Evolution question.

Tao_Equus said:
BB given the archaeological evidence, do you not think that "technological rationalising and advanced" thinking has been around far longer than the average history lesson gives credit? And far longer than the Abrahamic tradition? I find it naive, given the evidence, to think our Victorian history lessons are truly representative.
that's not what i'm saying. i have no problem with technological rationalisation or advanced thinking, nor do i think that the abrahamic traditions were the first to come up with everything, *but* it does not therefore follow that i find all this theosophical mumbo-jumbo remotely credible by those same standards. macchu picchu, the pyramids and stonehenge all exist, they're all very old, older than abraham i dare say, that's all fine. what they do *not* appear to be is evidence that the "real" story is to do with 100000000 year-old "astral" texts or anything else that the equally victorian madam blavatsky suggested.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
No, Q, your effort is to suggest that we may simply change shoes and be equally correct, or that the other viewpoint is equally accurate. Neither of these is the case....
Perception, is accurate, to the perceiver, Andrew. Afterall, we each live in our own little universe, besides living in this very big one.
 
Perception, is accurate, to the perceiver, Andrew. Afterall, we each live in our own little universe, besides living in this very big one.
And in that bigger Universe, planets don't suddenly become humanly habitable in a few thousand years. Not unless they've already spent quite a few billion getting *almost ready* ...

My point is simply that creationism cannot simply be exchanged with teachings on evolution as somehow, even by a stretch, just one other equally viable perspective on things. For you, or anyone, to suggest otherwise, is like saying, "Oh, but I think the sun is really a giant ball of burning marmalade, the moon is made of cheese, and other planets consist of various blends of food from the dinner table."

You may have a right to express your viewpoints, and if you wish, you can post all sorts of science fiction or fantasy. You can insist that the world is flat, but most of us will patiently ask you if you're serious, and if you reply in the affirmative then -- will it be a big surprise if all else you say is taken with a grain of salt?

The reason it is so frustrating to see the argument over a false dichotomy concerning Intelligent Design and Evolution ... is that, for many of us, it is precisely by Intelligent Design thatn Evolution becomes possible in the first place! Yet some of us don't subscribe to the notion of anthropomorphic deities, or to the same notions of soteriology as you do.

A thread on different approaches to human salvation would be different ... because it is entirely rational, reasonable, sensible to accept that via reincarnation, and progressive Spiritual evolution, all souls - eventually & inevitably -- attain their Freedom (Enlightenment, Salvation). For many a Christian, another method entirely -- via one, lone human incarnation, and concerning a necessary relationship to Jesus Christ -- might be advanced as a means of Salvation. The Christian might not accept the other teaching as accurate, just as I do not believe what the Christian does. But this kind of discussion is NOT the same as: "Oh, I think God made the Earth in six, literal days" vs. "No, clearly there is no God, this is all just random coincidence, and btw it took billions of years to JUST HAPPEN."

The error many people make is in not recognizing Creationism for the FLUFF that it is ... to begin with. It is not the faith, or the choice of religious PRACTICE which is being challenged, or which is the mistake. It is the absurd notions which Creationists subscribe to, in lieu of the scientific understanding which is available to human reason ... and whose opposite, or alternative, is simply - ignorance. {Ignorance, meant here as a descriptive term, not a pejorative one.}

For the Creationist to look at the fact, and to recognize and accept that, oh gee, it really did take billions of years for us to evolve to our present conditions ... does not mean that s/he must reject God in the least. It just means that s/he must be willing to THINK about what s/he reads in the Bible ... and as we all know well and good, this is something that a great many people just cannot be troubled to do.
 
do you not think that "technological rationalising and advanced" thinking has been around far longer than the average history lesson gives credit?

I don't know what the average history lesson teaches. Maybe other people got really inaccurate history lessons? Because none of mine taught that technology or philosophy/science were recent innovations.

The evidence is that agriculture arose about 10,000 years ago (we know this from archaeological evidence) and people then were able to accumulate stuff and therefore begin building big stone monuments like Stonehenge and the Pyramids. Before that, there wasn't much like that because there was no way to maintain it, nor were societies large enough to have the organized man-power to build them. I think technology goes back to the first stone tools and "advanced thinking" is a non-useful term. Without definition, such phrases are just so much fluff.

