Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Global Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-01-2011, 09:45 AM   #1
zsymon
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,316
Likes: 13 (10 Posts)
Default Creation versus Evolution.

It's funny how most scientists that study the stars, believe in a God or
Creator. Because they've realized none of what they see could have just
come into existence through random chance. They realize it's impossible
for Earth and all other star systems and galaxies to not have a Creator
being, that used a design to guide evolution.

I believe in a mix of Creationalism and Evolution.. I believe the Creator
guides the automatic process of evolution, steers it and supports it, to
bring it into a beautiful realization and clockwork precise functionality.

It's completely impossible for Creation to have occured randomly, but
it is also impossible for God to have just manifested it out of the blue,
so the only logical explanation, is guided evolution.

Last edited by zsymon; 21-01-2011 at 09:48 AM.
zsymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 04:32 AM   #2
truepositive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 71 (36 Posts)
Default

That makes sense
truepositive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 04:38 AM   #3
apollo_gnomon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,392
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

I've always thought guided evolution made sense.
apollo_gnomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 09:26 AM   #4
hhelmsley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The thread topic is misleading. Soon you'll have the history deniers in here claiming that creation happened, evolution didn't.

The problem with the guided evolution theory is that you introduce a "complex" intelligent entity to do the guiding. Where did that come from?

Evolution elegantly explains how complexity and apparent design arise from non-complex entities in the absence of intelligent guidance. How do we explain the most complex of all entities (capable to do the guiding) at the beginning of it all?

As you said, it can't have just manifested out of the blue and therefore you are into the infinite regression problem.
hhelmsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 09:30 AM   #5
malkor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: current resident of earth
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zsymon View Post
It's funny how most scientists that study the stars, believe in a God or
Creator. Because they've realized none of what they see could have just
come into existence through random chance. They realize it's impossible
for Earth and all other star systems and galaxies to not have a Creator
being, that used a design to guide evolution.

I believe in a mix of Creationalism and Evolution.. I believe the Creator
guides the automatic process of evolution, steers it and supports it, to
bring it into a beautiful realization and clockwork precise functionality.

It's completely impossible for Creation to have occured randomly, but
it is also impossible for God to have just manifested it out of the blue,
so the only logical explanation, is guided evolution.
the conclusion of your premise is faulty. congratulations, you have committed a logical fallacy.
malkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 11:15 AM   #6
ashangel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Superpositioned
Posts: 678
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhelmsley View Post
The thread topic is misleading. Soon you'll have the history deniers in here claiming that creation happened, evolution didn't.

The problem with the guided evolution theory is that you introduce a "complex" intelligent entity to do the guiding. Where did that come from?

Evolution elegantly explains how complexity and apparent design arise from non-complex entities in the absence of intelligent guidance. How do we explain the most complex of all entities (capable to do the guiding) at the beginning of it all?

As you said, it can't have just manifested out of the blue and therefore you are into the infinite regression problem.
Researching the Sumerian texts would give insight into this. The thing is, is that out of all creatures we stand outside of the natural process, we simply don't fit. People have tried to place us in the evolutionary chain but they say that about 200,000 years back we crawled onto two feet, something that is completely destroyed by recent discoveries

http://www.newsrescue.com/2009/11/an...und-in-africa/

As you can see there was already civilization by then and they didn't appear overnight.

With regard to a creator, the only thing that fits that bill is infinite consciousness and that is all and each of us. we all co-create this reality something that cutting edge science has proved time and time again, consciousness is found at all levels of matter, energy and creation and seems to be the very thing that allows it. Anyone who has taken the time to look into it in any depth can see that evolution and creationism are both obsolete concepts when placed next to the reality of how this dimension works.

We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
__________________
We came out from the deep
To help and understand, but not to kill
It takes many lives till we succeed
To clear the debts of many hundreds years
That's why we are here !
ashangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 11:21 AM   #7
jconnar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Asylum
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malkor View Post
the conclusion of your premise is faulty. congratulations, you have committed a logical fallacy.
There is no need for congratulations as it comes off very arrogantly.
jconnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 06:25 PM   #8
hhelmsley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashangel View Post
...something that is completely destroyed by recent discoveries
...
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Recent discoveries have only further cemented the reality of evolution via natural selection. Especially in the fields of microbiology and DNA.
hhelmsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 07:17 PM   #9
zsymon
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,316
Likes: 13 (10 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhelmsley View Post
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Recent discoveries have only further cemented the reality of evolution via natural selection. Especially in the fields of microbiology and DNA.
And still more and more scientists realize that random evolution or
just natural selection without anything to guide the process, to have
created the Universe, is an impossibility.

