The Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

Originally posted by SisyphusRide


the Bible states Humans were created in the image of God not fish fossils...

I think you may be partially right, if you, like me subscribe to the ancient alien theory, but then again they were not god, they were thought of as gods.
The Annunaki.

A theory that is credible, explains a lot of things and there is historical evidence.
God? No Evidence, NONE!

So yeah, we may be created in Their, or OUR image, we may be descendents of the Annunaki.

reply to post by begoodbees


I think you are misunderstanding the definition of scientific theory. Most people, usually religious, believe that the term 'theory' refers to a suspicious, instinct or a belief. Contrary to what those on the side of intelligent design might suggest; (scientific theory) has a separate definition than the generalized term (theory). That is a common misdirection by those who promote the idea of intelligent design and the only people who argue with that subject are objective religious people who do not research anything for themselves.

Definition:
Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of occurring aspects of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. (2) Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apoplectic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

A scientist makes judgments based on facts that are measurable and testable. It is a common argument among creationists that life first occurred randomly (or through god) in the form of amino acids and they challenge the scientific explanation that electricity first created the organic process. However, creationists are blatantly incorrect in that belief. Perhaps even lying because the information is available for anyone intelligent enough to look it up and understand it for themselves. However, this would require at least a high school diploma from a secular institution or higher, which is not common among creationists.

The Miller-Urey experiment conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 successively recreated the process 20 times at the University of Chicago. It is not 'faith' that convinces a scientist. It is an educated judgement based on scientific fact. If you provide some shred of evidence that points to intelligent design, most scientists would be very excited and positive about that notion.

Even the catholic church has stated that evolution is fact but they also believe that scientists are simply measuring the data involved with the divine creative process. So why can't it be that both arguments are correct? Why? Because we have crazy fanatics in the US who are so glued to the literal text of the bible, as it was taught to them by some hysterical preacher, that they lie in order to preserve what they believe is the basis of their principles. Although, the conservative creationist movement typically ask 'what would Jesus do" ...not so they can do it, but so they can tell other people to do it.

You are entirely incorrect in your suggestion that science is faith. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the examination of testable and measurable facts. So to challenge that reality and select faith in it's place would be the "Refusal to observe facts".

So, I suggest reviewing high school biology. The world is moving on without you and you are basing all of your argument on your misunderstood definition of scientific theory, perhaps because you were easily swayed by the people who use that argument to remain in control of their revenue-based faith organizations. The argument fails during the title of the blog.

*Tootles

I misunderstand nothing you have been duped into believing that theory means proven fact. I have already gone over this.

Here is some more info regarding the fallacy. Jurassic park being a propaganda film to support this conspiracy first made this belief of dinosaurs to birds mainstream.

creation.com...

Theory means unproven speculation or educated guess. Changing the meaning of the word is no way to support your argument.

Originally posted by Neojournalist
reply to post by begoodbees

 

I think you are misunderstanding the definition of scientific theory. Most people, usually religious, believe that the term 'theory' refers to a suspicious, instinct or a belief. Contrary to what those on the side of intelligent design might suggest; (scientific theory) has a separate definition than the generalized term (theory). That is a common misdirection by those who promote the idea of intelligent design and the only people who argue with that subject are objective religious people who do not research anything for themselves.

Definition:
Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of occurring aspects of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. (2) Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apoplectic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

A scientist makes judgments based on facts that are measurable and testable. It is a common argument among creationists that life first occurred randomly (or through god) in the form of amino acids and they challenge the scientific explanation that electricity first created the organic process. However, creationists are blatantly incorrect in that belief. Perhaps even lying because the information is available for anyone intelligent enough to look it up and understand it for themselves. However, this would require at least a high school diploma from a secular institution or higher, which is not common among creationists.

The Miller-Urey experiment conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 successively recreated the process 20 times at the University of Chicago. It is not 'faith' that convinces a scientist. It is an educated judgement based on scientific fact. If you provide some shred of evidence that points to intelligent design, most scientists would be very excited and positive about that notion.

Even the catholic church has stated that evolution is fact but they also believe that scientists are simply measuring the data involved with the divine creative process. So why can't it be that both arguments are correct? Why? Because we have crazy fanatics in the US who are so glued to the literal text of the bible, as it was taught to them by some hysterical preacher, that they lie in order to preserve what they believe is the basis of their principles. Although, the conservative creationist movement typically ask 'what would Jesus do" ...not so they can do it, but so they can tell other people to do it.

You are entirely incorrect in your suggestion that science is faith. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the examination of testable and measurable facts. So to challenge that reality and select faith in it's place would be the "Refusal to observe facts".

So, I suggest reviewing high school biology. The world is moving on without you and you are basing all of your argument on your misunderstood definition of scientific theory, perhaps because you were easily swayed by the people who use that argument to remain in control of their revenue-based faith organizations. The argument fails during the title of the blog.

*Tootles

You win the google award but as I have stated. There has been an effort in the last decade or two to change the meaning in order to give credence to the evolution argument.

Some one is conspiring to remove the work law so that all we have left is theory. 25 years ago this was clear. A theory would be formed based on evidence. If the theory is found worthy and true over a period of time it becomes law. That is how real science works.

Main Entry: scientific law
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

the important part to realize here is that is says "conceived by the human imagination" it does not say proven by facts and scientific law. In other words it is speculation based on observations. It really is that simple. Any argument to the contrary is nonsense.

"If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Albert Einstein.

Originally posted by Neojournalist
reply to post by begoodbees

 

I think you are misunderstanding the definition of scientific theory. Most people, usually religious, believe that the term 'theory' refers to a suspicious, instinct or a belief. Contrary to what those on the side of intelligent design might suggest; (scientific theory) has a separate definition than the generalized term (theory). That is a common misdirection by those who promote the idea of intelligent design and the only people who argue with that subject are objective religious people who do not research anything for themselves.

Definition:
Scientific Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of occurring aspects of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. (2) Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apoplectic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

A scientist makes judgments based on facts that are measurable and testable. It is a common argument among creationists that life first occurred randomly (or through god) in the form of amino acids and they challenge the scientific explanation that electricity first created the organic process. However, creationists are blatantly incorrect in that belief. Perhaps even lying because the information is available for anyone intelligent enough to look it up and understand it for themselves. However, this would require at least a high school diploma from a secular institution or higher, which is not common among creationists.

The Miller-Urey experiment conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 successively recreated the process 20 times at the University of Chicago. It is not 'faith' that convinces a scientist. It is an educated judgement based on scientific fact. If you provide some shred of evidence that points to intelligent design, most scientists would be very excited and positive about that notion.

Even the catholic church has stated that evolution is fact but they also believe that scientists are simply measuring the data involved with the divine creative process. So why can't it be that both arguments are correct? Why? Because we have crazy fanatics in the US who are so glued to the literal text of the bible, as it was taught to them by some hysterical preacher, that they lie in order to preserve what they believe is the basis of their principles. Although, the conservative creationist movement typically ask 'what would Jesus do" ...not so they can do it, but so they can tell other people to do it.

You are entirely incorrect in your suggestion that science is faith. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the examination of testable and measurable facts. So to challenge that reality and select faith in it's place would be the "Refusal to observe facts".

So, I suggest reviewing high school biology. The world is moving on without you and you are basing all of your argument on your misunderstood definition of scientific theory, perhaps because you were easily swayed by the people who use that argument to remain in control of their revenue-based faith organizations. The argument fails during the title of the blog.

*Tootles

By this definition evolution is not even a theory.
I never said science is faith, I said belief in evolutionary science is faith.

Faith is belief in things unseen and unproven. Therefore by definition belief in evolution as factual truth is faith.

So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it. That is what religious people do. The more fervently you argue, the more you are proving your religious indoctrination.

If that is what you want to believe fine. But don't be hypocritical and say that your faith is the only one that can possibly be correct.

I know it is hard to shed a lifetime of indoctrination. No one wants to acknowledge that they have been duped. But don't let pride get in the way of truth.

Originally posted by begoodbees
So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it.

