Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Rav, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    seagypsy,


    Do you still have an ego problem?
    If not, how did it get solved?



    Either that, or they genuinely have no reason to believe that is the case.
    There is no evidence for it, only cartoons, hearsay, and wishful thinking.
    What would happen to us, at any point in our life, if we regarded the goo to man dogma as bullshit?


    That depend on whose 6 day period you're referring to.
    For example, Lord Brahma's day (the secondary creator of the universe according to vedic literatures), has been calculated to be the equivalent to 311 trillion of our years. And his nights are of the same length. At the end of every one of his nights, there is a partial annihilation of the universe, and comes back in the day.
    So there are different perspectives of time.


    I totally understand. It's like when you go for a job interview, if you can visualise the interviewer on the toilet with his pants round his ankles, with a face that says
    this piece of pooh is a long time coming, but with a last push, I'm sure I can get at least half of it on it's way, then that may well give you the illusion of confidence. Well done for being so spontaneous.


    This, of course is the biggy: deny, deny, deny, His existence. Why? Because one day you will come to believe it. Then you are free! Free I tell-ya.
    You're free to let darwinism make a monkey out of you.


    The only people who need goo to man stories to be true, are people who don't believe in God.

    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Oh! Here goes!
    Can't discuss the points, so you attack the person.

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    James R,



    Define success?



    No I have a rather big book, with ALL of the personal correspondences from scientists (mainly palaeontologists) from all over the world.
    There are literally hundreds of letters, some of them corresponding back and forth with the authors. It's brilliant to see the the range of responses.

    Sorry, I can't find the point you made.
    If you just tell me what post number, or page it's on. I'll respond before the day is out.


    jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,247
    Jan Ardena,

    Your ignorance becomes more and more obvious, Jan, the more you make silly unsupported claims of that kind.

    You'd go through life seriously deluded about the nature of reality?

    Do you have a problem with monkeys, Jan? Does it worry you that you and a monkey share a common ancestor? Does it make you feel less Brahman or something?

    Science isn't decided on the basis of what makes people happy, Jan.

    It's that happiness vs truth thing again. See?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,247
    Jan:

    Success for a creationist theory would be finding evidence that the Creation story is true. Success for those who claim that the theory of evolution is false would be finding evidence that goes counter to the theory. Evolution is eminently falsifiable in principle. It shares that characteristic with every great scientific theory.

    ALL of it? Sorry, Jan, but I don't believe there is such a book.

    I'll tell you what I think. I think you deliberately ignore points that are too hard for you. You tend to withdraw from discussions when faced with questions that you find difficult or inconvenient. I don't see why I should put in extra effort when you put in so little. Go find my post for yourself if you're interested. It isn't more than about 30 posts above this.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    James R,


    Isn't the book full of palaeontologists who found the theory of evolution, namely goo to man, wrong.
    Hence success. Duh!

    Now if the said body of people who go to great lengths to keep this story alive, were given this book to review, what do you think
    the outcome will be?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Then your belief is flawed, much like other aspects of your belief (IMO).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    James, you haven't come with anything that is too hard, so you're hypothesis fails.
    Plus there are alot of posts to cover.


    I tend to withdraw from discussions where the person I'm discussing runs out of ideas, and starts insulting me.
    It's not my fault they don't use their own mind, relying on other minds to bolster their position, but when that fails, feel they have to take it out on me. Is it?

    Regarding Boneparte, his existence is theoretical.
    But more importantly, it doesn't matter to me. I don't care whether or not he existed.

    There is no evidence of goo to man, save explanations of the current data.
    In the same breath there are counter explanations from the current data, which also refute the goo to man argument.
    It's all subjective, and subject to what the individual thinks is correct, based on the data.
    Of course the individual is free to change his mind, should he become convinced by the other side.

    jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    James R,



    Why is it silly, and why is it unsupported?
    I've got ears, eyes, and intelligence, I can understand things for myself.
    It's really obvious what's going on in the political world of the science community. :shrug:




    How so?




    Strange question!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







    I accept that we share commonality, but it doesn't mean I evolved from one.




    ''Less Brahman''?
    I would ask you if you know what ''Brahman'' is, but I'd most probably get a barrage of silly answer, again, from other posters.
    So I won't bother. In answer to your question: If I was a product of goo to man, then I would know nothing of ''Brahman''.


    No, you're quite correct. But some people just needs to feel good about themselves, and they will corrupt science, or religion, to meet this end.


    jan.
     
