Creation vs. Evolution..........

[james777]

There is a topic that I've wanted to debate for quite some time and I suppose this is the best time to display it, even though it will probally, yet again, end up in the rant room.

Creation or Evolution. Intelligent Design or Big Bang. God or Chance. Dust to Man or Soup to Man. Where did we actually come from? What evidence supports 'Intelligent Design' and what supports 'Chance'? Did an alien reptilian race really plant us here by modifying our DNA or have we actually been lied to for centuries by the same opposing forces that oppose(d) God the Creator?

I for one believe whole heartedly in 'Intelligent Design'. There are far too many factors that go together on this planet that supports our life here that point toward 'ID' rather than believing in mere chance.

Darwin himself before he died admitted that his early theories had been wrong, so why do people still use his name and his original models of evolution when speaking about this subject.

Looking at nature and how things operate and just humans alone prove to me 'ID'. I think it's ridiculously impossible that some rocks struck together and by chance we've evolved from soup to human......I don't know, that sounds really ridiculous to me. I think science is a 'LIE'. I think it's used to push the 'NWO'/'Illuminati'/'Luciferian' agenda.

[tinmenace]

There is a topic that I've wanted to debate for quite some time and I suppose this is the best time to display it, even though it will probally, yet again, end up in the rant room.

Creation or Evolution. Intelligent Design or Big Bang. God or Chance. Dust to Man or Soup to Man. Where did we actually come from? What evidence supports 'Intelligent Design' and what supports 'Chance'? Did an alien reptilian race really plant us here by modifying our DNA or have we actually been lied to for centuries by the same opposing forces that oppose(d) God the Creator?

I for one believe whole heartedly in 'Intelligent Design'. There are far too many factors that go together on this planet that supports our life here that point toward 'ID' rather than believing in mere chance.

Darwin himself before he died admitted that his early theories had been wrong, so why do people still use his name and his original models of evolution when speaking about this subject.

Looking at nature and how things operate and just humans alone prove to me 'ID'. I think it's ridiculously impossible that some rocks struck together and by chance we've evolved from soup to human......I don't know, that sounds really ridiculous to me. I think science is a 'LIE'. I think it's used to push the 'NWO'/'Illuminati'/'Luciferian' agenda.

Wholeheartedly in intelligent design? Does that mean that you don't believe at all in Alien genetic engineering?

[james777]

Wholeheartedly in intelligent design? Does that mean that you don't believe at all in Alien genetic engineering?

No, but it means I don't believe in 'alien reptilian races' that modified our DNA in order to control and enslave us. I suppose that you could look at God as 'Alien', but then again so are we(humans), He even said we are 'in' this world but 'not of it'.........

So do you believe in creation or evolution and why?

[tinmenace]

No, but it means I don't believe in 'alien reptilian races' that modified our DNA in order to control and enslave us. I suppose that you could look at God as 'Alien', but then again so are we(humans), He even said we are 'in' this world but 'not of it'.........

So do you believe in creation or evolution and why?



Ok, so you don't believe the aliens created us to enslave us. But do you believe they had anything to do with our current form at all? Or not really?


What do I believe? I'm still on a path of discovery, but I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in the Adam and Eve theory, because I cannot see how Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel populated the planet without corrupting the DNA.

[james777]

Ok, so you don't believe the aliens created us to enslave us. But do you believe they had anything to do with our current form at all? Or not really?


What do I believe? I'm still on a path of discovery, but I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in the Adam and Eve theory, because I cannot see how Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel populated the planet without corrupting the DNA.






I believe we are created in the image of the creator. Whether that means spiritually or physically or both is up for debate.

I understand your reluctance to believe in the way the world was populated, but (1) God could have also created other people. Simply look what happened to Cain after he killed Abel, he fled to another region and their were people there....where did they come from? I doubt they were relatives and (2) If the original man was made in perfection with no flaw and was designed to populate the planet, then how could he have corrupted the DNA? Do you think that this is impossible?

I'm glad to see that you're actually debating here and not trolling.....it shows your genuine side....thanks

[barbitone]

I don't believe in either. Not as a theorem of origin...... I think the Bible is describing the intervention of beings that wish to be thought of as Gods. The theory of evolution is certainly flawed, take for instance "the missing link". More like a major hole in the theory if you ask me.....

Both are evidence of manipulation of history books to serve an agenda.....

[klinker]

Expand your horizons beyond the so called 'good book' then apply some good old fashioned logic and common sense. I did many years ago and the world makes a great deal more sense to me now.

[Anders Lindman]

Ken Wilber is a clever guy. He describes how evolution has an emergent property that cannot be explained by only random mutations.

Take a single cell for example. No amount of randomly shuffling around atoms and molecules would create a cell unless the atoms and the molecules have the intrinsic property of being able to form a living cell. So even the simple atoms cannot really be simple at all.

Another limitation with Darwinian evolution is that they take the context for granted. That's like saying that the word 'bird' is obvious, but it only looks that way because we look at it within the background of an extraordinary complex context. The whole context of the universe cannot be explained by random mutations and simple deterministic and linear physical laws. The context is what makes the random mutations possible in the first place. So even if Darwinian evolution is a correct model, it is an incomplete and overly simplified model.

[tinmenace]

I believe we are created in the image of the creator. Whether that means spiritually or physically or both is up for debate.

I understand your reluctance to believe in the way the world was populated, but (1) God could have also created other people. Simply look what happened to Cain after he killed Abel, he fled to another region and their were people there....where did they come from? I doubt they were relatives and (2) If the original man was made in perfection with no flaw and was designed to populate the planet, then how could he have corrupted the DNA? Do you think that this is impossible?

I'm glad to see that you're actually debating here and not trolling.....it shows your genuine side....thanks

But see, that's what I can't get my mind wrapped around. The other people that Cain came across when he fled - were they all perfect humans also, all full grown, able to communicate and socialize? Were they programmed with the knowledge to procreate and nurture their offspring...to grow and harvest food...to build structures for shelter? Was it like a ready-made society, all preprogrammed with the necessary information to survive? If they weren't "perfect" like Adam was, does this make Adam god-like? See, it's these kinds of things that I can't wrap mind around. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in order for me to fully understand creationism, I have to grasp these details. I have not yet met one person that can adequately explain this info.