And far longer than the Abrahamic tradition?

Of course.

I find it naive, given the evidence, to think our Victorian history lessons are truly representative.

I don't know about where you're at, but we don't teach history here the same way it was taught in the Victorian era.

As for Theosophy, while I can agree with some of the ethical principles, I find the history they put forth to be without archaeological evidence, and the interpretations of various cultures' beliefs and practices to be based more in independent wishful thinking than real culture studies. I think mysticism is a totally valid way to come to God. I don't think it has much relevance in establishing archaeological facts. I find that most Victorian ideology, whether Theosophic or mainstream, is unsurprisingly behind the times when pitted against modern evidence. We've come a long way in the last 100 years. I see no reason to ignore it.
 
I believe there is an `ignore' feature somewhere here at CR. I am off this very instant to locate it!

Since, however, for some ungodly reason (sic) bb seeems to have moderator status, I will need some kind of intervention to accomplish my goal. Can any one tell me how to IGNORE a member, save when that person is posting in moderator capacity?

I really would be most appreciative, and it would help immensely!

Thank you.

As far as I know, you don't need special intervention.

Click on BB's name. Underneath it on his profile is a gray bar. Click "Add to Ignore List."
 
And in that bigger Universe, planets don't suddenly become humanly habitable in a few thousand years. Not unless they've already spent quite a few billion getting *almost ready* ...

My point is simply that creationism cannot simply be exchanged with teachings on evolution as somehow, even by a stretch, just one other equally viable perspective on things. For you, or anyone, to suggest otherwise, is like saying, "Oh, but I think the sun is really a giant ball of burning marmalade, the moon is made of cheese, and other planets consist of various blends of food from the dinner table."

You may have a right to express your viewpoints, and if you wish, you can post all sorts of science fiction or fantasy. You can insist that the world is flat, but most of us will patiently ask you if you're serious, and if you reply in the affirmative then -- will it be a big surprise if all else you say is taken with a grain of salt?

The reason it is so frustrating to see the argument over a false dichotomy concerning Intelligent Design and Evolution ... is that, for many of us, it is precisely by Intelligent Design thatn Evolution becomes possible in the first place! Yet some of us don't subscribe to the notion of anthropomorphic deities, or to the same notions of soteriology as you do.

A thread on different approaches to human salvation would be different ... because it is entirely rational, reasonable, sensible to accept that via reincarnation, and progressive Spiritual evolution, all souls - eventually & inevitably -- attain their Freedom (Enlightenment, Salvation). For many a Christian, another method entirely -- via one, lone human incarnation, and concerning a necessary relationship to Jesus Christ -- might be advanced as a means of Salvation. The Christian might not accept the other teaching as accurate, just as I do not believe what the Christian does. But this kind of discussion is NOT the same as: "Oh, I think God made the Earth in six, literal days" vs. "No, clearly there is no God, this is all just random coincidence, and btw it took billions of years to JUST HAPPEN."

The error many people make is in not recognizing Creationism for the FLUFF that it is ... to begin with. It is not the faith, or the choice of religious PRACTICE which is being challenged, or which is the mistake. It is the absurd notions which Creationists subscribe to, in lieu of the scientific understanding which is available to human reason ... and whose opposite, or alternative, is simply - ignorance. {Ignorance, meant here as a descriptive term, not a pejorative one.}

For the Creationist to look at the fact, and to recognize and accept that, oh gee, it really did take billions of years for us to evolve to our present conditions ... does not mean that s/he must reject God in the least. It just means that s/he must be willing to THINK about what s/he reads in the Bible ... and as we all know well and good, this is something that a great many people just cannot be troubled to do.
I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist. BioLogos works just fine for me...and that is something I fear you "might" not ever understand. In any event it doesn't matter. Take care.

v/r

Q
 
I don't know what the average history lesson teaches. Maybe other people got really inaccurate history lessons? Because none of mine taught that technology or philosophy/science were recent innovations.