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Regarding: http://www.mcremo.com/YASBLT_forbiddenarchaeology.pdf

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mortar.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#laetoli
    http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/forbidden-archaeology-exaggeration-of.html

    http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/are-there-human-fossils-wrong-place-evolution
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4d

    Stone tools? No, eoliths it would seem.

    Also see: Bones, Bodies and Behaviour: Essays in Behavioural Anthroplogy

    "It may be mere coincidence that Mrs Culp’s husband, Silas, was proprietor of The Morrisonville Times from 1887 and also the town’s jeweller from 1889. On the other hand, local newspapers in the late nineteenth-century USA were not well known for the quality of their journalism and are known to have perpetrated hoaxes (such as the hoaxed ‘mystery airship’ crash of 19 April 1897 at Aurora (Texas, USA), reported in local newspapers). Like the Aurora ‘mystery airship’ crash, there is now no physical evidence to examine, just the newspaper report." - http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=285#

    This one is actually amusing, which is why I've quoted the whole thing for those who probably wont bother getting into an examination of all this like I have

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    One of the original articles: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13229225

    Although I've tried, quite hard, I just can't seem to drum up any additional info about this one. But I think an interesting point is made by Wade Tarzia:

    "Similarly, when the book [Forbidden Archaeology] documents a claim for a modern-type human skeleton (reported in an 1862 geology journal) in a coal deposit 90 feet deep, we learn the authors wrote the Geological Survey to date the coal to about 286 million years (p. 454). But we are not treated to a contextual discussion of the bones—how they were found, who found them, what was the site like, and how these allegedly old bones came out of the earth with only a loose black coating that was easily scraped away to reveal nice white bone, etc." - Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena

    Still, I'll keep hunting around and report back if I can locate something more substantial.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorchester_Pot
    http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=300

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

    I've saved this one for last because it's probably the most interesting. It is addressed in a book by archeologist Michael Brass entitled "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records Explored" along with many of the other claims made by Cremo et al. It's been made available in pdf format on Michael's website.

    Note however that even if the dating is accurate, this does no damage to the Theory Of Evolution. It merely implies a wider window than previously thought for the presence of early man in the western hemisphere. See: Geological Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico

    It's an archaeological dilemma, not an evolutionary one.

    A quote: "The climate of archeological thought, however, is changing. Ages for early man in America substantially older than the tenth millennium B.C - the date conventionally set for the time of the first immigrants - are increasing being contemplated."

    About the only thing this does do damage to is the claim made by the likes of Cremo that scientists conspire to suppress evidence that contradicts the current consensus, since this is a perfect example of that NOT happening, even in the face of quite a considerable amount of disbelief.

    If anyone would like to examine any of these particular claims in more detail, one at a time, I'd be interested in that. Pick one, and we'll see what else we can drum up.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  12. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I think it all boils down to a question of authority. Were Adam and Eve actually created? What about Noah, his Ark, the animals, and the flood? Did it happen that way, or not? What about Jesus? Was he really God incarnate? Was he really crucified? Did he really die and rise again? What about his teachings? Are they really the actual words of God? Or is some or all of that just some invented narrative? And then there's the larger metaphysical issues. Is it a fact that we only live one earthly life, and are then judged on it to determine our eternal destiny? What about what the other religions teach? Certainly the idea that we may have multiple shots at it is in conflict with biblical teachings. What is true?

    People are free to adopt a modernist theology based on a liberal interpretation of scripture if they like, and many people do. However such a position requires one to abandon the idea that any particular biblical teaching is necessarily objectively true, or chronicles a real actual event, because you can't really declare such things without a commitment to biblical inerrancy. I mean it can be attempted of course, but then one is essentially setting oneself up as an arbiter of scriptural truth, which will necessarily be a subjective exercise. Basically, I think the real difference between the fundamentalist and the modernist is that the former believes that scripture is straight from God's mouth, whereas the latter believes there is some significant degree of separation between the two.

    Certainly we can say that the worldview that grows out of the belief that scripture is directly from God is quite distinct. If it's directly from God, it must follow that it's inerrant, because God is perfect. Hence, fundamentalism.

    I think you'll find that one of the reasons that some atheists try to hold modernist Christians to some sort of fundamentalist standard is because even the modernists preach some things as absolute truths occasionally, which I think is quite obviously inconsistent with their position.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Jan, no one's house of cards is shaking. The counter-opinion is a joke. Almost no time or effort at all goes into challenging creationist nonsense, because it's entirely unsupported. This is the issue: there is not the slightest bit of evidence for creationism or human evolution hundred of millions of years ago. A breeze doesn't shake a mountain.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    BTW, Jan: I read your link. Did you read mine about rapid evolution? Especially the lizards.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It's not anticipatory or predictive as you think. It's entirely retrospective view, looking back at the mass of evidence. Not cartoons, but anatomical drawings. When you see the homologous structures - like the whale appendages or those of a bat - there's nothing to wish for - it's just more information that continues to reveal how evolution works.