[klinker]

in order for me to fully understand creationism, I have to grasp these details. I have not yet met one person that can adequately explain this info.

It's because they cannot explain it Tin.

[tinmenace]

It's because they cannot explain it Tin.

I know it, bud.

[james777]

But see, that's what I can't get my mind wrapped around. The other people that Cain came across when he fled - were they all perfect humans also, all full grown, able to communicate and socialize? Were they programmed with the knowledge to procreate and nurture their offspring...to grow and harvest food...to build structures for shelter? Was it like a ready-made society, all preprogrammed with the necessary information to survive? If they weren't "perfect" like Adam was, does this make Adam god-like? See, it's these kinds of things that I can't wrap mind around. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but in order for me to fully understand creationism, I have to grasp these details. I have not yet met one person that can adequately explain this info.

I think it's safe to assume that man is made in the image of God the creator, so every man was created in the likeness of God. It doesn't go into great detail about the people that Cain found, but to me, logically, they were all created equal. Also, the 'fallen angels' were on the earth in those days and they were breeding with man and giving man great knowledge from beyond. It was their plan from the beginning to ruin the creation of man and to pollute his mind and to divide us against each other and our creator.

Remember man used to live nearly a thousand years back then, so all of these ancient texts and writings that date back prior to the bible doesn't mean that they all weren't living in the same time period. The date it was written and the date is was actually happening is two different things.......

Another point of reference is in the 'original Greek' translation. The first verse of Genisis actually reads......'In the beginning God re-created the heavens and the earth'........so the argument of dinosaurs living with men and them being billions or millions of years old is a whole other story....

[tinmenace]

I think it's safe to assume that man is made in the image of God the creator, so every man was created in the likeness of God. It doesn't go into great detail about the people that Cain found, but to me, logically, they were all created equal. Also, the 'fallen angels' were on the earth in those days and they were breeding with man and giving man great knowledge from beyond. It was their plan from the beginning to ruin the creation of man and to pollute his mind and to divide us against each other and our creator.

Remember man used to live nearly a thousand years back then, so all of these ancient texts and writings that date back prior to the bible doesn't mean that they all weren't living in the same time period. The date it was written and the date is was actually happening is two different things.......

Another point of reference is in the 'original Greek' translation. The first verse of Genisis actually reads......'In the beginning God re-created the heavens and the earth'........so the argument of dinosaurs living with men and them being billions or millions of years old is a whole other story....

Well there's more than one way to look at it all. I guess it just depends what resonates for a person, and what doesn't.

For me, I'd want to know what changed in people's genetics that they don't live a thousand years now anymore. Even 500, or 200 years. What changed? See, these are the things that are the thorns in my mind.

[cheeb]

Evolution,
flippin heck mate this is the 21st century now,
not the dark ages,
logic and reason has overtaken,
fear and superstition,

At what point did you not do biology in your education,
Or did they miss out science for ju ju in the caribbean...

Hello!

[john white]

Evolution,
flippin heck mate this is the 21st century now,
not the dark ages,
logic and reason has overtaken,
fear and superstition,

At what point did you not do biology in your education,
Or did they miss out science for ju ju in the caribbean...

Hello!

Be careful what you believe out of an illumie system textbook cheeb

"Evolution" is a theory based on drawing dots between the outcomes, not the causes

Whereas biblical creationism is, at best, symbolic truth for simpler people: any genuine understanding of genesis shows that it is a tale of the re-population of the earth, not the creation of man

"intelligent Design" points to some interesting answers: but in itself is trapped in a limited level of understanding

Ultimately, if our understanding of life, how it is, and why it is, does not include consciousness, its not there yet

[tinmenace]

Evolution,
flippin heck mate this is the 21st century now,
not the dark ages,
logic and reason has overtaken,
fear and superstition,

At what point did you not do biology in your education,
Or did they miss out science for ju ju in the caribbean...

Hello!

Evolved? Oh ok,

Well, since I missed that part in biology class, maybe you could explain to me how our genetics have EVOLVED to result in decreased lifespan?

[cheeb]

Evolved? Oh ok,

Well, since I missed that part in biology class, maybe you could explain to me how our genetics have EVOLVED to result in decreased lifespan?



Increased lifespan,
Infant mortality has decreased,
At least in the industrialised nations,
adult mortality has increased from 40+ in1900s
to a more reasonable 75+,
in the present era,
Life extension
ever heard of it.
SMIILE'

John textbooks are now more full of superstition than what they were in the dark ages,
#
consciousness is a necessity of altruism,
and vice a versa.

POe
PttP

[james777]

Well there's more than one way to look at it all. I guess it just depends what resonates for a person, and what doesn't.

For me, I'd want to know what changed in people's genetics that they don't live a thousand years now anymore. Even 500, or 200 years. What changed? See, these are the things that are the thorns in my mind.

Well, genetics have changed and life span has shortened for a couple reasons in my estimation. I believe that throughout time man has poisoned his body by foods we eat, drinks we drink, drugs we take, chemicals we put in our bodies and atmosphere......ect......Over time we have broken down our bodies life span due to consumption of these types of things......and I believe that, nowadays anyways, we are programmed from a very young age to even believe in something called 'life span'. If we were told that the life span was 200 years, I'm sure we'd see people hitting that milestone......

Our minds are our ultimate tool of power, so whatever we believe will have serious manifestations physically, spiritually....ect.....we were never created to die, but when man sinned one of the set-backs was that our physical body no longer would live forever.....so in essence, SIN is the reason that we die, it's just an unbreakable generational curse.....see how clever 'lucifer' is.....

[Anders Lindman]

Evolution,
flippin heck mate this is the 21st century now,
not the dark ages,
logic and reason has overtaken,
fear and superstition,

At what point did you not do biology in your education,
Or did they miss out science for ju ju in the caribbean...

Hello!

Yes, I think we need to stick to science. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific models.

But we need a more comprehensive understanding of evolution. Here is a book called "Evolution in Four Dimensions, subtitle: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life":

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10470

[Anders Lindman]

Spirituality is needed to push science which only deals with measurable things.

