Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.

ATSers are not religious loonies who believe in made up stories created by organized religion so they could make a buck and get power.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

edit on 29-8-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

I'm curious as to why nonbelievers such as yourself feel it necessary to deride any person of faith. I find it interesting that some people who consider themselves intellectual, cannot find it in themselves just to agree to disagree. This degeneration into name-calling serves only the person hurling the dispersions and adds little if any intelligent debate on the issue.

It is estimated that the world is populated by some 6 1/2 to 7 billion people, in which 68 to 88% consider themselves adherents to one of the four largest faith groups Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. So it is with this in mind that I too am surprised by the results of the survey as it doesn't seem to be reflective of a global population in which two thirds or more seem to believe in some sort of creation account.

reply to post by Section31


personally, i think the creation of the universe verses confused the method used to create the universe, with the entity who used the method to create the universe. the method is super massive black holes, which created the galaxies, nebula, stars, planets, and moons. each galaxy has a super massive black hole at its center. this was known at one time, and not just known but witnessed in action (enoch saw a super massive black hole in its active phase). this along with the key words to describe the events, were later used to describe more mundane earthly things, like the deep waters being the abyss, which really confused the heck out of everything.

if you go back to the original languages of the creation of the universe texts, you find they keep referring back to parts of a super massive black hole: the chaotic abyss, the void. it's not hard to believe that a super massive black hole could spit out enough matter to create an entire galaxy in 6, 24 hour periods, although it is hard to imagine that it solidified into planets/moons/stars in that same 6x24 hour periods. as a result, i think the initial creation of the universe text is talking about an entirely different thing than the later creation of the earth texts, where the stuff happening is very localized to a singular planet, from a singular point of view, in a single solar system.

reply to post by spikey


I never said the earth was 3000 years old, i said 6000-10,000 years old my belief is its closer to 6k when looking at genology's from Adam to Jesus.

Creationism AND Evolution can exist side by side.

Matter (and the universe for that matter) exist.

.....where did it all come from?

"OH, the Big Bang!"

Ok. Fine.

Where did THAT come from?

Evolution exists. We can see the developement of different species sometimes in a human lifetime.

Do I think we humans came from monkies? No. Blavatsky mentions that we existed first as spirit and gradually became more solid.

that is STILL evolution.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Wait. So you're saying that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. That's a 40% margin of error. And you're calling radiometric dating inaccurate with its 1% margin of error?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


With no disrespect to your views.

I challenge the 6-10k year thing.

For this discussion, we will go with 6k.

We know about the petrified forests out west around Arizona. Vastly older than that regardless of C14.

How?

We have written historic records and artifacts including wood from about 3k. If at 6k wood becomes petrified, then at 3k would it not be at least in an advanced state of that process? Even at 2k?

I look at much of the old testament in the same way as Jesus spoke of the parables. There is info there but hidden. Without the original Hebrew, it is lost. Without the kabalistic symbolism, it is absolutely lost.

The books of what would be the bible didnt come together until well after J.C.'s death. Even then, they were manipulated politically for the power of the church. That would be the books "allowed".

I would go into my opinions of peter and paul but I'm really not in the mood.

90% of the movement that J.C. started, ended at his death. What rome took up had little to nothing to do with what that man desired.

Please do not take this as a "christian bash". I've no trouble with those that do their best to emulate J.C., my beef is with "churchianity".

Case in point....I dont think that JC would have burned "witches" ,had an inquisition, destroyed native religions, or "competing" religions (the "other" catholics).

The Evolving Self

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a00426d5fb4.jpg[/atsimg]

August 30, 2011 By Bruce Sanguin

from his blog Evolutionary Christianity, and the author of "If Darwin Prayed"

I’ve been re-reading Robert Kegan’s, The Evolving Self, and finding it an invigorating read. Neither Piaget, whose foundational research informs Kegan’s own theory, nor Freudian psychoanalytic theory, were explicitly evolutionary—even though they both were developmental. Kegan was one of the first developmental psychologists to posit that the cognitive (Piaget), moral (Kohlberg), and psycho-sexual (Freud) lines of development were actually different aspects of a single evolutionary impulse. This evolutionary life principle is “panorganic”. It is the animating power of the universe at all orders of existence—geologic, biologic, psychologic, cultural and spiritual. Our evolving self is embedded in this larger, all-pervasive evolutionary dynamic. And, contrary to neo-Darwinians, this process seems to have an agenda.