    It would mean we had lost our collective mind. A global calamity of some kind that wiped out all the knowledge we now possess, leaving a few survivors without a way to know what we know now.

    We can't abandon the science because it's too solid. We would no sooner disavow the order of the elements in the Periodic Table, or that malaria is carried by mosquitos, or how gravity causes the Earth's orbital trajectory. And even each of these factors influenced the rise of "goo", and its development into cyanobacteria (which left fossils) and the creatures that evolved from them. This much is evident from the fossil layers alone. Counting cyanobacteria as goo, the fossils give you the hard evidence you seek. (Pun noted.)

    It makes no sense to imagine that species just kept appearing out of thin air over billions of years, does it? This was Darwin's dilemma on Galapagos - in real time, he observed new species that had "materialized" on the islands. How did they get there? You see, this is the evidence, Jan. Without the continuous "creation" of all of these different life forms, there can be no other cause for their existence. But we have to rule out creation (even if you had Star Trek "matter replicator") because the new forms are descended from their ancestral forms. There's just no escaping this. We are stuck with evolution, tracing our ascent from "goo" - or cyanobacteria at least - in the fossil record alone. How did the creatures get there? Why are they laid down in a sequence that reveals a continual emergence of new forms over time?

    I think that would be a good place for you to start taking note of the hard evidence, down in the layers found in two American canyons (plus some in the UK, and elsewhere).
     
  17. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Of course I do still have an ego problem. Ego is a problem for all humans. Ego is what causes us to think and do illogical things. It is the source of our emotions and uses those emotions to protect itself. But I have learned to control my ego better than I did in the past. I first had to acknowledge ego and not allow it to make my decisions for me. Now I am able to accept that we are all different, in physical composition as well as philosophical ideology. And its OK. I don't have to believe that I am better than anyone else to perceive that I have value to society. I do not need the shallow affections of a God who creates inequality to feel loved. I no longer fear the wrath of a god who created us with a particular nature then punishes us for acting on that same nature. I am better able to love and accept my neighbors as they are now. Because I don't have a baseless belief that I am a better human because they don't believe in the same mythical creator as I do. I don't mind if my neighbors are theists. I think for some people a belief in something is healthy and helps to keep them emotionally stable. For some nothing can make them emotionally stable and faith may make them worse.

    The evidence is there, you simply do not value it. Your reasons for rejecting it are your own. What evidence is there of God? Nothing but cartoons and hearsay and wishful thinking.


    What would happen to one person may be completely different than what would happen to another. Some people lose their faith in God and kill themselves. Others lose their faith and feel liberated. It all depends on the emotional stability and mental health of the individual. In the end, it doesn't really matter where we came from as much as where we are going. You believe in eternal life, I do not. So for you believing in evolution threatens your ability to go to heaven. I do not believe in life after death and so where we came from is merely fascinating. The affect it has on me is that I am able to genuinely love my neighbor, be a real friend to anyone, and judge people on their merit (how they treat me and others) rather than their skin color, or how they think we got here. The way many theists treat atheists is about the same as mistreating a child because they don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa. And yes it goes both ways. Being atheist does not in any way automatically mean that the ego is in check. I have seen some abhorrent behavior from atheists and theists alike. But they are both human so they act the same.

    If you reread what you were responding to, I was referring to the BIBLE. My response to the OP is in regards to my experience with Christianity, though it can extend to Islam. However they both involve the same god of Abraham and share the same basic creation story.

    All fine and dandy but read above and you will see why this addition was irrelevant. Ok fine, Ill point it out AGAIN. I already stated I was referring to the Bible.
    Ok all that proved is that you are gross. My reason for believing god sucks at design is because of all the crappy ways people can be born, like with limbs missing, or horrific genetic mutations that give them a slow agonizing death. Maybe if you stopped fantasizing about people taking a dump you could think a bit more clearly.
    lol you are right, I crack up every time is see people at ball games rooting for their favorite team, screaming and hollering and grunting just like chimpanzees do when they watch two of their own fight. Or when I see a girl picking lint off of her boyfriend much the way a female chimpanzee picks bugs out of her mate's fur. It's very humbling to know we are animals and therefor can be trained to behave better than we do. Rather than at the mercy of some egotistical creator who cares for no one but himself. You are right. I do feel free knowing I am a primate. I know where I truly stand in the world.
    And I could say the only people who need god to be real are those who are incapable of seeing any value in themselves without him. Or those who cannot discern right from wrong without a god to tell them so. But it wouldnt be true. Some people need god for the sense of stabilty. And that's ok. Others don't need god and thats ok too. You can try to insult me by calling me a monkey if you want, but I have a lot of respect for animals and I consider it an honor to count myself among them. Maybe you are created in the image of a genocidal, egotistical, selfish, wrathful being. But I wasn't.