[somewarez]

Increased lifespan,
Infant mortality has decreased,
At least in the industrialised nations,
adult mortality has increased from 40+ in1900s
to a more reasonable 75+,
in the present era,
Life extension
ever heard of it.
SMIILE'

Cheeb, I think you missed the point of de-volve and evolve What Tim was trying to say was WHY in the bible did man live for 900 years, and why have we devolved to live for approx 70-90years... If you miss what i mean its Methusla lived for 900 years (dont quote cos thats just taken from the song, its too late for me to dig the bible out and get the exact)

But tbh I am more apt to go with Micheal Tsarion's views upon this.

The more I have studied the bible the less i believe it, although as a child I was taught it was the ONLY truth. I am not saying its all lies I am just questioning it as I feel everything we're told is *TRUE* should be questioned, and really if you cant get that then what are you doing on this forum.

James777 I'd say just go with what you think is right, research it and try to post good reasons for your belief. I doubt many people will accept on this forum *just cos the bible says therefore it is* but thats only my view. Prove me wrong or right, speculation is good but I think theory for living 900 years needs more backup than just a text written for the control of humanity.

Fair enough if the Methulas's lived for over 900 years, so did the vikings and other races/cultures.... That might be worth consideration? (ie if that sentance needs further explanation.. Methusla may not have been 1 person but a society of people?)

Tim as you say drugs and food will have played a part upon A:- us living shorter lives or B:- us living longer lives.. its something we will never fully know. OFC drugs will shorten our lives if we do them to an extent that is bad, but I doubt our forefarthers did that. But your talking about at least a 90% decrease in our lifespan... That is drastic! Its either people not of this world, or just a race called Methuslas


Ahh well we may never know, there is little data to show either way. Just proposing a few ideas that well aint backed up by any science or history but discussion helps :)

Takecare

Warez

[cheeb]

Are you just making it up as you go along or what?.
Ideas that ain,t backed up by anything,
Thats for children.
I am on this forum,
Because I read a book called
The Robots Rebellion,
And
Alice in wonderland and the world trade centres diasaster,
Facts not fallacy,
I am an atheist,but at least i look up biblical myths:

So the days of Methuselah were 969years and he died.
genesis5.27

What a lot of unfounded nonsence you spout as facts.

Do some research.

Dont bullshit me.

Oh and sorry mate,welcome to the forum,
I hope you enjoy it as much as i do.
It can be a bit of a steep learning curve,
but there are some very decent people on here,
Whether you go along with them or not.

POe

PttB

[fccool]

I've thought so many times and spoke to many people about this subject, and the conclusion that I came up with is that people believe whatever they have been brought up to believe generally. Some false logical arguments from both sides are.

1) Evolution - Grow up this is a proven fact. Thousands of flies can not be wrong. The schools teach it as scientific fact. It has been proven so you are an idiot to believe otherwise. I don't even need to provide proof of how DNA, which is information embedded in matter and is needed to perpetuate life, can come into existance by pure chance.

2) Creationism - We have a solid proof that God exists and we know that because Bible tells so and because evolution seems to be wrong. We are going to use sience and its limited 5 sence instruments to prove that something exists on spiritual level.

3) Alien Interventionism - well we don't believe in evolution because it clearly can not be proven, and we don't believe in God as an alternative view, so the other alternative is that Aliens came and planted us here. We are going to disregard the fact that Aliens have to be originated somewhere to do that, and that by pushing this theory we can't really explain anything but are back to square one.

4) Newly pushed multiverse evolution - Well the chances of evolution happening in one world are pretty slim, but you see the Universe is a multidimentional multiverse. There are billions exist on each level, so there is a chance that in one of those billions of multiverses something will click and keep on clicking till we get to where we are... i.e. from the first amino acids forming by chance and magically becoming alive to something as complex as human brain and all of the perifial organs that it is connected to and is controling.

5) New Ageism and other forms of it - you see everything that exists does not exist at all, and we know that it does not because it can't exist. The new theories of quantum mechanics prove it to be so :). We don't like the idea of God becuase religion is screwed up and has been misused and is used to enslave people, so we'll push a new theory. You see, everything that exists ... exists only in your mind. We are in fact Gods because we are a part of one big conciousness that chosen break itself into billions of little pieces that you and I are so we are really one big mind with Multiple Personality syndrome. So we in fact are all dreaming that Universe exists, and it does so only within our minds. Maya if you will.


I'm not limiting to five, but these are five major theories that explain existance. I hope you've picked up one common logical follacy... they try to explain things out of this world by means of things of this world.

The truth is that we are all in the same boat no matter who you are. You are born without your consent and you die without your consent (unless you are Curt Cobain). We are all locked by 5 sences and yet there is a single substaintial proof of clairvoyance and contacting things that are out of this world... I personally have not seen a deamon, or God. I have not seen a ghost, and nobody precicely foretold the Specifics of my future. I guess I can make a safe assumption that we are in the same boat in reguards to these. The truth is ... we simply don't know for sure. We can't know for sure in this body. Your pastor probably never seen God or Jesus face to face, your highschool teacher never seen matter combine into a living cell and form DNA, your Alien Origin phylosopher probably never seen an alien being and took enough evidence with him for us to see. We simply don't know. Whatever we believe we except as is with very little or no evidence at all.
We fear death because we don't know what happens next. We don't know how our mind works, we don't know the inner mechanics of the universe. If we put together a book of what we don't know for sure... what we know will amount to one character (and yes I don't know that either :)). We except EVERYTHING by faith. No matter how intelligent you are, you as I if you dig deeper will come to same conclusion.

Now that brings me to a very important of realization of what "truth" is. If truth exists, it can not be relative. The statement "There is no absolute truth" is paradoxical at best ( i.e. "This statement is false" type of paradox). If truth is absolute, then it is self evident i.e. you do not need to prove that it exists. Now... get ready for this .... ready :)?

Human beings are not equipped to percept self evident absolute truth. What we have is educated guesses at best. We are all living in the realm of time and space, and we are locked to it (speaking for myself... but if you have visited another dimention, or travelled back in time... please let me know). So, the best you can do it to make up some reason to our existance based on what you learn as you go forward in time and space. So, I do appreciate your approach John White, as you seem to grasp what I'm saying here.:D I.e. "Nobody can be told what the Matrix is - you have to see it for yourself"... same with absolute truth.