It is the nature of this impulse to transcend itself through a ceaseless process of assimilation (unity with) and differentiation (distinguishing from). This resolution of this evolutionary tension means that what we once were identified with (the whole of us) becomes merely a part of a more encompassing whole. In Piagetian terms the subject (“I”) becomes the object (“me”) of newly expanded subject (Bigger “I”). To get a little “geeky” about this, the “I” of one stage becomes the “me” of the “I” of the next stage. In periods of relative stability, we have negotiated an “evolutionary truce” between these two poles of unity and differentiation. This is how we evolve.

“…we are drawn to a radical consideration: that this evolutionary motion is the prior (or grounding) phenomenon in personality; it is the very source of, and the unifying context for, thought and feeling…” (Kegan, The Evolving Self, p.44). This evolution motion is what we experience as emotion. It is the movement of this impulse through us, showing up in our meaning making activity and as our feelings about where this motion is taking us.

This is actually amazing, don’t you find? Kegan doesn’t get metaphysical about it all as a psychologist. But in discovering this ceaseless impulse to transcend and include, transcend and include, that moves in us, through us, and as us for our entire life, we are immersed in the secret of life itself. We are occasions of that process. It is a great mystery that no prophet, no mystic, not Jesus, not Buddha, no shaman, no Druid or high priestess, could have possibly known. They may have intuited it—in fact, I have tracked this evolutionary intuition in the teachings of Paul and Jesus and continue to do so in my preaching. We now know how life does life! But knowledge of it only serves to deepen the mystery.

When life conditions begin to shift and as we mature, our old ways of making meaning are not up to the new complexities facing us. These are the transition times in our life when we experience increasing anxiety, and if not resolved, even depression. We are left with a couple of basic choices: either we try to fit this new complexity into our existing framework: (Wilber calls this horizontal translation: it’s a coping strategy, which may be successful or not: Jesus called it trying to put new wine into an old wineskin) And then there is vertical transformation: these are those times when we actually move up the evolutionary hierarchy and shift up a level: (Jesus called this rising up again after three days—mythically, this is the time it takes for transformation to occur).

What Kegan and others do that is so helpful is to describe this in terms of subject-object dynamics. Transformation is the process whereby what was subjective—interior and unconscious—becomes the object of our new awareness, the new subject. We are now able to stand back and look at an earlier iteration or organization of our self as external to us. We gain perspective on ourselves, and notice what we previously were identified with. Our incorporated self (undifferentiated) becomes the object of a new subject (our impulsive self); our impulsive self eventually becomes the object of a new subject (our imperial self); our imperial self gives way to an interpersonal self; and on it goes until we reach what Kegan calls the inter-individual self.

Each of these transitions involves a loss of one self in order for the emergence of the new self. This is always associated with anxiety. Theologically, we could talk about death and resurrection as a life process, or even of these transitional times as apocalyptic. An older worldview and self-organization is literally dissolving or passing away. When Jesus’ teaches that unless a seed falls into the ground and dies, it cannot bear fruit, it is one example of his evolutionary intuition. Jesus knew that in order to realize our deepest potentials we are going to go through a series of deaths and resurrections. When Peter tries to deny this truth, Jesus admonishes him. “You have set your mind on human things, and not on divine things”. He actually calls him “Satan”, the presence of fear within that tempts us constantly to what theologian Walter Wink called “the regressive alternative”. The defended personality is one that seeks resolution (of the anxiety around the emergence of a new self) without reorganization of the self. From the next evolutionary stage, problems are not so much solved as dissolved—set within a new context that sees the world with the eyes and heart of an increased and encompassing complexity.

