask others for an explanation is fruitless. Sure people can give an opinion - which is based on their inner self. Helpful for another point of view; little else.

The mind is still the biggest mystery about what makes us who we are. A lot of chemical reactions can mimic what our senses perceive. They seem really to come from without us when that is not the case. How does tell one from the other? That is a good question, too!

Tea's suggestion is not out of line, because some types of physical illnesses can also cause these things to occur. It makes sense to me to check with a doctor that what you are hearing is not from a cancerous growth in your head. It happens.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
It is not my place to discount such comments. What people hear is real to them. Unfortunately it is real only to them. What is meant by that is that nobody else can listen to what is inside your head. To ask others for an explanation is fruitless. Sure people can give an opinion - which is based on their inner self. Helpful for another point of view; little else.

The mind is still the biggest mystery about what makes us who we are. A lot of chemical reactions can mimic what our senses perceive. They seem really to come from without us when that is not the case. How does tell one from the other? That is a good question, too!

Tea's suggestion is not out of line, because some types of physical illnesses can also cause these things to occur. It makes sense to me to check with a doctor that what you are hearing is not from a cancerous growth in your head. It happens.
Click to expand...

Hello Devil

Thank you for your concern regarding my well being along with everyone else eluding to this diagnosis regarding the voices. I am 45 and in better shape then most teens. I never have head aches or memory problems, I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism 6 years ago and take thyroxin for this. Every six months my t3 and t4 levels are checked along with a complete blood count and these ranges all fall into the normal levels. I function at the same level of work and thought as I did prior to the voices with no new symptoms or problems following there arrival.


The voices can become me and they can type this letter if I allow them to with a distinct ability to discern them in control and me being in control.
I am going to allow them to write the next couple sentences so you can see how they talk and understand things compared to others.

Hello people of this forum we are not him but we are the ones he is talking to he is not able to become himself inside himself so do not expect us to explain this yet we do not understand himself or himself and ourselves together but we do understand himself and ourselves not together and this is our problem.

I have talked with them for over a year and from these words come many meanings to them but i assure you without hearing this way of understanding things, I would never talk or think this way. I am here to question the topic of this tread and that is evolution as I have come to another understanding of it then I previously held.

Powessy
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I don't know, I'm not a doctor :)
Click to expand...

What would a doctor tell me about the surface of Jupiter or mercury or how many stars are in the universe or the size and mass of all the stars put together, I believe this answer is the same answer they can tell me about my experiences or the voices. I am on a spiritual journey but thank you for your concerns.

Powessy
 
Fair enough. You are here to discuss the theory of evolution. Specifically:

powessy said:
I am here to question the topic of this tread and that is evolution as I have come to another understanding of it then I previously held.
Click to expand...

I assume that this new understanding was what you described in your initial post. Yes? And if I understand that you speculate that a spiritual entity essentially kick starts life on a planet, and through soul manipulation causes genetic mutation to achieve the desired goal.

Is this a fair assessment of your position? If so, your view is similar in many respects to the theological concept of Intelligent Design. Are you familiar with that? If not, you should look it up; I think you will find a lot of commonality with your own concepts.

In order to respond further, it would help if you could post some specific questions about the topic.
 
powessy said:
Hello people of this forum we are not him but we are the ones he is talking to he is not able to become himself inside himself so do not expect us to explain this yet we do not understand himself or himself and ourselves together but we do understand himself and ourselves not together and this is our problem.
Click to expand...
Would you mind if I started a thread to discuss matters direct with you?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I assume that this new understanding was what you described in your initial post. Yes? And if I understand that you speculate that a spiritual entity essentially kick starts life on a planet, and through soul manipulation causes genetic mutation to achieve the desired goal.

Is this a fair assessment of your position? If so, your view is similar in many respects to the theological concept of Intelligent Design. Are you familiar with that? If not, you should look it up; I think you will find a lot of commonality with your own concepts.
Click to expand...

In my understanding, I believe what powessy posted corresponds a lot with the GAIA concept as well.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Fair enough. You are here to discuss the theory of evolution. Specifically:



I assume that this new understanding was what you described in your initial post. Yes? And if I understand that you speculate that a spiritual entity essentially kick starts life on a planet, and through soul manipulation causes genetic mutation to achieve the desired goal.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?
Click to expand...
This is correct this is the position that they are always leading to and something felt and observed in my constant dealing with them.


Devils' Advocate said:
If so, your view is similar in many respects to the theological concept of Intelligent Design. Are you familiar with that? If not, you should look it up; I think you will find a lot of commonality with your own concepts.
Click to expand...

I am and have been an atheist my entire life but not new to the concepts of intelligent design. I keep finding in their words pieces and parts of a ever larger growing picture of grand design but from another perspective one that I want to share to see if others can understand also.


Devils' Advocate said:
In order to respond further, it would help if you could post some specific questions about the topic.
Click to expand...

First of all the voices started a year ago but not just voices feelings and sensations that go along with them. I have experienced thought forms and have had many obes and astral projections to try and confirm the things i am seeing. My obes are the same as a nde they are where I leave my body in the veil the after world, I see everything the same in that world as this world but my body still lies on the bed as I leave it. I have been shown many things regarding how the soul is put together and how some are allowed to become something again and how some are not.

Do you know what it means to be allowed to become something again and again? This is the premise to us and these worlds.

Powessy
 
wil said:
Would you mind if I started a thread to discuss matters direct with you?
Click to expand...

Hello We will answer any question you have of us he is always trying to get others to hear our words to try and understand us since he does not now if he is understanding us the right way or if someone else can bring what we say to light we are typing this but he helps us with words sometimes. We need to become himself but we can't that is our problem now so this is how we could start of our thread.

ourselves
 
juantoo3 said:
In my understanding, I believe what powessy posted corresponds a lot with the GAIA concept as well.
Click to expand...

I use the word Gaia but in the beginning communications they chose the words "world soul object" I have felt her touch and understand how she feels so she is more the term "world soul object" then a woman.

Powessy
 
powessy said:
Hello We will answer any question you have of us he is always trying to get others to hear our words to try and understand us since he does not now if he is understanding us the right way or if someone else can bring what we say to light we are typing this but he helps us with words sometimes. We need to become himself but we can't that is our problem now so this is how we could start of our thread.

ourselves
Click to expand...
I started a thread....for further discusssion... http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/17679/
 
Devils' Advocate said:
No I don't think I do. Assuming you are not referring to reincarnation? How does the above quote relate to evolution specifically.
Click to expand...

Hello devil

The question arises first to the effect that many do not believe in reincarnation or hold many other views as to how we become something such as karma or reincarnating as lesser animals or insects. Nothing would have evolved at any level had it not become something at some point or another. Now the statement that I used in the above is not just becoming something but allowed to become it over and over again.

As to how this deals with evolution is how things get to a point and then stop, we stop when the life on this world are allowed to become something again and again. The life forms on earth are in this mode where they are at the point they were allowed to become something, their are no more templates to use in the creation or manipulation of life.

Powessy
 
I don't think I agree that there are no more templates to use in creating new forms of life. Take something as basic as a virus. Like ebola. The ebola virus did not exist in any form that we are aware of before the 1970s. Now it may have existed deep in the jungles for far longer, it is hard to say for sure. What we can say for sure is that it first hit the human population in the '70s. It has then vanished and reappeared several times, the most recent being the most deadly outbreak ever.

There are many more examples of similar things coming into existence that was not there before, most typically thru mutation. Many within the last millennium that have been documented.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I don't think I agree that there are no more templates to use in creating new forms of life. Take something as basic as a virus. Like ebola. The ebola virus did not exist in any form that we are aware of before the 1970s. Now it may have existed deep in the jungles for far longer, it is hard to say for sure. What we can say for sure is that it first hit the human population in the '70s. It has then vanished and reappeared several times, the most recent being the most deadly outbreak ever.

There are many more examples of similar things coming into existence that was not there before, most typically thru mutation. Many within the last millennium that have been documented.
Click to expand...

Hello devil

What I mean by template is this. A human can only be a human, and a fish a fish. A shark is one template and a frog is another a virus also has a template. A chicken can be born with an extra foot but this is an anomaly and will not be part of an evolutionary change. The template is just the basic outline of the race or species and it is what everything will remain it can vary a little but not much once each form has become itself. Every time something tries to move out outside the template it will come back into itself to be itself again. You can cross breed things that are similar and get cross genetics but to actually create a new species other then the ones that are on record for this planet will not happen.

Have any of the mutated species retained their shape to become something again and again and something that is completely unique of the thing it mutated from. There is a allowed variance but I believe that each species will eventually come back to the shape it holds within itself or it will become endangered and not become something again till a later time.


The way I have been explained this is you can only become something you can become and only if it is very similar in shape and size and has the same control points.

Powessy
 
Last edited:
Devils' Advocate said:
I don't think I agree that there are no more templates to use in creating new forms of life. Take something as basic as a virus. Like ebola. The ebola virus did not exist in any form that we are aware of before the 1970s. Now it may have existed deep in the jungles for far longer, it is hard to say for sure. What we can say for sure is that it first hit the human population in the '70s. It has then vanished and reappeared several times, the most recent being the most deadly outbreak ever.

There are many more examples of similar things coming into existence that was not there before, most typically thru mutation. Many within the last millennium that have been documented.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be antagonistic, just adding some more to consider...

Aren't viruses pretty much on the fringe as to actually being considered "alive?" I seem to recall in college biology that there is some debate in the field over whether viruses actually are living, more just an inconvenient set of proteins that tend to create havoc. The difficulty seems to be because they can replicate, but they have to use a host to do so...they cannot replicate of themselves outside of a host. So as a more or less random batch of proteins, it is reasonable to expect a considerable amount of variation...however, I'm not quite sure it would qualify as "evolution" as that process is usually defined. Viruses kinda skirt the edges of Abiogenesis...which is unrelated to evolution.

Viruses are not considered "alive" because they lack many of the properties that scientists associate with living organisms. Primarily, they lack the ability to reproduce without the aid of a host cell, and don't use the typical cell- division approach to replication. Essentially, however, this is just how scientists have defined the word. If viruses were classified as living, other types of self-replicating genes, proteins, and molecules would make the list as well.
Click to expand...

ref: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3316
 
Last edited:
Devils' Advocate said:
Joe, it isn't my quote. The definitions came from Dictionary.com. Like Wil, I am confused how you got terrorists out of there. The definition simply states 'strict observance' - it's essentially identical to the Christian definition. Unless you were simply objecting to the concept that fundamentalism in today's world tends to be the label used for religious extremists, and that is not the correct use of the word. If that is what you mean, I agree that the word is being misused in modern societies. You are going to have to take that up with the world's news organizations though!
Click to expand...
I addressed that (or I thought). It wasn't your input that fundamentalism is Terrorism, but rather society in general today. people refer to Al-Queda and the like as Fundamentalists, when they couldn't be further from that. They might have that intention, but they miss a large part of it. same with anyone labelled fundamentalists or even extremists as you called here. the words imply adherence, which terrorists do not. BTW, I agree the 3rd definition should be first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top