The Ad Hominoid Subtribe of the Diatribe - Knowing the Truth of Evolution from Involution in a Holog

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

My conclusion is this: Evolution and natural selection is a highly visible truth if you see the truth of the matter. It is a result of programming and not the cause of it.

Why would an all powerful god therefore, have to devise such a low tech, desperate and miserable means of survival, as is DNA based life, inside of a universe who's laws he was fabricating at the very same moment he was creating DNA anyway? This makes no sense at all.

1. The 'talent' of our DNA 'programmer' is nowhere near that talent level that ostensibly created the universe,

2. This DNA programmer is a desperate victim of universal laws and dangers, as are we. He 'had to make do with the resources and means available to him.'

3. The 'programming' is very poorly done. In fact so sloppy and ineffective - and producing such a long legacy of disease, malformity, misery and suffering, that it is valid to call into question the benevolence of such a 'programmer.'

4. And no, none of this is 'Man's fault.'



edit on 25-8-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)


It is extremely poor programming with much of it not even usable. Almost like if it was created by random changes over a very long period of time going the direction as whatever change turned out to be best.

Hmmm




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

My conclusion is this: Evolution and natural selection is a highly visible truth if you see the truth of the matter. It is a result of programming and not the cause of it.

Why would an all powerful god therefore, have to devise such a low tech, desperate and miserable means of survival, as is DNA based life, inside of a universe who's laws he was fabricating at the very same moment he was creating DNA anyway? This makes no sense at all.

1. The 'talent' of our DNA 'programmer' is nowhere near that talent level that ostensibly created the universe,

2. This DNA programmer is a desperate victim of universal laws and dangers, as are we. He 'had to make do with the resources and means available to him.'

3. The 'programming' is very poorly done. In fact so sloppy and ineffective - and producing such a long legacy of disease, malformity, misery and suffering, that it is valid to call into question the benevolence of such a 'programmer.'

4. And no, none of this is 'Man's fault.'



edit on 25-8-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)


It is extremely poor programming with much of it not even usable. Almost like if it was created by random changes over a very long period of time going the direction as whatever change turned out to be best.

Hmmm


In some regards yes, with the exception of the 16 Human Accelerated Regions (Benjamin Lewin, Genes IX, Bartlett Graduate Studies Texts, HAR Phylogenics, 2008/12). "The underpinning mechanisms which drive DNA substitution mutations, are biochemical in nature and are not fully understood. However, it is clear that such changes are not random, rather driven by both environmental selection factors, as well as other currently unknown factors."

We have some problems with humans in this regard, but nothing so dramatic that we have to toss out evolution by any means; nor create gods to explain this gap.



edit on 25-8-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HyphenSt1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


one of my more recent ponderings: what if evolution is one of the oldest art forms..? if creativity started on a cosmic scale, and has resulted in the gradual solidification of forms and the emergence of other forms of creativity such as invention..? hmmmm...



This seems to be what is implied by involution and evolution. The artist immerses Himself into inconscious, then rises to new life in the process. Baptism is this very idea.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Sorry but this is getting ridiculous!....your posting the same stuff in multiple threads!.....I know your pushing a book....but........come on!

We get it!....you've found a "code" in the bible and you like to play with words.....and your selling a book


What is your view of the video? What would constitute proof for you that we are created with information?



edit on 25-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Who knows, maybe he will allow unrepentant thieves into his kingdom. What do you think? Actually, God can only give. His choice is clear. He will give darkness to those who do not choose His way. At least a place is provided, right? He denies nothing. He offers everything.


A very good response Enoch. Wise and tempered, thanks.
This teaching you cite however is not actually Christian in nature, rather is a teaching of The Kabbalah. It is a principle which is termed 'Bestowal.' In this teaching then, hell is not a place which is adjudicated, rather selected by those who have full choice in the Bestowal process. Christianity does not actually teach this, rather teaches, an adjudicated final judgement and hell by assignment. A Bible literal-ist will be very angry to hear you citing this.

In my years I have had pastors who adhered to either Adjudication or Bestowal, and they hated each other. I just sat and quietly listened.




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Who knows, maybe he will allow unrepentant thieves into his kingdom. What do you think? Actually, God can only give. His choice is clear. He will give darkness to those who do not choose His way. At least a place is provided, right? He denies nothing. He offers everything.


A very good response Enoch. Wise and tempered, thanks.
This teaching you cite however is not actually Christian in nature, rather is a teaching of The Kabbalah. It is a principle which is termed 'Bestowal.' In this teaching then, hell is not a place which is adjudicated, rather selected by those who have full choice in the Bestowal process. Christianity does not actually teach this, rather teaches, an adjudicated final judgement and hell by assignment. A Bible literal-ist will be very angry to hear you citing this.

In my years I have had pastors who adhered to either Adjudication or Bestowal, and they hated each other. I just sat and quietly listened.



I rest on Grace and Mercy. I also know that when there is no way, God makes a way. I also know that God is Love and Love keeps no records of wrongs. Of course, you already know the scripture references. I think that God does keep a record of rights. He also applies the love thing to those who do the same. I am unsure what happens to those who reject his Love, but the Bible seems to be pretty clear on the matter as you say. Then again, much of the language used in the Bible is symbolic. Fire, for instance, represents trials. I have seen many people in hell here on Earth.

I do not follow God on the basis of duplicity though. If a person fears judgment, they are really seeking God to avoid the alternative. If a person seeks God for reward, what are they after? For me, it's about knowing the truth and what the truth represents for unity over chaos. This is yet another proof of God. This is His stated desire as well, yet his is invariable like physics. Again, another proof. I keep using proof for one reason: follow the roads where they lead.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

In some regards yes, with the exception of the 16 Human Accelerated Regions (Benjamin Lewin, Genes IX, Bartlett Graduate Studies Texts, HAR Phylogenics, 2008/12). "The underpinning mechanisms which drive DNA substitution mutations, are biochemical in nature and are not fully understood. However, it is clear that such changes are not random, rather driven by both environmental selection factors, as well as other currently unknown factors."

We have some problems with humans in this regard, but nothing so dramatic that we have to toss out evolution by any means; nor create gods to explain this gap.



I do agree that chemical reactions are not random but very precise processes...

But wouldn't you say that there is randomness in how the environment/Natural Selection plays into the process?



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
In some regards yes, with the exception of the 16 Human Accelerated Regions (Benjamin Lewin, Genes IX, Bartlett Graduate Studies Texts, HAR Phylogenics, 2008/12). "The underpinning mechanisms which drive DNA substitution mutations, are biochemical in nature and are not fully understood. However, it is clear that such changes are not random, rather driven by both environmental selection factors, as well as other currently unknown factors."


I do agree that chemical reactions are not random but very precise processes...

But wouldn't you say that there is randomness in how the environment/Natural Selection plays into the process?


Oh absolutely,
my point was just to stress that aside from the randomness factor, we don't fully understand yet, everything that contributes to the novel allele process. As Bryan Sykes pointed out in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" - after the Basque and Finnish populations split 12,000 years ago, fully 6,000 years after that human phenotype split geographically, and the populations had migrated to their current geographic regions (Finland and Spain), they both underwent the exact same mitochondrial DNA nucleotide substitution (B below), at the same time; and it was the only mutation which occurred in that 5,000 year period. So under his view it introduced a hierarchy of influences, key of which certainly are random mutations.

A. Random mutations
B. Biochemically predisposed mutations (Sykes European Haplo mtDNA)
C. Generational culling (elimination)
D. Phenotype success (selection)
E. Secondary indirect factors (Human HAR regions)

So, while the largest factor A - can be made to appear non-random by the influencing impact of C and D (as neo-Darwinists astutely point out), we still do not fully grasp the impact of B and E.




posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
In some regards yes, with the exception of the 16 Human Accelerated Regions (Benjamin Lewin, Genes IX, Bartlett Graduate Studies Texts, HAR Phylogenics, 2008/12). "The underpinning mechanisms which drive DNA substitution mutations, are biochemical in nature and are not fully understood. However, it is clear that such changes are not random, rather driven by both environmental selection factors, as well as other currently unknown factors."


I do agree that chemical reactions are not random but very precise processes...

But wouldn't you say that there is randomness in how the environment/Natural Selection plays into the process?


Oh absolutely,
my point was just to stress that aside from the randomness factor, we don't fully understand yet, everything that contributes to the novel allele process. As Bryan Sykes pointed out in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" - after the Basque and Finnish populations split 12,000 years ago, fully 6,000 years after that human phenotype split geographically, and the populations had migrated to their current geographic regions (Finland and Spain), they both underwent the exact same mitochondrial DNA nucleotide substitution (B below), at the same time; and it was the only mutation which occurred in that 5,000 year period. So under his view it introduced a hierarchy of influences, key of which certainly are random mutations.

A. Random mutations
B. Biochemically predisposed mutations (Sykes European Haplo mtDNA)
C. Generational culling (elimination)
D. Phenotype success (selection)
E. Secondary indirect factors (Human HAR regions)

So, while the largest factor A - can be made to appear non-random by the influencing impact of C and D (as neo-Darwinists astutely point out), we still do not fully grasp the impact of B and E.



I agree, but I would lean towards a disease that spread across both regions around roughly the same time.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
In some regards yes, with the exception of the 16 Human Accelerated Regions (Benjamin Lewin, Genes IX, Bartlett Graduate Studies Texts, HAR Phylogenics, 2008/12). "The underpinning mechanisms which drive DNA substitution mutations, are biochemical in nature and are not fully understood. However, it is clear that such changes are not random, rather driven by both environmental selection factors, as well as other currently unknown factors."


I do agree that chemical reactions are not random but very precise processes...

But wouldn't you say that there is randomness in how the environment/Natural Selection plays into the process?


Oh absolutely,
my point was just to stress that aside from the randomness factor, we don't fully understand yet, everything that contributes to the novel allele process. As Bryan Sykes pointed out in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" - after the Basque and Finnish populations split 12,000 years ago, fully 6,000 years after that human phenotype split geographically, and the populations had migrated to their current geographic regions (Finland and Spain), they both underwent the exact same mitochondrial DNA nucleotide substitution (B below), at the same time; and it was the only mutation which occurred in that 5,000 year period. So under his view it introduced a hierarchy of influences, key of which certainly are random mutations.

A. Random mutations
B. Biochemically predisposed mutations (Sykes European Haplo mtDNA)
C. Generational culling (elimination)
D. Phenotype success (selection)
E. Secondary indirect factors (Human HAR regions)

So, while the largest factor A - can be made to appear non-random by the influencing impact of C and D (as neo-Darwinists astutely point out), we still do not fully grasp the impact of B and E.



I agree, but I would lean towards a disease that spread across both regions around roughly the same time.


Absolutely plausible, RNA ala "Darwin's Radio." And I think Sykes would agree with you, still lumping the mutation into category B, non random.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join