Conscious evolution is that stage of development when the evolutionary impulse itself is the object of our subjective awareness. Our new self —our “I” gains the capacity to witness this ceaseless dynamic, this spiraling movement animated by the tension and resolution between the two poles unity and differentiation. What is this mysterious “Self” that can witness and consciously cooperate with this evolutionary impulse? Surely, it is the evolutionary impulse that has come to conscious awareness in us. We are That which is yearning to evolve. And what is “That”? My intuition is that it is divine Heart and Mind having a great adventure.

And when we gain the capacity to consciously cooperate with this impulse to evolve we are no longer so frightened by transitions. We notice our anxiety, we may have anxiety, but anxiety doesn’t have us. In fact, the presence of anxiety may even become a welcome signal that another transformation is emerging in and through us. The universe is about to evolve through me, through you, and through us. Ok, I admit, it’s never actually fun. But remember, it’s only the end of the world (as we’ve known it).

When Paul writes that it is our existential condition “to see in a mirror dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12-13) he is referring to the difficulty of making conscious what is unconscious—of seeing ourselves clearly because we are too close to ourselves, like fish swimming in water. But as life relentlessly comes at us with new challenges, these become provocations to get outside ourselves (expand our consciousness) and see our lives within the larger context of evolution itself.

“Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face. Now we know only in part; but then I will know, even as I have been fully known”. This is the promise embedded in a sacred evolutionary impulse that we will one day come to see and know ourselves as God knows and sees us—through the eyes of the greatest quality, Love. This kind of clarity of vision is our destiny—the end game of this evolutionary adventure—to awaken to our deepest identity as the presence of Love.

more ifdarwinprayed.com...

Best Regards, and God Bless,

NAM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31

 

personally, i think the creation of the universe verses confused the method used to create the universe, with the entity who used the method to create the universe. the method is super massive black holes, which created the galaxies, nebula, stars, planets, and moons. each galaxy has a super massive black hole at its center. this was known at one time, and not just known but witnessed in action (Enoch saw a super massive black hole in its active phase). this along with the key words to describe the events, were later used to describe more mundane earthly things, like the deep waters being the abyss, which really confused the heck out of everything.

if you go back to the original languages of the creation of the universe texts, you find they keep referring back to parts of a super massive black hole: the chaotic abyss, the void. it's not hard to believe that a super massive black hole could spit out enough matter to create an entire galaxy in 6, 24 hour periods, although it is hard to imagine that it solidified into planets/moons/stars in that same 6x24 hour periods. as a result, i think the initial creation of the universe text is talking about an entirely different thing than the later creation of the earth texts, where the stuff happening is very localized to a singular planet, from a singular point of view, in a single solar system.

I agree.

When our society enters into the space age, I am hoping we will discover the answers to those questions. Our current conundrum is that we are not out there; thus, the tools we use to measure sub-atomic structures are limited. Even though our scientific tools have been modernized, I don't think they have evolved far enough. We also may be looking at the wrong set of equations.

-- Side Note ---

God said, "Let there be light".

Okay, cool. What does that scientifically mean?

After Adam and Eve ate the apple, God did not say, "Reject knowledge." Instead of telling mankind to forget what they have learned, he turned and told them to be responsible for the knowledge they obtain.

Big difference in logic.

Fundamentalist thinking rejects the notion of personal responsibility for knowledge learned.

God is not a fundamentalist.

God is a psychologist, scientist, philosopher, artist, and guide all at once.

Some religious sects like to keep things on a fundamental level, for it gives them the ability to keep control over their flock.

reply to post by Ozvaldo



I will answer your question now since you have waited so patiently ive had so many replies that its been difficult for me to respond to every one of them but i'm doing my best.

My answer is: I do not believe in different Races.

Before you think im a crazy guy let me explain. Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. All human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history. The differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless i happen to agree.

The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but it does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again. This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations.

But some people think there must be different races of people because there appear to be major differences between various groups, such as skin color and eye shape.

The truth, though, is that these so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among people groups. If one were to take any two people anywhere in the world, scientists have found that the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent even if they came from the same people group. But these so-called “racial” characteristics that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation. In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial.

The reason for different skin shades is simple... Those with darker skin tend to live in warmer climates, while those with lighter skin tend to live in colder climates.

We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Their descendants filled the earth. However, the world’s population was reduced to eight during the Flood of Noah. From these eight individuals have come all the tribes and nations. It is likely that the skin shade of Noah and his family was middle brown. This would enable his sons and their wives to produce a variety of skin shades in just one generation.

In Genesis 11 we read of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. God judged this rebellion by giving each family group a different language. This made it impossible for the groups to understand each other, and so they split apart, each extended family going its own way, and finding a different place to live. The result was that the people were scattered over the earth.

Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1ab7f3d9c1a.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's a more in depth explanation.

reply to post by greenemchn

It doesn't "deride any person of faith" or in some cases, gnosis or understanding. It states a heck of a LOT however, about the ignorance and childishness of the person hurling the remarks about "people of faith" from their narrow-minded POV. Personally I just cannot get over the magnitude of ASSUMPTIONS that non-believers make about believers and what they believe. As if the literalist, fundamentalist "Bible-thumping" Christian is the only kind, it's absurd, and very ignorant and ill informed. It would be absolutely hilarious, if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.

Edit: I wish everyone would just STOP, and reflect and think again. The whole "I'm write/you're wrong" stuff is starting to get almost sickening. Isn't there enough content already, to lay out everyone's position? Don't get me wrong, have at it all you like, but I just think it's getting ridiculous at this point, and that all we have here for the most part is two mountains of ignorance on either side of the debate, along with a bunch of trash not even worth poking through.

/rant over - carry on..

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration


We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people.

We do not know that.
You believe it.
I do not.

reply to post by Section31


the mormons deal with those questions (if i remember correctly) by stating that the big guy for our neck of the woods was from an even larger group of big kahunas who had their own areas of the galaxy to be lords over, like system lords in stargate sg1, who were from an even larger group of galactic lords in charge of all the system lords, who were all under the auspices of the realllllllly big guy, the one who started the ball rolling in this universe, which a believer of christianity would say is god, and an atheist would say is natural forces set on a repeating loop or similar.

i'm not sure what to make of their hierarchy but its certainly supported in biblical texts by things like : "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

it's a mighty big universe out there

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by spikey
We have an altogether more intelligent class of Americans on ATS obviously.

So... Rejecting and bashing religion makes you intelligent?

Interesting.

Next you will tell me that my culture makes me inferior.

edit on 8/30/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Not all all, next i'll be pointing out the obvious fact that i am in fact English.

reply to post by intrepid


Because our loving God is also a righteous God and he must judge all fairly. This is why only the righteous can enter heaven and being a "good-person" won't cut it.

Definition of righteous:

1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.

2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine.

reply to post by undo

Personally I think that's TERRIBLE theology, imho, although it's part of the premise in the Galaxian sci-fi story in my signature, just for fun. No more from me, this has not been an enjoyable thread to participate in, and I'm not sure I appreciate the way the questions were framed in the survey itself for the most part, which seemed to have an agenda imbedded in it from the get go.

Read my ancient aliens the truth? Thread if you want the truth.

Originally posted by KingJames1337
Read my ancient aliens the truth? Thread if you want the truth.

There are no "aliens".

Read my aliens are demons thread if you want the truth.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

How do you know for fact there is not aliens?? Explain to me Adam and Eve

reply to post by Section31

When our society enters into the space age

Do you not know that Nasa just shut down the space program? We're not gonna be heading for the stars any time soon.

reply to post by felonius


No offense but it doesn't take long to petrify something, it can even be done in less than a year infact.

Those forest's in Arizona are no older than 6000 years, your presupposition is the problem here.

But be my guest and lap up everything the evolutionist's have to say.

Oh and the old testament is not one big parable, i don't know where you got that weird idea from. The only reason Jesus spoke in parables was so the simple folk could better understand is teachings.