Now, I'm not saying that you can not trust accumulated knowledge, because that's how we seem to be learning the major things... second hand. I'm saying that knowledge and absolute truths are two different things. So what you know if irrelevent, what is relevent is what you believe... because your beliefs form a worldview, and you act based on your core beliefs. Now, let me see how each of the above descrived beliefs relates to me... and you will realize why I choose to believe what I do.

1) Evolution - our lives are a big cosmic fluke. We are a big accident with no purpose and the chance governs the world. I used to believe Evolution is undeniably true and argued arduously for it. If evolution is in fact true then the fittest will survive. The only moral right is what is right for me. If it means to killing off others, then so be it. If it means to live in hurds for our protection... so be it. The only moral code is that of survival, whether it is a symbiotic or individual... it is survival. I don't see such words as "love" or "emotion" in evolution texbooks. We are just well oiled self built machines that just keep on going until finally break down. And after that... there is nothing. That's what I've learned by reading HS textbooks.

2) Creationism - God always exised and is only reality, and he created our world as we paint convas or as we doing something creative. He is a creative being and seems to enjoy creating. So he created us in His image - "with creative and indipendent mind pattern... and our greatest ability - ability to chose" just because He wanted to. Along with us he created other beings who did not like the "painting" and the way it was originally painted... so they pretty much said - " Screw you... and your ways, because we know what's best and we don't like the way you run things.. you are selfish for creating us the way we are". So He locked these beings with us to show that their way will only lead to ultimate destruction of everything. The being take control over planet and human kind by deception (Adam and Eve story) and rule the planet through Hirerarchial order tryng to prove God wrong and show us that he is not really loving at all. God leave up to us to decide weather we believe what beings tell us and how things ought to be, or believe Him. He appears on earth in human from and lives with us for knowing that he will be hated in this deceived world and eventually be "killed" (rejected by many), but also shows the way that things were meant to be in the beginning and the way we can live a sustainable life without eventually self destructing. If he simply screamed out of the sky ... "Follow me, or die"... he would prove the rebellious beings that they were right and that He does not trully love us. The beings seem to push forward this view about him since the begining... twisting the original meaning of the words. So when people think about God today... they think about "follow me, or die!" God, instead of "Listen to me, or you will self destruct!" God. Both statements are correct, but the first one is the twisted original... eventually he will come back just before the world self destructs, as learning by experience can only go so far. As we've learned from experience and our minds are cleared of deception... he will terminate the rebellious being that were decieving us, so we can live free with knowledge of the consequences of our actions. So the result of this worldview is respect for the Creator, and his work... and a path on unlearning the ways that has been set up and brainwashed into us by rebellious beings. So the original goal is to enjoy the creating that was created for and use precotionary guidlines as a manual. That's what I got by reading the Bible.


3) Alien interventionism .. a ticky one because it gets mixed into #4 to give purpose to the theory... - we are merely a slaves of the race that created us for control and slavery... and is more powerful and posesses far greated technological power than we do. If they really wanted to, they could clone an army of thoughtless robots, but for some reason they want intelligent ones to subdue, simply because they are "evil" (in evolutionary sence... just trying to survive by natural selection). The way they choose to run the world is by controlling the blood offsprings of theirs in human form. We know that they exist, because of the paintings on the walls, and UFO crashes and sightings... which are "NOT" any hidden human technology, but alien... simply because it surpasses what we see on the streets today. So, by learning this ... you are in fact a character from "THEY LIVE" and your goal eventually wait for 2012... because that's when everybody magically transform to a new level and we will see the deception. So these beings try to suppress knowledge before we awaken from the deception. So my goal is to fight by telling everybody about their plans, which are hidden.

4) The New Age - this is a tricky one as it gets mixed in into everything and anything. At some level you are being told that the theory can not be explained... and just is. We are but fragmented mind and our goal is to defragment by connecting to our source. There is no real way of doing it, but be seeking hidden knowledge of shamanism or/and astral projection... reconnecting with your true spiritual self. And that seems to be the goal... is to reconnect with your spiritual self by ways of "meditation" in sence of clearing your mind and let your subcontious mind take over. The theory is being mixed and matched with all of the above in endless variations.

5) See #1 :)



So from the above what I know is irrelevant because most knowledge is relative and subjective. What I believe is highly relevant. You beliefs may coincide with the truth is you find it to be such. I choose to belive #2, because it makes more sence to me. No matter what you believe in the above... you probably will still live in the city and go through the mindless routines of life... pay your taxes.... use money and banks ....educate your children based on what you seem the world to be.... go to work everyday and do essencially meaningless things. Beliefs without meaning are irrelevant. Just like Morpheus in Matrix... I simply could not see things any other way right now. I would be disapointed if they are... but in essence I would not be if these are true. Just like in Matrix... the only way to knowing what Matrix is ... is by getting out of it. You and I can not until we die or something else extraordinary happens. It does not matter what you believe... you can't walk through solid walls and jump out of the airplane to land on concrete. So... with that being said... pick you beliefs with consequences in mind.

[bigus_dickus]

creation and evolution can not be separate processes and they probably describe the same process from different points of view.

and this is because we as human forms, require an environment that can produce these forms, that has to be diverse and balanced at the same time.

both theories imply that everything had a single starting point before which nothing existed. as a matter of fact, nobody is able to explain anything about what exactly that starting point is and how it came into being.

creation must assume that out of nothingness or chaos, an intelligence came into being from which everything emanated. evolution must assume that out of nothingness or chaos, a single point containing everything that exists somehow exploded and after many combinations finally resulted to the emergence of the life phenomenon as we understand it on a small insignificant planet and possibly on many more as well.

the result in both theories, is the emergence of us humans on this planet or these planets that can produce an environment capable to host human life forms. only from this point, which is the finale of both theories as we know them, we can imagine our story going backwards in time. through our own intelligence we can imagine that everything is subject to an intelligent design or an intelligent action of trial and error. the trial and error action of the evolution theory, can only derive from an intelligence that has the capability of choice or preference, hence the "natural selection". or maybe, we are only here to observe it, because we are lucky enough to have emerged from a field of possibility, in which the possibility of life exists, therefore manages to survive eternally, as a single possibility of existence.