The evidence is that agriculture arose about 10,000 years ago (we know this from archaeological evidence) and people then were able to accumulate stuff and therefore begin building big stone monuments like Stonehenge and the Pyramids. Before that, there wasn't much like that because there was no way to maintain it, nor were societies large enough to have the organized man-power to build them. I think technology goes back to the first stone tools and "advanced thinking" is a non-useful term. Without definition, such phrases are just so much fluff.



Of course.



I don't know about where you're at, but we don't teach history here the same way it was taught in the Victorian era.

As for Theosophy, while I can agree with some of the ethical principles, I find the history they put forth to be without archaeological evidence, and the interpretations of various cultures' beliefs and practices to be based more in independent wishful thinking than real culture studies. I think mysticism is a totally valid way to come to God. I don't think it has much relevance in establishing archaeological facts. I find that most Victorian ideology, whether Theosophic or mainstream, is unsurprisingly behind the times when pitted against modern evidence. We've come a long way in the last 100 years. I see no reason to ignore it.

I am no supporter of Theosophy though I do find some of its claims, albeit exaggerated in its age estimates, to hold tantalising evidence to support at least 1 advanced civilisation prior to the end of the last ice age. I have neither time nor inclination at moment to go into digging them up but sea levels have risen a lot in the past 10,000 years and I think it is natural to assume that back then, as today, most people lived very close to the coast. Certain submarine pictures I have seen if they are genuine show massive structures that were submerged a minimum of 14,000 years, (off Japan, Indo-China and in the Caribbean), ago and if you look at some of the ancient Hindi texts and legends from around the world it is indeed possible they refer to an ancient, pre-industrial but otherwise modern, civilisation. Do not misinterpret that as a belief tho, it is firmly categorised in my "possible" category.


tao
 
As far as I know, you don't need special intervention.

Click on BB's name. Underneath it on his profile is a gray bar. Click "Add to Ignore List."
Nope. Because he is a moderator, the only option provided is Buddy list. Would that this were something I wanted to do.

Perhaps it is a limitation of the software, but it's a poor one. :(
 
I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist. BioLogos works just fine for me...and that is something I fear you "might" not ever understand. In any event it doesn't matter. Take care.

v/r

Q
It's a nice improvement on the dead, cold world that many evolutionists argue, Q ... what I do understand of BioLogos, borrowing the following from Wikipedia, tells me that it's not quite for me:
BioLogos rests on the following premises:
  1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, by the hand of God, approximately 14 billion years ago.
  2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
  3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
  4. Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required.
  5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
  6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
In the first place, I must reject the notion of point one out of hand. Ex nihilo, nihil fit! And what did arise, did so TRILLIONS of years ago, though I realize there is no empirical evidence yet to support this. ;)

The second point I agree with, yet the third should be conditional. Some do know the mechanism ... intimately well!

Point four I agree with in principle, but I do think there have been course corrections all along the way. These, however, are not quite Divine Intervention the way it is usually conceived, as that pretty much makes of God an idiot. :rolleyes:

Theosophy addresses point 5 in greater depth than any other doctrine or theory in existence ... and point 6 is spot on.

Might I never really understand BioLogos? Maybe not. From what I do understand, it seems to be a useful update on 19th Century Darwinian Evolution that is sorely needed. Even the first point -- though I differ on both counts -- is preferable to a 6,000 year old Creationist notion.

I will post, after this, an excerpt from Hindu dating methods (no pun intended here) ... which even in exoteric figuring shows that our Cosmos is trillions of years old, not billions. Where is the empirical evidence for this, people ask? Just be patient. In the same way that modern Western science has finally begun to catch up with the Ancients when it comes to other realizations from astronomy and quantum physics, there will come a time when the Hindu Sacred Science is accepted (more fully) for what it always has been. The matter of the true Age of the Cosmos, in THIS cycle or any cycle, will be put to rest.

Until then, I guess you just won't understand, Q. Will you ... :rolleyes:

sighhh
 
The part of this definition (of `Four') from G. de Purucker's Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary which is most relevant here are the last two paragraphs. Skip to that for the exoteric Hindu account. Please note, this is not Theosophical. The Secret Doctrine is referenced, but not for the Hindu Cosmology ...