Lmao!

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by humphreysjim
SisyphusRide, let's cut the crap. If evolution is not true, explain the fossil record, please.

I don't care about the evolution of fish... neither does religion.

I care about the evidence of Humans coming from Apes and the tangible fossil record of "fact" which does not exist.

I know you just need to establish evolution of anything to be able to apply it to humans, but sorry to tell you my friend this is not the case.

the Bible states Humans were created in the image of God not fish fossils...

edit on 14-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

There is a long line going from primate to man. Which specifically are you confused about?
Give a quick rundown, Primates (such as lemers and the like..monkeys) going to haplorrhini, then catarrhini (new apes).
Then we reach the hominidae class.
Things like the orangutans, gorillas, chimps.
After that, we start seeing things like ardipithecus, the australophithecus (very much the "missing link" many people think of...which isn't missing btw)

So then we move onto the homo habilis ancestor of the homo ergaster whom lived side by side with the homo erectus. (arguably we have not moved much facially from these features)

We then come across the ancestor of humans and neandertals called the homo antecessor
Then humans (homo sapians).

Over time, each line has faltered due to various reasons, most being simply out populated by their line..aka, survival of the fittest.

I know your not really interested in learning..but the info is indeed out there...it won't help your fantasy much, but one day, you might want more than just garbage bonking around in your brain and feel like you want to contribute something worthwhile to the human race..never know..might happen...you clearly fear atheism and science, and there is often a fine line between fear and acknowledgement..aka, you fear what you know you are...lash out in anger before accepting who you are...no longer a child, time to give up santa.

Originally posted by begoodbees
So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it. That is what religious people do. .

Well, I defend facts...with the evidence being the evidence...

...

Which is not what religious people do.

What proof do you have that you have cell phone service? would I come off as clever if I said you simply believed you did with no facts, or would my stance be absurd considering you can simply turn the phone on to show you in fact do?
No, there is no comparison..someone demanding facts aren't true because a 2000 year old book says so is not equal to someone whom accepts the facts are indeed there.

Theory can never mean fact and fact can never mean theory. The fact that people believe to the contrary is further evidence of indoctrination.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by begoodbees
So many have defended the factuality of evolution with no evidence to support it. That is what religious people do. .

Well, I defend facts...with the evidence being the evidence...

...

Which is not what religious people do.

What proof do you have that you have cell phone service? would I come off as clever if I said you simply believed you did with no facts, or would my stance be absurd considering you can simply turn the phone on to show you in fact do?
No, there is no comparison..someone demanding facts aren't true because a 2000 year old book says so is not equal to someone whom accepts the facts are indeed there.

I never mentioned any books, I am talking observable facts. That is what real science is about. Belligerent, see definition.

Originally posted by begoodbees
Theory can never mean fact and fact can never mean theory. The fact that people believe to the contrary is further evidence of indoctrination.

A theory is based off of facts. Facts that have been observed.

Please, either read the entire page or don't bother posting any more nonsense on this forum.
en.wikipedia.org...

Thread Link to Involution and Evolution

Baptism is a good way to describe involution and evolution. We are involved in the material world to rise to new life (Evolve).

Gospel of the Nazarenes (Lection 88)

12. For by involution and evolution shall the salvation of all the world be accomplished: by the Descent of Spirit into matter, and the Ascent of matter into Spirit through the ages.

We all come from one loaf of bread.

1 Corinthians 10

The cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The Son is the first and last Adam, the heel on either side of the loaf that crushes the head of Satan. See Genesis 3. The heel was bruised in the first century.

What does this all mean? Humanity is compared to a loaf of bread that is cut into slices. One soul is being raised by God as the Son of God. We are all slices in this loaf. Involution of the spirit into the material world of water is baptism. We are immersed in the water to rise to new life (Evolve). The Son is being raised.

Christ said that if they destroyed the temple (His Body), he would raise it in three days.

Hosea 6

6 “Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

Unity to Multiplicity and back to Unity. The Bible covers it all. We are created in an image of light. We are the image of God. The image is produced by information (WORD).