meantime, what we call natural and supernatural, seen and unseen, real and unreal, macrocosm and microcosm, low and high, body and soul, man and spirit, is a matter of perception of scale. therefore the whole universe exists as a single process, meaning that nature can't exist separately from super-nature, or vice versa, but one is interwoven within each other. this can also mean that there is no supernatural as we believe stuff that we don't understand to be, but everything can be considered as nature as a single field of action, or as a single living being.

there are many reasons to believe that an immense intelligent force has a word or a dream about everything, especially if we really try to explain how certain features of living beings on our planet came into being, such as eyes and feathers. these have always been unexplained mysteries for us supposedly intelligent humans, along with thousands of others. we are really swimmers in a sea of ignorance in our part of the story so far. if only we admitted this and gained a little more perspective, we would possibly find out that we are like the fruits on a tree.

if we see the known universe and in a lower scale our planet as a tree, we can imagine our lives as the fruits of it. the fruits hang from the tree, like the edges of a fractal, they don't resemble their mother tree at all in appearance, but they are built in its image, their life depends on their environment, they carry the seed of the next trees and determine the quality of those next trees. the existence of a tree, is an infinite process, meaning that it can't be determined what is born first, the seed or the tree. one can't exist without the other, like a human sperm and a human egg can't exist without a man and a woman. the spermatozoon's life, is a life with a mission to build a universe. maybe that's our mission too, especially for those that decide and become qualified to do it.

maybe we do build a universe. each one of us is building a new universe and inhabits it each moment. we have been seeds and eggs, now we carry seeds and eggs. we die and new ones carry on, what we do is add a layer on a vast fractal called humanity according to our personal and natural selection. what ever we want to call reality, the universe, god, energy, chaos, possibility, desire and intent, we are it too and so is everything in the world. we all share the same 'self' and that self is what we call consciousness, that we believe that exists beyond thought and form.

or maybe thought and form are actually builders of consciousness and they are not the result of consciousness, but the cause. this is not the case, in fact what we call thought, form and consciousness can't exist separately from each other as well. so our problem here really seems to be what came first. it's to hard to view this as a singularity, because the human mind is trained to work focused at one direction at a time, so we believe that time exists and goes forward, thus evolution and god get to be stories that make sense, that have beginning, middle and possible endings.

w can start thinking something new for a change. time is unreal, it exists, but not as we know it. it has no default direction, it goes back and forth, beginning to end and back, everything is happening at the same single moment, it's a matter of scale perception as well. the future is also the past and both take their shape in the present. this is maybe the hardest part for a human to imagine. you can't convince anyone with something like this, because it is really a matter of perception and imagination. talking about it, is simply arriving following a stream of thought, there is no way i can explain that the beginning is also the end and that you are the alpha and the omega which makes everything else appear as illusion.

and maybe life is not exactly how we think it is. most of the forms of life that exist on this planet, we cannot perceive them, especially what is much smaller or much bigger than we can observe even with our technology. i personally don't see any reason to say that intelligent life doesn't exist on the planets of our solar system that we can observe, just because we can't observe something that resembles what we assume intelligent life to be.

[john white]

both theories imply that everything had a single starting point before which nothing existed. as a matter of fact, nobody is able to explain anything about what exactly that starting point is and how it came into being.


Actually, this hasn't always been true. The early evolutionists held that there was no beggining to the universe, that it was everlasting and eternal, and that all life sprung from inanimate matter: such as frogs spontanouasly generated from mud, flies from rotten meat, and so on. The first held until the big bang theory, which was actually a major "victory" for god at the time, the second until the advent of micro biloogy (which darwin didnt have: at the time he wrote, the cell was a big blobby mystery). Since then of course the evolutionists have been mugging furiously to claim they knew that all along and never thought anything silly

[fccool]

Are you just making it up as you go along or what?.
Ideas that ain,t backed up by anything,
Thats for children.
I am on this forum,
Because I read a book called
The Robots Rebellion,
And
Alice in wonderland and the world trade centres diasaster,
Facts not fallacy,
I am an atheist,but at least i look up biblical myths:

So the days of Methuselah were 969years and he died.
genesis5.27

What a lot of unfounded nonsence you spout as facts.

Do some research.

Dont bullshit me.

Oh and sorry mate,welcome to the forum,
I hope you enjoy it as much as i do.
It can be a bit of a steep learning curve,
but there are some very decent people on here,
Whether you go along with them or not.

POe

PttB


So with my above post.... how do you know that your research is true? :D How do you know that you know? I've read all of the above books and these are on the same magical level as Bible for me..... because they both make extraordinary claims out of this world that nobody can possibly back up and present a real solid evidence of. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE other than the minor public knowledge type of evidence. Yes... we can conclude that the world is ruled by conspiracy, but Bible presents the largest and the oldest conspiratorial worldview and dates back to a couple thousand years ago. Icke's books present some physical evidence... such as illuminaty symbolism... and etc. and the evidence is fact. But by attaching those facts together and making the biggest "fact" without proof a fact.... i.e. nothing reallly exists but in our minds BUT reptilian holograms rule the world... I don't see much difference in this being more extraordinary than that of genesis 5.27 or even the account of miracles of Yeshua (aka Jesus).

[cheeb]

So with my above post.... how do you know that your research is true? :D How do you know that you know? I've read all of the above books and these are on the same magical level as Bible for me..... because they both make extraordinary claims out of this world that nobody can possibly back up and present a real solid evidence of. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE other than the minor public knowledge type of evidence. Yes... we can conclude that the world is ruled by conspiracy, but Bible presents the largest and the oldest conspiratorial worldview and dates back to a couple thousand years ago. Icke's books present some physical evidence... such as illuminaty symbolism... and etc. and the evidence is fact. But by attaching those facts together and making the biggest "fact" without proof a fact.... i.e. nothing reallly exists but in our minds BUT reptilian holograms rule the world... I don't see much difference in this being more extraordinary than that of genesis 5.27 or even the account of miracles of Yeshua (aka Jesus).

Mhmmmmmh,
books are a tiny bit of research,
mitochondrial RNA,
genetic sequences,
Crick and Watson,
The human genome project,
Bio diversity,
convergance,
The phenotype(form)
and the genotype(DNA)
EMbryology,
Etymology,
Comparitive anatomy and physiology,

etc.........