Four The square of two, and the second even number, hence feminine in characteristics. It was regarded by the Pythagoreans with especial esteem, for it was the base number of the tetraktys. It corresponds to a solid figure, or a square -- the quaternary although on the spiritual plane, as being the immediate successor of the triad, it became the symbol of immortality, and hence in this sense a perfect number, the ideal root of all subsequent hierarchical numbers on the lower planes including the physical. Thus there is the spiritual four as the mother-type of all productivity, and there was likewise the material four, the ideal root of all numbers on the astral and physical planes. It was called by the Pythagoreans the key-keeper of nature, but it was only so in union with the number three, for then the sum made seven -- the perfect number of nature in our world. The Hermetists had the same idea: four was the symbol of truth when expanded into a cube, for when this cube is unfolded the production is seven. Four is the number "which affords an arithmetical division between unity and seven, as it surpasses the former by the same number (three), as it is itself surpassed by the seven, since four is by as many numbers above one, as seven is above four" (SD 2:582).

The number four is considered feminine on the planes of matter; it is considered to be masculine and energic only on the highest plane of abstraction. When united with three (spirit), "their union is the emblem of life eternal in spirit on its ascending arc, and in matter as the ever resurrecting element -- by procreation and reproduction" (SD 2:592).

In ancient and modern occultism, 3, 4, and 7 are respectively held sacred as symbolizing light, life, and union -- at least during our present manvantara; for the reckoning was somewhat as follows: unity, the One or the monad, was the generating point of spirit, from which flowed forth the first manifested stream of energy or the duad, which became in expressing itself the triad, the carrier and holder of cosmic wisdom and therefore light to our view. These three expressing themselves in the next stage of differentiation clothed themselves in a vehicle, the square or four, which thus became manifested life. Hence, when light and life conjoin in unitary action we have the complete septenary, the significant number of complete monadic being on this plane -- the septenary individual.

Four also appears in the sacred key-numbers 4, 3, 2 (in this sequence): these are the basic numbers used in esoteric computations, and hence they form the numerical structure of the time periods of the four yugas of ancient India, which likewise were prominent in ancient Chaldean calculations -- for the numerical science was the same in both lands. "The sacredness of the cycle of 4320, with additional cyphers, lies in the fact that the figures which compose it, taken separately or joined in various combinations, are each and all symbolical of the greatest mysteries in Nature. Indeed, whether one takes the 4 separately, or the 3 by itself, or the two together making 7, or again the three [4, 3, 2] added together and yielding 9, all these numbers have their application in the most sacred and occult things, and record the workings of Nature in her eternally periodical phenomena. They are never erring, perpetually recurring numbers, unveiling, to him who studies the secrets of Nature, a truly divine System, an intelligent plan in Cosmogony, which results in natural cosmic divisions of times, seasons, invisible influences, astronomical phenomena, with their action and reaction on terrestrial and even moral nature; on birth, death, and growth, on health and disease. All these natural events are based and depend upon cyclical processes in the Kosmos itself, producing periodic agencies which, acting from without, affect the Earth and all that lives and breathes on it, from one end to the other of any Manvantara. Causes and effects are esoteric, exoteric, and endexoteric, so to say" (SD 2:73-4).

As instances of the recurring of the sequence 4, 3, 2: the addition of 3 ciphers produces the length of the kali yuga, 432, 000 years; with 4 ciphers, the total of the four yugas or one mahayuga, 4,320,000 years; with 7 ciphers, the period of 14 Manus or 1,000 mahayugas, which is one Day of Brahma or a period of 4,320,000,000 years. When this latter figure is multiplied by two, in order to add the period of a Night of Brahma, and then multiplied by one year of Brahma (which is equivalent to 360 such days and nights) we have the basic figure of Brahma's Life (which consists of 100 years). When 4320 is halved the result is 2160, which multiplied by 12 is the number of years in one turning of the precessional cycle; again 2160 is the period of the so-called Messianic cycle.
If you do the math you will see, that a lifetime of Brahma, or period of Cosmic manifestation is 311,040,000,000,000 - or 311 trillion, years. Thus our Cosmos, if it is even approaching the halfway mark, would have to be more than 150 trillion years. Again, empirical science will one day accept this as fact. Hopefully we won't have to wait that long, and quibbling over it seems trivial ... yet there is such doom and gloom over how the universe will supposedly end, and a ridiculous worry that somehow - even if it were just a few million or billion years from now - this should give us cause for concern? Good grief.

