The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 26 times


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 11:45 AM by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by ConspiracyFearist22
reply to post by EnochWasRight


I dont understand how you can claim evolution is bunk and then have nothing to explain life of your own! It seems that the idea of "Debunking" comes in 2 forms. The debunking of conspiracy theories, which entails finding BETTER explantions for what the theorist claims. And the debunking of science, which entails... no BETTER explanations!



Read my posts above. I do a good job. Then, click on the link in my signature. There is more than enough there to show you evidence that matches the science. Physics of God link is the one to read.


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 11:59 AM by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by EnochWasRight


It goes far beyond a book. And no, we don't have the technology to know. We have technology that gives us a better idea of what we don't know, but we as it stands today will never know. Maybe in a couple hundred years (if we last that long), but not now.

I read somewhere that said, "As a human collective throughout all our knowledge both past and present, we know 0.00000003% of everything there is to know.". I wish I had a source to that. But I believe it's true. We don't know jack, we know some very basics but beyond that we're idiots.


There is a good book by Thomas Troward - The Hidden Power

Here is the first paragraph opening the first chapter.

THE HIDDEN POWER

To realise fully how much of our present daily life consists in symbols is to find the answer to the old, old question, What is Truth? and in the degree in which we begin to recognise this we begin to approach Truth. The realization of Truth consists in the ability to translate symbols, whether natural or conventional, into their equivalents; and the root of all the errors of mankind consists in the inability to do this, and in maintaining that the symbol has nothing behind it. The great duty incumbent on all who have attained to this knowledge is to impress upon their fellow men that there is an inner side to things, and that until this inner side is known, the things themselves are not known.


Nature is that symbol to our minds. Also, the Bible is in parable and allegorical symbol. Paradoxically, it is also based in historical fact. God speaks to us over 6000 years, revealing the hidden nature of reality. The mistake is to say we cannot see the root of this knowledge. We can when we learn to see in symbol.

This is a very good 75 page book to read. It is slightly antiquated in some of its references, but it holds a great deal of valuable perspective.

Read the linked article in my signature about Science and Religion as male and female polarities. It's not that I disagree with you, but I see an excluded middle that unifies the paradox.



edit on 20-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 12:00 PM by abeverage
reply to post by EnochWasRight


Too me, a creator, evolution, science and the big bang are logical, rational and just plain interesting. Nature is logical, as a process it is beautifully universal. It is in that beauty I find my God, not in a magical being that creates things out of magic or tries to confound us with things outside our understanding.

A magical mythical creation makes no sense in a world where I see our creator as the ultimate scientist. Creator of a grand universe with beautiful mathematical laws which govern this creation with formulas we can understand, as we are made with understanding like our creator.

Since it does not appear that I am magic, I cannot understand a mythical being who would want go about trying to confuse the very senses they supposedly gave us to understand this universe. A universe that is infinately huge and complex and very very ancient.

One thing that has always confounded me is our near resemblance to Apes specifically Chimpanzees. I mean do we look like any other species of animal? Do we look like insects, whales, antelopes, tigers, birds, Plants? NO… But Apes have ears, eyes, hand (with thumbs), body and skeletal structures much like ours.

Now if I was a creator I would create Humans completely different from any other creatures so they would know they were “special” and not confound them. Why create such a similar “Creature” with a close DNA structure like ours? Why would a trickster creator do this? To "fool" with us? A joke?

I certainly would not have created other creatures before them (DINOSAURS) and left their bones in ways to make them think the world is older than 10,000 years. And I would not create a universe that is obviously massive making them feel even more insignicant or wonder if there was other life out there if I wanted them to only think of themselves and the creator.

Only Magicians like to trick us with sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, making us believe something that is not real…


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 12:11 PM by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by rhinoceros
The video basically just stated that developmental biology is still a developing field and many discoveries remain to be made. Nobody questioned evolution, that was just OP's wishful thinking..


If you choose to see the literal, then you might reach a literal conclusion. What the video reveals is the "Divine" nature as a symbolic gesture on the part of the commentator. Science cannot deny the current theory. It is overwhelmingly against pure accident in favor of a mind-blowing array of design and complexity from engineering. Nothing wishful about it. Bias is between pride and truth. This is always the case. I embrace both science and religion. Science is making its way up the octave. If you want a real symbol to follow, examine the evidence from science for the statement I just made in the last sentence. Evidence is overwhelming. LINK

WORD / WAVE

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice (WORD / WAVE) goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The decrees of the LORD are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
edit on 20-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 12:24 PM by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by camus154
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
If you choose to see the literal, then you might reach a literal conclusion.