Have you done any research at all,

If you had I am sure you would reach different conclusions,
If not , why not.

[Anders Lindman]

creation and evolution can not be separate processes and they probably describe the same process from different points of view.


Yes, and I think we need a more inclusive perspective that includes both the creation view and the evolution view.

From past to future, creation is going on all the time. The computer I use at the moment, for example, is a creation. Some may say: "Yeah, but the computer is manufactured by people" True, but the people and the factory that have created the computer are themselves parts of the same whole process of creation. Creation/Evolution is a wholeness in motion. It can be useful to only look at certain aspects of this whole process, if we at the same time understand that those are limited and incomplete perspectives.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, and I think we need a more inclusive perspective that includes both the creation view and the evolution view.


For example Ken Wilber's 20 tenets of evolution:

"Ken Wilber’s Twenty Tenets are:

1. Reality is not composed of things or processes, but of holons, which are wholes that are simultaneously parts.
2. Holons display four fundamental capacities:
a. self-preservation (agency)
b. self-adaptation (communion)
c. self-transcendence
d. self-dissolution
3. Holons emerge.
4. Holons emerge holarchically.
5. Each holon transcends and includes its predecessors.
6. The lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.
7. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is ‘shallow’ or ‘deep;’ and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its ‘span.’
8. Each successive level of evolution produces greater depth and less span.
9. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.
10. Holarchies co-evolve. The micro is always within the macro (all agency is agency in communion).
11. The micro is in relational exchange with macro at all levels of its depth.
12. Evolution has directionality:
a. increasing complexity.
b. increasing differentiation/integration.
c. increasing organization/structuration.
d. increasing relative autonomy.
e. increasing telos."

From: http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=113&pgtype=1

[Anders Lindman]

The Evolution of Consciousness (approx 5 min)

The Evolution of Consciousness - YouTube

[cheeb]

Charles Babbage mathemetical device,

loveley bit of kit,
but irrevelant to evelution

[bigus_dickus]

Actually, this hasn't always been true. The early evolutionists held that there was no beggining to the universe, that it was everlasting and eternal, and that all life sprung from inanimate matter: such as frogs spontanouasly generated from mud, flies from rotten meat, and so on. The first held until the big bang theory, which was actually a major "victory" for god at the time, the second until the advent of micro biloogy (which darwin didnt have: at the time he wrote, the cell was a big blobby mystery). Since then of course the evolutionists have been mugging furiously to claim they knew that all along and never thought anything silly

true, although i was referring to both creation and evolution in the sense that they have today, lets say "intelligent design" and "darwinism with updates".

even the term "big bang" was thought as a mockery of the theory of a point of singularity as a cause of all existence and it was originally used as a joke before it became a name for a theory.

ironically, some humans on earth call the beginning of everything, even the beginning of their selves a "big bang" and at the same time they call the concept of god and creation ridiculous. it is imagined as a global orgasmic burst of energy that does not stop expanding until it eventually does if it does, but no one really knows about that. there are many theories today and nothing can be certain, everyone ends up scratching their heads when they meet their limits.

what does it all mean.. that nothing can be taken for granted. at the same time, nothing is the one thing that can be taken for granted and nothing else can be, as no thing can not contain any thing else.

observing our world, the evidence is that the universe expands, but it expands away from our planet in all directions and equal increase of speed. not just away from our solar system, but all the galaxies appear to be running away from our planet. so that would imply that the "big bang", or the "white hole" that recycled all that energy, or the creative force of the universe, or any thing that could be a cause for such a thing that we are not sure about yet, originated or originates right here in our planet.

how does that make any sense? either our observations are completely false, or this is how some want us to believe that things are. we only assume and have theories; if we imagine earth as an apple, we have only explored 10% of its skin's depth only on the small piece of the surface that we are capable to explore, most of the surface is the bottom of the ocean.

we also forget some things when we talk about this stuff. for example, that creation involves destruction and evolution involves extinction. humans have the tendency to judge things to be going for "better" or "worse", only judging from our point of view. there are not natural disasters from a nature's point of view, there are only human disasters when natural changes are seen as loss and death in human minds. the action that the universe does and desires to do, is flow, live and expand.

we complain about the weather, the quakes, the volcanoes, the sea waves, the winds, but it is the way for nature to renew itself and if changes become more frequent, it means that the renewal rate increases and when this happens, it does exponentially. mass extinctions become more frequent and a mass extinction of all life forms becomes more possible. millions of life forms have gone extinct so that the human form would be possible to exist. in the same way, the human form may also get extinct from this planet so the next form of life can begin to emerge in a next phase.

[them]

Edit# Sorry this is a bit of a ramble, I cant really condense it any more than that..

For me it all comes down to haw the universe started. It would seem like it's been evolving, including the laws, ever since the moment it came into existence.

I went to see a lecture last year by Paul Davis entitled The Goldilocks Enigma after his book of the same name. A very interesting read it is to.

It's a book that asks the question;

How come existence?

It is the same age-old question, and we humans have taken several routes to try to answer it. The option preferred by most scientists is a cop-out: that we are just a cosmic accident, and that the Universe just happens to be right for life to have evolved in it. It's argued that trying to find deeper meaning behind this incredibly unlikely outcome is futile, and hope that some as yet undiscovered laws of physics (such as may one day be provided by string theory or yet another 'theory of everything') will show us that things simply could not have been any different.

However, there is a second option.

A growing band of physicists has argued that our universe is not unique but rather one of many within a larger Multiverse. Given the quite stupendous odds against us being here and the degree of fine-tuning in the laws of nature necessary for life to have evolved, it is not surprising that some have argued for the reality of multiple universes.

Here is a simple example showing how this helps.

If millions of people buy lottery tickets, it is not surprising that the winning numbers should come up (maybe more than once). Of course, if your ticket contains those winning numbers, you might consider yourself incredibly lucky. But to anyone who doesn't know you, it is nothing remarkable; after all, someone has to win. Now let us suppose that in the week you bought your lottery ticket, no one else bought one, and yet you have the winning numbers. Is this now more remarkable? For you, there is no real difference, because the odds on you winning are the same whether anyone else buys a ticket or not. But from the point of view of the set of winning numbers, it is truly remarkable that they match the numbers on the one & only lottery ticket. This is the dilemma we face when we contemplate the incredibly tiny odds on our existence. We are those lottery numbers, and we need a lot of tickets to be bought if we are to stand a reasonable chance of matching anyone's ticket.