The real question that should be asked, by the open-minded investigator, whatever his religious, scientific or philosophical leanings ... is - How did the ancient Hindus arrives at such figures, 10s of thousands of years ago? Part of that answer is already provided, above. But I like to think we can take it a bit deeper ... :)

Namaskar
 
I will post, after this, an excerpt from Hindu dating methods (no pun intended here) ... which even in exoteric figuring shows that our Cosmos is trillions of years old, not billions. Where is the empirical evidence for this, people ask? Just be patient. In the same way that modern Western science has finally begun to catch up with the Ancients when it comes to other realizations from astronomy and quantum physics, there will come a time when the Hindu Sacred Science is accepted (more fully) for what it always has been. The matter of the true Age of the Cosmos, in THIS cycle or any cycle, will be put to rest.
But Andrew, surely a rational mind would acknowledge the futility in duelling sacred texts? "Sacred Science" is a misleading term when used in the context you imply, in that even the Bible, Koran and other sacred texts can as easily be shown to contain "Sacred Science."

Sacred Science is not Science. Without proof, a scientifically reasoning mind must accept that a Sacred Hindu claim of trillions of years is metaphorical...every bit as much as a 7 day Genesis. ;)
 
But Andrew, surely a rational mind would acknowledge the futility in duelling sacred texts? "Sacred Science" is a misleading term when used in the context you imply, in that even the Bible, Koran and other sacred texts can as easily be shown to contain "Sacred Science."

Sacred Science is not Science. Without proof, a scientifically reasoning mind must accept that a Sacred Hindu claim of trillions of years is metaphorical...every bit as much as a 7 day Genesis. ;)
Umm, no. Sacred Science is different than what most of think of as conventional science ... just as mysticism, esotericism or occultism is quite different than conventional, exoteric religion. The Hindus call this Sacred Science `Brahma Vidya,' or `Gupta Vidya.' This means divine knowledge, secret knowledge or secret wisdom. As such, it most certainly differs from what our eyes and ears tell us ... when unaided by our higher, spiritual faculties. And just as any literate person can read the Bible, only those who are in tune with their own higher faculties can rightly interpret what is contained on the pages therein. If I may quote St. Paul in his current incarnation:
"As I have told you before, the New Testament holds in its pages all the knowledge of the universe. All the diffuse philosphical literature of the ages that preceded the Christian era was preparatory. The New Testament synthesizes it all, but it has been so misunderstood and misinterpreted that we deemed it best to go back to the older philosophies, that they might explain the New Testament."
You are the one who has drawn the sword here, Juan. This does not surprise me. If you wish, we can look to the New Testament for the symbolism which tells us how Cosmos proceeds ... but the key text in question, Revelation, fits the Master's description to the T!

In the last analysis, the Sacred Science is not just another text, or even another approach, or method of intellectual understanding. It is an entire Way of Life, and as mentioned elsewhere it consists of both the lesser and the Greater Mysteries. These, while certainly they point both toward the Stars (or Heavens) ... and also toward the `interior' of things (hence `occult' or esoteric) ... begin with the very simplest of questions -- Who am I? Why am I here? How did I get here? Where am I going, and how do I get there? -- yet in pursuing the answers we find that question after question presents itself. It's nice to pretend that we have all the answers, locked carefully away in our God-box (another thread seems to be addressing this these days) ... but this isn't fooling anyone except perhaps ourselves.

I don't expect you to become a Hindu. Why should you? But when you brush aside what doesn't fit your preconceptions, or what isn't assigned reading by your priest/reverend/rabbi/imam ... you're only hurting yourself, my friend. Try looking for Truth wherever it might be found, and not just where the bright shiny wrapper has a nicely embossed seal of gold telling you, `HERE lies Truth!' For you see, in my experience, those who shout the loudest, often have the least to say. You can rattle your sabre at me all you like. Mine is sheathed, and the only reason I will draw it is to put it to the same use as the Teacher (and Bodhisattva) Manjushri does. Now do your homework, and tell me what that means.