John 1

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[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Word is the Wave of Particle/Wave duality and collapsing wave function. We are each made of matter (Particle and Wave) and we have consciousness (Holy Spirit).

Father
Son
Holy Spirit.

Hydrogen has one proton and one electron in a balanced state of unity. These positives and negatives are the starting point for hydrogenesis. The image starts here. Mankind has the mark of Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons). The neutron is the neutral, neither positive or negative.

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e or of mankind] That number is 666.

Now you have wisdom.

Apply involution and evolution to a snowman and you see the unique snowflakes making the three balls of snow. Frosty the Snowman is a story of Christ. Frosty

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
this has to be one of my favorites pertaining to this topic...

....

Isaiah 40:22

God sits above the circle of the earth.
The people below seem like grasshoppers to him!
He spreads out the heavens like a curtain
and makes his tent from them.

Bible
"The Circle of Earth"

Science then
"The Earth is a Flat Disk"

Idiots
"The Bible says that the Earth is a sphere. Circles are clearly spheres and not flat disks."

yes in scientific terms a circle is a sphere... close enough for me and any layman I would imagine?

go figure... grasshopper

Your thinking style:

"I have my conclusion before any research, this will be my thesis. Now all I have to do is find some crap that makes it look like I came to this conclusion by some exercise of logic".

Your score, 0/10.

Circles are not spheres; get it together.

Originally posted by begoodbees
The fact that so many people religiously believe the most unlikely and implausible explanation for where the most sophisticated objects in the known universe (living things) originated is the best evidence of this global conspiracy.
....
Opposing evolution in the modern day is like opposing any other prevalent religion in the past. Persecution is what follows.

Here is another perhaps more coherent analysis of the subject.

www.icr.org...

edit on 13-12-2012 by begoodbees because: added link

I'm pretty sure that in other replies to posts in the past that I've made, I've said something similar about Evolution being a conspiracy itself. Its a conspiracy on your world view. Evolution by design is anti-God and anti-Bible, dreamed up far before Darwin. In fact it goes back to ancient Greek thinking, such as Plato.

This conspiracy of evolution underlies most other conspiracies. You put them under scrutiny in a Biblical and creation world view, and the motives of the devil are seen in them.

The following quote is from the link below.
A Young Creation is Important

I am inundated by questions about the age of the earth and universe; and, why is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position so important to the Christian faith. Many people ask, why does CWM stress the importance of believing in a young creation? After all, many people seem to want to take the Rodney King approach to the issue: “Please, we can get along here.”


So why is the acceptance of a young creation, based upon the Bible’s account of creation about 6,000 years ago, so important to the Christian faith? Why should Christians care whether or not the earth and universe are young or old? Does the acceptance of an old or young earth and universe really have any bearing on the Gospel?


In one word, the answer is yes, it does matter. It matters a great deal. CWM is unequivocal in its support for, and belief in, a young creation. The reasons are based, as they should always be, in the character of the God of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Bible and in the scientific support for a young creation.


Yes, it matters, because it is important to God:


“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5:45-47 [Emphasis added]


I want to stipulate that a Christian who believes in an old creation may go to Heaven. Their acceptance of an old creation is not the salvation issue. They do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and they may be ignorant of the overwhelming scientific evidence for a young creation (270+ Geochronometers supporting a young creation), but these are not salvation issues.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is a perfect example of the kind of propaganda that is being used to promote the idea of all nonbelievers being ignorant.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by begoodbees
Theory can never mean fact and fact can never mean theory. The fact that people believe to the contrary is further evidence of indoctrination.

A theory is based off of facts. Facts that have been observed.

Please, either read the entire page or don't bother posting any more nonsense on this forum.
en.wikipedia.org...

A theory is speculation based on observed facts. I can't believe that I have to keep on explaining what a theory is. Is that really the best evidence anyone has for the validity of evolution, the meaning of the word theory? I don't have to read wikipedia to know what a theory is. If you had bothered to read my posts I have already accurately defined these words.

Theory is not fact just get over it.

Click here for more information.