For years, the issue had been dismissed anthropically: if the conditions in our world were not 'just right', we wouldn't be around to debate the issue. However, it is much more natural and logical to conclude that even though we might be unique, our universe cannot be. If the Multiverse contains an infinite number of universes, some of them must have the right conditions for life. Can it really be that simple?

Most of what Davis writes in the first half of the book covers familiar ground for most of here, it's the second half that makes it worth the read..

It is here that Davis faces head-on the question of why our universe is just right for us, and he covers all the main arguments thoroughly and shows up their shortcomings. Eventually, he chooses a different path that does away with luck as well as the Multiverse.

But as Deep Thought, the computer in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, says, you are not going to like it.

Davies' first suggestion is that the biofriendliness of the Universe may be due to some as yet undiscovered life principle, built into the laws of physics from the very beginning, that has steered and constrained the Universe towards producing life.

I find this idea hard to swallow and I don't think Davies dwells on it long enough to really make a convincing case. He was more open about this in his lecture in cheltenham, but i got the impression he felt uncomfortable with it.

Then invites us to consider a more interesting — I hesitate to endorse it with the term 'appealing' — idea originally expounded by physicist John Wheeler. It takes one of the weirdest features of quantum mechanics and pushes it to its logical conclusion: that conscious observers bring about the universe they find themselves in by the very act of observing it, thereby dragging it out of the quantum superposition of all possible paths it could have followed. Actually, I think this is related to what supporters of the Multiverse version of quantum mechanics would argue — with the difference that, for Davies, our universe is the only one.

The main options, then, are:


That the Universe is a fluke


Second, that it is one of many and happens to be, much like Goldilocks' porridge, just right for us;



Third, that conscious observers bring the universe they inhabit into existence simply by observing it, although their teleological actions would have to reach back into the past, forcing the right conditions to be selected at the Big Bang.



Is it fantasy? Well Davis takes a well-timed reality check towards the end, reminding the reader, and himself, that in order to address the question of

How come existence?

one must either play it safe and back away from the question, or be quite radical. Many of you would not like this book, but I personally think that it will cause the biggest stir since Roger Penrose wrote The Emperor's New Mind.

Most of the ideas are not new, but Davies is entertaining and persuasive in laying them out clearly. Many scientists might feel that the subject matter, as Davies acknowledges, should be left to the philosophers and priests, with scientists tackling only those questions they can hope to answer.

But it's still a thoroughly good read, you should all try it.. go on..

http://xs317.xs.to/xs317/07306/icke_forum.jpg

[Anders Lindman]

Davies' first suggestion is that the biofriendliness of the Universe may be due to some as yet undiscovered life principle, built into the laws of physics from the very beginning, that has steered and constrained the Universe towards producing life.


There could be something to this. An atom is a simple particle. Molecules are more complex. Cells are extremely complex entities. Multicellular organisms are stupefyingly complex. The human brain, for example, could not exist without; (a) the atoms from the very beginning had the potential to be the building blocks of the brain, or (b) the atoms have evolved to the state where they can be the building blocks of the brain. Either way, atoms are not so simple as we sometimes think they are.

[james777]

I've thought so many times and spoke to many people about this subject, and the conclusion that I came up with is that people believe whatever they have been brought up to believe generally. Some false logical arguments from both sides are.

1) Evolution - Grow up this is a proven fact. Thousands of flies can not be wrong. The schools teach it as scientific fact. It has been proven so you are an idiot to believe otherwise. I don't even need to provide proof of how DNA, which is information embedded in matter and is needed to perpetuate life, can come into existance by pure chance.

2) Creationism - We have a solid proof that God exists and we know that because Bible tells so and because evolution seems to be wrong. We are going to use sience and its limited 5 sence instruments to prove that something exists on spiritual level.

3) Alien Interventionism - well we don't believe in evolution because it clearly can not be proven, and we don't believe in God as an alternative view, so the other alternative is that Aliens came and planted us here. We are going to disregard the fact that Aliens have to be originated somewhere to do that, and that by pushing this theory we can't really explain anything but are back to square one.

4) Newly pushed multiverse evolution - Well the chances of evolution happening in one world are pretty slim, but you see the Universe is a multidimentional multiverse. There are billions exist on each level, so there is a chance that in one of those billions of multiverses something will click and keep on clicking till we get to where we are... i.e. from the first amino acids forming by chance and magically becoming alive to something as complex as human brain and all of the perifial organs that it is connected to and is controling.

5) New Ageism and other forms of it - you see everything that exists does not exist at all, and we know that it does not because it can't exist. The new theories of quantum mechanics prove it to be so :). We don't like the idea of God becuase religion is screwed up and has been misused and is used to enslave people, so we'll push a new theory. You see, everything that exists ... exists only in your mind. We are in fact Gods because we are a part of one big conciousness that chosen break itself into billions of little pieces that you and I are so we are really one big mind with Multiple Personality syndrome. So we in fact are all dreaming that Universe exists, and it does so only within our minds. Maya if you will.


I'm not limiting to five, but these are five major theories that explain existance. I hope you've picked up one common logical follacy... they try to explain things out of this world by means of things of this world.

The truth is that we are all in the same boat no matter who you are. You are born without your consent and you die without your consent (unless you are Curt Cobain). We are all locked by 5 sences and yet there is a single substaintial proof of clairvoyance and contacting things that are out of this world... I personally have not seen a deamon, or God. I have not seen a ghost, and nobody precicely foretold the Specifics of my future. I guess I can make a safe assumption that we are in the same boat in reguards to these. The truth is ... we simply don't know for sure. We can't know for sure in this body. Your pastor probably never seen God or Jesus face to face, your highschool teacher never seen matter combine into a living cell and form DNA, your Alien Origin phylosopher probably never seen an alien being and took enough evidence with him for us to see. We simply don't know. Whatever we believe we except as is with very little or no evidence at all.
We fear death because we don't know what happens next. We don't know how our mind works, we don't know the inner mechanics of the universe. If we put together a book of what we don't know for sure... what we know will amount to one character (and yes I don't know that either :)). We except EVERYTHING by faith. No matter how intelligent you are, you as I if you dig deeper will come to same conclusion.

Now that brings me to a very important of realization of what "truth" is. If truth exists, it can not be relative. The statement "There is no absolute truth" is paradoxical at best ( i.e. "This statement is false" type of paradox). If truth is absolute, then it is self evident i.e. you do not need to prove that it exists. Now... get ready for this .... ready :)?

Human beings are not equipped to percept self evident absolute truth. What we have is educated guesses at best. We are all living in the realm of time and space, and we are locked to it (speaking for myself... but if you have visited another dimention, or travelled back in time... please let me know). So, the best you can do it to make up some reason to our existance based on what you learn as you go forward in time and space. So, I do appreciate your approach John White, as you seem to grasp what I'm saying here.:D I.e. "Nobody can be told what the Matrix is - you have to see it for yourself"... same with absolute truth.

Now, I'm not saying that you can not trust accumulated knowledge, because that's how we seem to be learning the major things... second hand. I'm saying that knowledge and absolute truths are two different things. So what you know if irrelevent, what is relevent is what you believe... because your beliefs form a worldview, and you act based on your core beliefs. Now, let me see how each of the above descrived beliefs relates to me... and you will realize why I choose to believe what I do.

1) Evolution - our lives are a big cosmic fluke. We are a big accident with no purpose and the chance governs the world. I used to believe Evolution is undeniably true and argued arduously for it. If evolution is in fact true then the fittest will survive. The only moral right is what is right for me. If it means to killing off others, then so be it. If it means to live in hurds for our protection... so be it. The only moral code is that of survival, whether it is a symbiotic or individual... it is survival. I don't see such words as "love" or "emotion" in evolution texbooks. We are just well oiled self built machines that just keep on going until finally break down. And after that... there is nothing. That's what I've learned by reading HS textbooks.

2) Creationism - God always exised and is only reality, and he created our world as we paint convas or as we doing something creative. He is a creative being and seems to enjoy creating. So he created us in His image - "with creative and indipendent mind pattern... and our greatest ability - ability to chose" just because He wanted to. Along with us he created other beings who did not like the "painting" and the way it was originally painted... so they pretty much said - " Screw you... and your ways, because we know what's best and we don't like the way you run things.. you are selfish for creating us the way we are". So He locked these beings with us to show that their way will only lead to ultimate destruction of everything. The being take control over planet and human kind by deception (Adam and Eve story) and rule the planet through Hirerarchial order tryng to prove God wrong and show us that he is not really loving at all. God leave up to us to decide weather we believe what beings tell us and how things ought to be, or believe Him. He appears on earth in human from and lives with us for knowing that he will be hated in this deceived world and eventually be "killed" (rejected by many), but also shows the way that things were meant to be in the beginning and the way we can live a sustainable life without eventually self destructing. If he simply screamed out of the sky ... "Follow me, or die"... he would prove the rebellious beings that they were right and that He does not trully love us. The beings seem to push forward this view about him since the begining... twisting the original meaning of the words. So when people think about God today... they think about "follow me, or die!" God, instead of "Listen to me, or you will self destruct!" God. Both statements are correct, but the first one is the twisted original... eventually he will come back just before the world self destructs, as learning by experience can only go so far. As we've learned from experience and our minds are cleared of deception... he will terminate the rebellious being that were decieving us, so we can live free with knowledge of the consequences of our actions. So the result of this worldview is respect for the Creator, and his work... and a path on unlearning the ways that has been set up and brainwashed into us by rebellious beings. So the original goal is to enjoy the creating that was created for and use precotionary guidlines as a manual. That's what I got by reading the Bible.


3) Alien interventionism .. a ticky one because it gets mixed into #4 to give purpose to the theory... - we are merely a slaves of the race that created us for control and slavery... and is more powerful and posesses far greated technological power than we do. If they really wanted to, they could clone an army of thoughtless robots, but for some reason they want intelligent ones to subdue, simply because they are "evil" (in evolutionary sence... just trying to survive by natural selection). The way they choose to run the world is by controlling the blood offsprings of theirs in human form. We know that they exist, because of the paintings on the walls, and UFO crashes and sightings... which are "NOT" any hidden human technology, but alien... simply because it surpasses what we see on the streets today. So, by learning this ... you are in fact a character from "THEY LIVE" and your goal eventually wait for 2012... because that's when everybody magically transform to a new level and we will see the deception. So these beings try to suppress knowledge before we awaken from the deception. So my goal is to fight by telling everybody about their plans, which are hidden.

4) The New Age - this is a tricky one as it gets mixed in into everything and anything. At some level you are being told that the theory can not be explained... and just is. We are but fragmented mind and our goal is to defragment by connecting to our source. There is no real way of doing it, but be seeking hidden knowledge of shamanism or/and astral projection... reconnecting with your true spiritual self. And that seems to be the goal... is to reconnect with your spiritual self by ways of "meditation" in sence of clearing your mind and let your subcontious mind take over. The theory is being mixed and matched with all of the above in endless variations.

5) See #1 :)



So from the above what I know is irrelevant because most knowledge is relative and subjective. What I believe is highly relevant. You beliefs may coincide with the truth is you find it to be such. I choose to belive #2, because it makes more sence to me. No matter what you believe in the above... you probably will still live in the city and go through the mindless routines of life... pay your taxes.... use money and banks ....educate your children based on what you seem the world to be.... go to work everyday and do essencially meaningless things. Beliefs without meaning are irrelevant. Just like Morpheus in Matrix... I simply could not see things any other way right now. I would be disapointed if they are... but in essence I would not be if these are true. Just like in Matrix... the only way to knowing what Matrix is ... is by getting out of it. You and I can not until we die or something else extraordinary happens. It does not matter what you believe... you can't walk through solid walls and jump out of the airplane to land on concrete. So... with that being said... pick you beliefs with consequences in mind.

Great post, really! This is a nice piece of literature.......Perhaps you can submit it and get some international recognition.....

[aznality]

There isn't just 2 sides to the debate. I believe in neither. =)