You mean, like science does. Science isn't concerned with seeing the poetic beauty in things. Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.


What the video reveals is the "Divine" nature as a symbolic gesture on the part of the commentator. Science cannot deny the current theory.


Stop right there. If you have to put divine in quotes and call it "symbolic", you're done. Period. Science has nothing to do with this. Science won't bother denying the theory because it won't even address it.

Science isn't about some fanciful interpretation of the wonders of the universe. Science is about the facts.

All done.


You are correct. Again, I'll quote from the book, The Hidden Power:

THE HIDDEN POWER

To realise fully how much of our present daily life consists in symbols is to find the answer to the old, old question, What is Truth? and in the degree in which we begin to recognise this we begin to approach Truth. The realization of Truth consists in the ability to translate symbols, whether natural or conventional, into their equivalents; and the root of all the errors of mankind consists in the inability to do this, and in maintaining that the symbol has nothing behind it. The great duty incumbent on all who have attained to this knowledge is to impress upon their fellow men that there is an inner side to things, and that until this inner side is known, the things themselves are not known.


We do see symbolically. You read language, which is symbol. All of science is built around symbols of mathematics and observation in symbolic form. Don't kid yourself thinking that reason and rationality do not involve seeing in symbol. The problem is seeing biased symbol. That's what makes it impenetrable. Even Humpty Dumpty tells us this from Alice in Wonderland:

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'


`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.


Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant, "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"


`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.


`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'


`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'


Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.


`They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

Impenetrability is the state where two things cannot occupy the same place. One rules the other. Good and evil are examples. Ignorance and truth are another. We see these in symbol, just as Lewis Carroll states in his book. Words are what we say they are until we know what they mean. We can know, but not apart from symbol and seeing the underlying meaning.

The real Humpty in Lament:

Man sat on the wall of choice when he was vulnerable like an egg on a wall.

Man took knowledge and used it before he was ready (before the egg hatched), and had a great fall (from God’s grace). If he had just waited, he would have become his potential by hatching.

All of the King’s tools (technology) and all of the King’s men (Alchemists/Scientists/Mathematicians) could not put man back in his place of glory again.


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 01:03 PM by HappyBunny
Originally posted by petrus4
reply to post by EnochWasRight


Here's a hint, Slick. Trying to tell Atheists that Darwin might have been wrong, about anything, ever, is the atheistic equivalent of someone with chronic diarrhea, using a crucifix as a rectal stimulation device, within a Christian context. You can call any dissenters from Darwin as "credible," or "scientific," as you like; it doesn't matter, because they're not going to believe you. The only thing they're going to do is get seriously upset.

Atheists like to try and claim otherwise, but a good many of them are just as ruled by their emotions as any theist is, and they have their own sacred cows accordingly. One of the particularly tragic ways in which that can manifest, is in the worship of Carl Sagan, among others. Darwin is another one of their heroes, however, and they seriously don't like it when anyone implies that he wasn't exclusively awesome.

It's just not how you're going to win arguments with them.


You win arguments by being logical, which you're not, right out of the gate. All atheists are by definition evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists. You also assume--wrongly--that atheists are not people with emotions. ALL people have emotions. Some just don't let their emotions run away with them and prefer to keep one foot in reality.

Second, nobody subscribes to Darwinism anymore, and hasn't for about 75 years. It's called the Modern Synthesis and incorporates botany, morphology, genetics and by extension population genetics, ecology, paleontology, cytology, and systemics. I should probably throw quantum physics in there, too. Darwin didn't know about genetics, and the ideas he describes in On the Origin of Species were far from new even then.


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 01:05 PM by HappyBunny
Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by EnochWasRight


Too me, a creator, evolution, science and the big bang are logical, rational and just plain interesting. Nature is logical, as a process it is beautifully universal. It is in that beauty I find my God, not in a magical being that creates things out of magic or tries to confound us with things outside our understanding.


I wish I could give you a hundred stars for this. It's very close to what I believe, too.


reply posted on 20-3-2012 @ 01:12 PM by EnochWasRight
reply to post by HappyBunny


The real question here is not one of evolution, but the direction evolution takes. Either it is pushed along from behind or it drags us along from ahead. The atheist says we are dragged by happy and continual chance. This goes against collapsing wave theory. The ID champion knows the truth: We are both. We have a source that we flow from. We also have a source to rise back to, denying entropy of information but not energy. What is information? Let's ask a physicist. Leondard Susskind knows the answer. Energy in movement is information creating transition. Again, consciousness predates matter.

Leonard says hologram. God says image in Genesis 1:27. What's the difference? Quantum engineering.





edit on 20-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags
Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags
M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags
When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags
Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags
Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags