Hi y'all,
This is the start of the weekend and I am just lazing away skipping through the Forums (or is that Fora?)
I readily confess that I have read only about two postings per page on this "debate" so don't know if the question in the title has been answered to anybody's satisfaction....
I am here to tell you that I have found my answer (trumpets and fanfare!!)
For many years (as some of you that were on the RHP "Debates" forum even before there was a "Spirituality" Forum may know) I was a strong proponent of the Young Earth Creationist model. The book in which I found most of my convincing arguments was "In Six Days" edited by John F Ashton PhD.
A few months ago I came across Francis Collins' book "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief".
I eagerly read it, seeking further proof of my position.
Imagine my shock when I found that Collins (btw, he was the Director of the Human Genome project, and truly one of the world's leading scientists) gave some very convincing proofs of evolution, with some
scathing criticisms of the ID movement....
The most compelling proof of evolution appears on page 135 where Collins discusses Ancient Repetitive Elements (AREs) in chromosomes. "These arise from 'jumping genes' which are capable of copying and inserting themselves in various other locations in the genome, usually without any functional consequences."
For example, he discusses the correlations between the human chromosome 17 and the mouse chromosome 11. "When one aligns sections of the human and mouse genomes... one can usually also indentify AREs in approximately the same location in these two genomes".
Without repeating his entire argument here, his conclusion is as follows: "Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable."
In the opening chapter of the book, Dr Collins describes how he came "From Atheism to Belief", largely through reading CS Lewis' book "Mere Christianity". In the end, he explores the various positions that any rational person (he calls them Truth Seekers) can take vis-a-vis Evolution, and declares his to be BioLogos, a word he coins himself that "Brings Faith and Science into Harmony".
Rocked to the core in my own belief, and having many remaining questions (never mind the eye, how did Reproductive Processes evolve??) I started corresponding with Dr Collins, and found him to be humble and approachable. He pointed me to his website www.biologos.org, where interesting questions and discussions are encouraged.
I would urge any Christian believer who is serious about wrestling with some of these issues to get the book and to visit this website.
In peace,
CJ
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustNice post. Here's a thumb for you.
Hi y'all,
This is the start of the weekend and I am just lazing away skipping through the Forums (or is that Fora?)
I readily confess that I have read only about two postings per page on this "debate" so don't know if the question in the title has been answered to anybody's satisfaction....
I am here to tell you that I have found [b]my answer (t ...[text shortened]... sues to get the book and to visit this website.
In peace,
CJ[/b]
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustPlease read a book called ( Forbidden Archaeology) by Michael Cremo. the leading authority on extreme human antiquity.
Hi y'all,
This is the start of the weekend and I am just lazing away skipping through the Forums (or is that Fora?)
I readily confess that I have read only about two postings per page on this "debate" so don't know if the question in the title has been answered to anybody's satisfaction....
I am here to tell you that I have found [b]my answer (t ...[text shortened]... sues to get the book and to visit this website.
In peace,
CJ[/b]
This book turns evolution up side down.
Remember to accept evolution is to accept first there was nothing and then there was useful functional complexity coming along without plan or cause or purpose.
But if there was something then what was that something and how did that something exist in a way to give rise to everything that exist without plan cause or purpose.
Because when talking of evolution we cannot separate it from the planet and universe it exists in, and the food that is supplied to feed it, and the sun and water that sustains it, and the gravity that allows it, and the reproductive mechanism to continue it.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaYou are making probably the most common mistake that is made about evolution: It is NOT "to accept that there was nothing and then...." etc etc. That is the Theory of ORIGINS
Remember to accept evolution is to accept first there was nothing and then there was useful functional complexity coming along without plan or cause or purpose. Then there was something then what was that something and how did that something exist in a way to give rise to everything that exist without plan cause or purpose.
To accept Evolution is to accept that more complex organisms developed from less complex ones. Nothing more and nothing less.
And I have discovered that there is indeed significant and compelling evidence for that.
One famous evolutionist (can't remember his name, maybe Huxley) once said that if anybody wanted to attack evolution, the weakest point would be the origin of life. That is still very far from being explained by science, never mind evolution.
Also, as I said in my post, there are many other difficulties, such as how can something that does NOT produce sexually suddenly (i.e. in one generation!) decide that sexual reproduction is the way to go. There are no midway points - you cannot, as the saying goes, be half-pregnant.
However, we should differentiate between what is well-known and can be explained with relative certainity, and what is speculation. As Collins says in his book, we know today significantly more about human evolution than we did even five years ago,
Which still leaves a lot of things unexplained and remaining to be discovered. Let's admit that and go on with our research!
05 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaWhy do you insist on tying evolution to creation? I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. If you have studied evolution, you should know full well that evolution does not even try to cover creation, but only deals with what happens to life forms AFTER life appeared.
Please read a book called ( Forbidden Archaeology) by Michael Cremo. the leading authority on extreme human antiquity.
This book turns evolution up side down.
Remember to accept evolution is to accept first there was nothing and then there was useful functional complexity coming along without plan or cause or purpose.
But if there was something then w ...[text shortened]... that sustains it, and the gravity that allows it, and the reproductive mechanism to continue it.
The scientific study of what started life is a totally separate science.
The thing is, you rail against all these sciences when at most science as we know it is only a few hundred years old, optics maybe 700 years old. How long has humanity been around? You act like all scientists are dogmatic in their prognostications but that is not true either. When new evidence comes along, the old way of thinking gives way to the new.
So stop crying wolf against such a new thing, science.
If you were to drop in on humanity in a thousand years and see what has developed in that time, most sciences would be considered mature. THEN you can start griping about dishonest science. You are striking newborns here.
A thousand years from now, we may have samples of life forms from the nearby stars and certainly (assuming we don't off ourselves as a civilization and we manage to keep up the advancements of science) will have proof or disproof of life on other planets in our solar system, Mars, Europa, Callisto, etc.
So stop with the dishonest science argument, it puts you in a bad light and will never convince anyone of the truth of your path, quite the opposite.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustBut why would science spend many resources exploring something that is just not true?
You are making probably the most common mistake that is made about evolution: It is NOT "to accept that there was nothing and then...." etc etc. That is the Theory of ORIGINS
To accept Evolution is to accept that more complex organisms developed from less complex ones. Nothing more and nothing less.
And I have discovered that there is indeed significan ...[text shortened]... gs unexplained and remaining to be discovered. Let's admit that and go on with our research!
Every time I see on TV some science program about the mysterious universe they first explain the big bang and then evolution together one after the other...........they say this is how the universe came to be and then life appeared in a primordial soup and gave way to all the species including man.
There is no evidence of evolution and what little evidence is given has been fabricated.
Actually if you study all the evidence that they find in the ground it goes against evolution and does not support it ( see Forbidden Archaeology)
It is a known fact that anything that doesn't support evolution is swept under the rug.
And anything that resembles evolution is expanded upon to the max to the point of fabrication ( see Lucy and Piltdown and others)
Dishonest science will go into their investigation with a pre-determined outlook to force evolution into existence.
There is evidence that man (not apes) existed along side dinosaurs but this is not revealed to the public (see Forbidden Archaeology)
All this type of science is dishonest science.
I am not against science .................just dishonest science.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaInteresting choice of name:
Please read a book called ( Forbidden Archaeology) by Michael Cremo. the leading authority on extreme human antiquity.
This book turns evolution up side down.
Remember to accept evolution is to accept first there was nothing and then there was useful functional complexity coming along without plan or cause or purpose.
But if there was something then w ...[text shortened]... that sustains it, and the gravity that allows it, and the reproductive mechanism to continue it.
Cremo is a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Bhaktivedanta Institute. He has written several books and articles about Hindu spirituality under the name Drutakarma Dasa.
No wonder you worship the dude.
He sites evidence from the 19th and early 20th century, ignoring refutations of later years or just ridiculing such evidence.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by sonhouseCremo has travelled the world investigating all archaeological sites and has seen all the evidence first hand (or lack of)
Interesting choice of name:
Cremo is a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Bhaktivedanta Institute. He has written several books and articles about Hindu spirituality under the name Drutakarma Dasa.
No wonder you worship the dude.
He sites evidence from the 19th and early 20th century, ignoring refutations of later years or just ridiculing such evidence.
You cannot attempt to discredit this person just because he has revealed the truth of modern archaeological methods as dubious because its like not trusting your doctor for telling you that you have a cancer.
Michael Cremo will tell it as it is and not how he thinks it is, and he is highly respected amongst all honest science persons.
He travels the world lecturing and you can if interested go on-line and listen to his lectures and listen with an unbiased attitude.
Many persons who support evolution have only the explanations of others to support their own involvement and support in evolution, and have not themselves witnessed all the evidences that are said to be existing for evolution, but Cremo has seen everything first hand and has seen other artefacts that the world has not been privileged to see.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by hintjulI think your timeframe is a bit short.
we will have a new theory within the next 200-300 years, something we probably couldnt dream about at present.
Faith has been around for at least 5000 years.
Christianity, in spite of a few hiccups like Copernicus and Luther, hasn't changed fundamentally in the last five hundred.
I doubt whether the basics will change much during the next thousand.
06 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaIn my first post I tried to point you to one item of "evidence for evolution" that has appeared convincing to me.
There is no evidence of evolution and what little evidence is given has been fabricated.
Actually if you study all the evidence that they find in the ground it goes against evolution and does not support it ( see Forbidden Archaeology)
Before we go any further, could you perhaps reply to that one item for me?
I have read many books (in fact, I have most of them) disproving evolution, - such as Werner Gitt's books, The Genesis Flood, and the In Six Days that I mentioned before.
Also, I have a high school creationist Biology textbook: Finding Order in Diversity, which shows, amongst other arguments, the human/dynosaur interaction.
But I will read your Forbidden Archeology if you will undertake to read Francis Collins' book.
Deal?
06 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustCould you please re-phrase the question that is in the other posting because I am not sure what you are asking. (need clarification)
In my first post I tried to point you to one item of "evidence for evolution" that has appeared convincing to me.
Before we go any further, could you perhaps reply to that one item for me?
I have read many books (in fact, I have most of them) disproving evolution, - such as Werner Gitt's books, The Genesis Flood, and the In Six Days that ...[text shortened]... read your Forbidden Archeology if you will undertake to read Francis Collins' book.
Deal?
I will look at this book you are suggesting mainly because I want you to read Forbidden Archaeology.
After Forbidden Archaeology was written all the critics came out in their hundreds to destroy the book but Michael Cremo wrote another book called ( Forbidden Archaeology the Impact ).......and this book answered every single critical challenge successfully, and put all the critics in an embarrassing situation.
You see their criticism was baseless and fabricated.
Which begs to be known .........why have these critics stooped to dishonesty to defend their evolution.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaHi Dasa,
I just went to your profile and read this:
Over time the false religions of the world namely Islam Christianity and Judaism have made the word RELIGION synonymous with make believe and therefore most people are suspect of all religion.
The religion presented by the Vedas is the one and only original and eternal religion (my emphasis, CJ) which stands alone and above the rest for its flawlessness and truth.
It seems to me that we are not arguing science, but religion after all, and therefore your posts should rather be in the Spirituality Forum.
As I said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly wary and sceptical of utterances like "one and only true and eternal religion", simply because all the other ones that you so glibly dismiss (and you forgot Bhuddism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Spiritism, Animism, etc etc) in your opening statement ALL say exactly THAT, and there is no reason whatsoever, (except your own say-so) why yours should not be lumped in that same group (or worse.)
So I'm afraid our discussion ends here. Maybe our paths will cross again, but as far as this thread is concerned, I will no longer be drawn into any argument of yours.
And, btw, forget about Francis Collins. He won't convince you and you would be wasting your time. As I would if I read your book.
In peace
CJ
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJust'evolution' with a small 'e' is really just a name for the fact that life forms change over time. Anyone who disputes that life forms change over time is simply denying the obvious for religious reasons. It is a requirement of sexual reproduction that the child is genetically different from the parent.
To accept Evolution is to accept that more complex organisms developed from less complex ones. Nothing more and nothing less.
The Theory of Evolution covers a lot of ground and although it does show that complex organisms can evolve from less complex ones and suggests that all currently known life forms have a common ancestor, it is a lot more than that. Even when a life form becomes less complex, it is still evolving and the theory may help explain why. The theory also describes many of the different mechanisms involved in evolution.
One famous evolutionist (can't remember his name, maybe Huxley) once said that if anybody wanted to attack evolution, the weakest point would be the origin of life. That is still very far from being explained by science, never mind evolution.
Yet in reality, such attacks have no impact whatsoever as has been pointed out so often in these forums. Knowledge of the origin of life is not a prerequisite for the Theory of Evolution being accurate, nor would any given explanation for the origin of life have any impact, unless that explanation specifically excludes the Theory of Evolution. (eg young earth creationism).
Also, as I said in my post, there are many other difficulties, such as how can something that does NOT produce sexually suddenly (i.e. in one generation!) decide that sexual reproduction is the way to go.
Many organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually this includes most plants and many animals. And to see it as a 'decision' is the wrong way of looking at it.
There are no midway points - you cannot, as the saying goes, be half-pregnant.
Remember that sexual reproduction probably originated in single celled life forms. 'pregnancy' would be the wrong term altogether.
However, we should differentiate between what is well-known and can be explained with relative certainity, and what is speculation.
And more importantly, we should not take lack of knowledge of one thing to be a 'problem' or 'difficulty' for another thing we have knowledge about.
Simply not knowing how sexual reproduction started is not a 'difficulty' for the Theory of Evolution. Showing conclusively that sexual reproduction could not have evolved in an a-sexually reproducing life form might cause difficulties, but ignorance of something should not be equated to conclusive proof of its impossibility.
I recently had a discussion with a 14 year old boy who claimed that the Pyramids were conclusive proof that God exists, because he can't think of any other explanation for how they were built. Such obviously flawed thinking is surprisingly common.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by CalJustFair enough but I was actually discussing the legitimacy of evolution and would have been careful not to bring religion into it knowing full well I am in the science forum.....not that I can say the same for the other posters who often and continually talk science in the spirituality forum.
Hi Dasa,
I just went to your profile and read this:
[b]Over time the false religions of the world namely Islam Christianity and Judaism have made the word RELIGION synonymous with make believe and therefore most people are suspect of all religion.
The religion presented by the Vedas is the one and only original and eternal religion (my empha ...[text shortened]... ce you and you would be wasting your time. As I would if I read your book.
In peace
CJ
Hopefully you are a truth seeker before you are a belief defender and that book will be an interesting read anyhow for all truth seekers.
When I say false religion it means that those religions present knowledge which is in error.
When I say false science I mean that particular science that presents knowledge which is in error.
Religion is one, and the one that would be bonafide would be the one that is eternal and does not present error.
And of course the religions that are not eternal and have been created in recent times such as Christianity Islam and Judaism but which teach error are not bonafide and therefore false and these are (the religions of the animal killers)
Your eternal spiritual brother Dasa