Namaskar
 
Oh and, since you insist, Juan, here is the parallel. Your Seven Days of Creation are part and parcel of Hindu exoteric teaching. See below, for another definition (I stumbled across it truly serendipitously as I was looking up Brahma Vidya for you just now):
Brahma's Day, Night, Age, Year, Life A Day of Brahma, a cosmic manvantara or out-breathing of Brahma, represents a period where worlds are evolved and pass through their allotted ages of manvantaric existence. Each Day of Brahma consists of 1,000 aggregates of four yugas or 1,000 mahayugas (great ages). In a smaller sense it is also a mahamanvantara or kalpa of a planetary chain, composed of seven rounds, a period of 4,320,000,000 terrestrial years. A Night of Brahma, a cosmic pralaya, inbreathing of Brahma, or planetary paranirvana, is of equal length.

Seven Days of Brahma or seven planetary cycles make one solar kalpa. One Year of Brahma consists of 360 Divine Days and Nights, each Day of which is the duration of the imbodiment of a planetary chain, with Nights of equal length.

The Life of Brahma or of the solar system consists of 100 Divine Years (311,040,000,000,000 terrestrial years). The current Life of Brahma is about half completed -- a period of about 155,520,000,000,000 of our years having passed away since our solar system first began its mahamanvantara. There remain, therefore, fifty more Years of Brahma before the system sinks into cosmic pralaya. As only half the grand evolutionary period is accomplished, we are at the bottom of the cosmic cycle, i.e., on the lowest plane. See also FOUR
 
Whatever, Andrew.

I refuse to argue with you.
Well good. It just disappoints me that you really don't care ... to learn, to understand, or to broaden your own horizons. You have but one real goal on this thread, but you won't accomplish that with me. :)
 
Sacred Science is not Science.

Umm, no. Sacred Science is different than what most of think of as conventional science
What do you mean "umm, no." You just said the same thing, and then go on to prove to me that I am wrong. OK, whatever.

The only sword pulled was by you. I reached out, and you snap at me. Why should I bother?

You know it all anyway, what can you possibly hope to gain arguing with me? Making me look like a fool? What do I need you for to do that? I do that just fine on my own, thanks.
 
What do you mean "umm, no." You just said the same thing, and then go on to prove to me that I am wrong. OK, whatever.

The only sword pulled was by you. I reached out, and you snap at me. Why should I bother?

You know it all anyway, what can you possibly hope to gain arguing with me? Making me look like a fool? What do I need you for to do that? I do that just fine on my own, thanks.
Juan, your hostility won't help now, with me, any more than with other posters ...

If your point was simply that empirical, western science does not yet accept what it cannot verify through carbon dating, then -- of course, that has already been pointed out.

What I tried to do was show that there is an inner side to science, just as to religion(s). The foolishness we get by literally interpreting Genesis is no different than the foolishness of taking the Hindu Puranas as literal history.
The Puranic myths with their genealogies of the seven prajapatis, rishis, or manus are "but a vast detailed account of the progressive development and evolution of animal creation, one species after the other" (SD 2:253).

"The whole personnel of the Brahmanas and Puranas -- the Rishis, Prajapatis, Manus, their wives and progeny -- belong to that pre-human period. All these are the Seed of Humanity, so to speak. It is around these 'Sons of God,' the 'Mind born' astral children of Brahma, that our physical frames have grown and developed to what they are now. For, the Puranic histories of all those men are those of our Monads, in their various and numberless incarnations on this and other spheres, events perceived by the 'Siva eye' of the ancient Seers, (the 'third eye' of our Stanzas) and described allegorically. Later on, they were disfigured for Sectarian purposes; mutilated, but still left with a considerable ground-work of truth in them. Nor is the philosophy less profound in such allegories for being so thickly veiled by the overgrowth of fancy" (SD 2:284).​
 
You are reading hostility where there is absolutely none.

That's the problem, and why I don't wish to have this discussion.
 
Nope. Because he is a moderator, the only option provided is Buddy list. Would that this were something I wanted to do.

Perhaps it is a limitation of the software, but it's a poor one. :(

Sorry- I would suggest emailing or PM'ing I, Brian (the administrator) and asking if anything can be done?
 
Back
Top