The only possible explanation is guided evolution.. a higher being to
have orchestrated and guided the evolution of reality in the Universe
on a macrocosmos and microcosmos level.

Many events happen automatically within evolution and natural
selection, but for reality as we know it to have evolved, there has
had to have been a guiding hand to provide designs, blue prints,
and the nudges necessary to evolve according to them.

For this amazing Universe to have simply come out of the blue with
some big bang and then nothing but natural selection, is impossible,
more and more scientists are starting to realize that now. Even in
the past, many scientists didn't accept that there was no higher
consciousness to guide the evolution.

People must be pretty narrowminded to see some amazing animals,
who have evolved to prefer beauty over functionality, which goes
completely against natural selection, and still think there was no
higher consciousness to provide the amazing blue print for those
astonishing creatures. Just look at paradise birds.. their beauty
compromises their functionality, but they still exist.

Last edited by zsymon; 22-01-2011 at 07:31 PM.
zsymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 08:34 PM   #10
malkor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: current resident of earth
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zsymon View Post
And still more and more scientists realize that random evolution or
just natural selection without anything to guide the process, to have
created the Universe, is an impossibility.
where is your proof that they believe it is an impossibility? many scientists have faith but most of them leave it separate from their science.

Quote:
The only possible explanation is guided evolution.. a higher being to
have orchestrated and guided the evolution of reality in the Universe
on a macrocosmos and microcosmos level.
faulty logic. you cannot conclude that guided evolution is the only possible explanation by citing that "more and more scientists" (without reference) believe in a creator.


Quote:
Many events happen automatically within evolution and natural
selection, but for reality as we know it to have evolved, there has
had to have been a guiding hand to provide designs, blue prints,
and the nudges necessary to evolve according to them.
baseless assumption. we don't know that there had to be a guiding hand because of some people's opinions.

Quote:
For this amazing Universe to have simply come out of the blue with
some big bang and then nothing but natural selection, is impossible,
more and more scientists are starting to realize that now. Even in
the past, many scientists didn't accept that there was no higher
consciousness to guide the evolution.
i don't see your sources where these scientist have proven that such things are impossible.

Quote:
People must be pretty narrowminded to see some amazing animals,
who have evolved to prefer beauty over functionality, which goes
completely against natural selection, and still think there was no
higher consciousness to provide the amazing blue print for those
astonishing creatures. Just look at paradise birds.. their beauty
compromises their functionality, but they still exist.
faulty premise. sexual selection does not go against natural selection. if that was the case, there would be no ugly.
malkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 08:48 PM   #11
pri01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,089
Likes: 92 (50 Posts)
Default

What about intelligent design?
pri01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2011, 09:00 PM   #12
malkor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: current resident of earth
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pri01 View Post
What about intelligent design?
what about it?
malkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 12:16 AM   #13
ashangel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Superpositioned
Posts: 678
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

sorry gave the wrong link above it was supposed to be this.

http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhelmsley View Post
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. Recent discoveries have only further cemented the reality of evolution via natural selection. Especially in the fields of microbiology and DNA.

Dna is not as important as you make out and has now been proven it can be faked under lab conditions, also do some research into epi-genetics.

For the record I don't agree with either side of this. both are fatally flawed. As neither account for millions of years of human or at least humanoid civilization.

How do you intend to explain the phenomenon of out of place artifacts dating back millions of years or the ica stones depicting humans alongside dinosaurs or the Piri Reis Map or scores of other anomalies I could mention?

Evolution in its current form is just as flawed and dogmatic as the creation argument and neither takes into account the effect of consciousness in creating what we perceive to be reality (quantum physics and unified field), past major cataclysms, outside intervention (either otherworldly or inter-dimensional), instead of acting arrogant and smug (either side) in your sad race to disprove each other why not admit that the truth is somewhere in between and that neither side has even half the story. There is clearly a staggeringly vast missing piece of human history something the twin dogmas of "established" science and religion are very keen to avoid as they are far more concerned with maintaining the status quo and keeping those in power in power and the masses ignorant by means of deception.

Only by admitting that you clearly know nothing can you begin to learn anything.
__________________
We came out from the deep
To help and understand, but not to kill
It takes many lives till we succeed
To clear the debts of many hundreds years
That's why we are here !
ashangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 12:27 AM   #14
wez004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: in the mind of atom
Posts: 538
Likes: 28 (13 Posts)
Default

Please watch this Lloyd Pye Video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3599514568012#
wez004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 02:07 AM   #15
ganjamonster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 746
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

that is all
__________________
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity. Actually, we're rather like yourself and Dr. Cochrane." Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek: First Contact) "Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is." - Jedi Master Yoda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRAKt0GakJM
ganjamonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 09:44 AM   #16
hhelmsley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zsymon View Post
And still more and more scientists realize that random evolution or
just natural selection without anything to guide the process, to have
created the Universe, is an impossibility.
Learn your subject before commenting in an authoritative tone. There is absolutely nothing random about evolution, and no scientist claims that there is.
hhelmsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 09:55 AM   #17
hhelmsley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashangel View Post
sorry gave the wrong link above it was supposed to be this.

[url]http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar.html[/url


Dna is not as important as you make out and has now been proven it can be faked under lab conditions, also do some research into epi-genetics.

For the record I don't agree with either side of this. both are fatally flawed. As neither account for millions of years of human or at least humanoid civilization.

How do you intend to explain the phenomenon of out of place artifacts dating back millions of years or the ica stones depicting humans alongside dinosaurs or the Piri Reis Map or scores of other anomalies I could mention?

Evolution in its current form is just as flawed and dogmatic as the creation argument and neither takes into account the effect of consciousness in creating what we perceive to be reality (quantum physics and unified field), past major cataclysms, outside intervention (either otherworldly or inter-dimensional), instead of acting arrogant and smug (either side) in your sad race to disprove each other why not admit that the truth is somewhere in between and that neither side has even half the story. There is clearly a staggeringly vast missing piece of human history something the twin dogmas of "established" science and religion are very keen to avoid as they are far more concerned with maintaining the status quo and keeping those in power in power and the masses ignorant by means of deception.

Only by admitting that you clearly know nothing can you begin to learn anything.
There is not a single piece of evidence to disprove evolution. It happened. It is just as much a scientific fact as is the equation to calculate the area of a square.

DNA, by the way, is more important that I have made out. It is a game changer. Before the discovery of DNA, there was already enough evidence for evolution for all reasonable scientists to accept it as fact. After DNA, the case is well and truly closed.

The ignorance really amazes me every time a discussion like this comes up. I suppose it shows just how it was possible for people to blindly reject the heliocentric model, long after the compelling evidence provided by Copernicus and others.

Evolution is neither flawed, nor dogmatic. Either you don't understand what it means, you haven't studied the evidence or you are trolling for an argument.

Lets argue that Pythagoras's Theorem doesn't really work, shall we?
hhelmsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 10:29 AM   #18
skeptik
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 189
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhelmsley View Post
The problem with the guided evolution theory is that you introduce a "complex" intelligent entity to do the guiding. Where did that come from?

How do we explain the most complex of all entities (capable to do the guiding) at the beginning of it all?

this is the question which creationists can't answer and where blind faith comes in.

hhelmsley, all very well argued.
skeptik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 11:32 AM   #19
zsymon
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,316
Likes: 13 (10 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhelmsley View Post
Learn your subject before commenting in an authoritative tone. There is absolutely nothing random about evolution, and no scientist claims that there is.
My point was that many scientists don't accept that evolution could have
happened without a guiding hand to provide blue prints and support. If you
want to start nitpicking, then thank you but no.

Last edited by zsymon; 23-01-2011 at 11:38 AM.
zsymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2011, 11:39 AM   #20
hhelmsley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wez004 View Post
Full of the usual straw men and logical fallacies. Yawn.

There is not enough space to tear them all down, so hopefully one example will suffice... maybe it will motivate you to educate yourself on the others.

One of his first, and most obvious is the "probability argument." It really is a travesty that such things are STILL being cited.

Here is an easy refutation to his claim that it is "so improbable that it couldn't have happened."

Take a pack of 52 cards, shuffle them and deal them out in a single row. The probability of you getting this particular order is so low that to get it again would take everybody on earth shuffling packs at the rate of a thousand shuffles per second, and for the next ten billion years - and statistically you would still be nowhere near to repeating your initial result. But, shockingly, despite such low probability, IT DID HAPPEN.

So the problem is in WHEN you ask the question. If I pick a specific result and then ask the probability of you shuffling to this result, then yes it is practically zero. The difference is that we have already shuffled the cards and we are looking back at the result and marvelling at how improbable it is. It's like saying "God" must have intelligently arranged the cards in this particular order, every time you shuffle. But logic tells us that isn't necessarily so... right?

This, of course, is not providing evidence to support either side of the argument, it is merely showing that you can not use the probability argument as evidence. It is a fallacy and should be thrown out and rejected along with the crocoduck and "why are there still monkeys" lines.
hhelmsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.