    If we throw science out, then who will investigate murders and determine who did it. What if your child was murdered and there were all sorts of evidences left behind but the authorities said, no no it was God's will, her head just lobbed itself off because God wanted it that way. Don't pay any attention to the evidences you claim to see, those are just tricks of the devil. A world without science, a wonderful place indeed.


    Hey here's an idea, why not tell us the name of the book? Give us the ISDN of the book so that we can read it too. Or was it a book written on gold plates that only a blessed one can see?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2012
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    You also need the underwear. Excellent post seagypsy.

    Jan, you claim there is no evidence for evolution. Leaving aside the point that evolution - changing genotypic frequencies - is a mathematical fact via drift if nothing else, have you examined any of the evidence we've posted for you on it? Why not start with the lizard article I posted? Aqueous Id reposted it, and here it is again:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    seagypsy,



    That's a great achievment.



    Shallow affections?





    You don't fear the wrath of God? Are you sure?
    You're basically saying you have no fear of anything.



    How has God punished you?




    It's a good thing you got out of that situation, but don't make the mistake of thinking every person who believes in God has the same understanding, and/or experiences as you.




    What makes you think people actually choose to believe in God?
    Or if someone decides that I will believe in God starting a week on Thursday. Do you think that's possible?



    If goo to man was true, I'd accept it, there'd be no point in not accepting it.



    I don't actually think about it.



    I think you're projecting your idea of theism on to me. I don't see God the same way you do (did).
    When you were in a religion, what did you think of and about God?




    It's an interview technique, I read somewhere.

    But intentional cheap shot observed.



    I'm happy for you, because to feel free, and know where you truly in this world, must be a wonderful thing.



    You actually make a good point in our inability to have any value in ourselves without Him. But I think you're mistaken in saying it is a reason for people to need Him. We don't actually realise that untill we begin to understand something about Him. The more we understand, the more we realise.



    So all theists are psycopaths eh?



    You can't not need God, you can only think you don't need God.



    It was just a play on words, I didn't mean to insult you.
    I also have alot of respect for animals, and I consider myself a ''human animal''.



    Who said anything about throwing science out?



    Sure.

    ''Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race''
    by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson

    jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968


    "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

    This quote is taken from the end of the link.
    Has this been confirmed?
    I can't find anything on the net.

    jan.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,247
    Jan Ardena,

    What book? The book that is so far un-named and unreferenced, that supposedly contains ALL of the personal correspondence of EVERY paleontologist on the planet? That imaginary book?

    Like wynn, you assume that anybody who disagrees with you is insulting you.

    All I would like you to do is to take an honest look at the theory of evoluton. You refuse to learn even the basics. For somebody who appears to be moderately intelligent on other matters, this behaviour is quite bizarre. Then again, I guess that if your world-view depends on evolution being false then you have a lot invested and a lot of incentive to keep yourself wilfully blind.

    I'm not sure how to respond to this. It appears that you're now arguing that all knowledge, apart from that achieved through direct, personal observation, is unreliable. It seems to me that you are vastly overstretching to avoid facing facts. But then again, I don't think you're actually serious about holding that position, either. And if you are, there's probably not much point in talking to you as if you're amenable to the usual standards of evidence that sensible people accept.

    An empty claim from you. Why bother?

    Several people in this thread have linked you to places where you can find evidence. That you choose not to look at it is entirely your fault.

    Where? In your magical book?

    Then all knowledge is subjective.

    Then use your eyes, ears and intelligence. Please.

    It is only those who don't understand the science who claim that evolution is politically driven.

    There is extensive evidence for the common evolution of apes and human beings. The briefest search would lead you to it.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Not yet that I've found. Monstrously negligent. That being said, this would be plasticity of a level even to shock Hendry's expectations.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,247
    Hmmm...

    Shall we have a look at what you are citing as evidence?

    The Hidden History of the Human Race is a frustrating book. The motivation of the authors, "members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (p. xix), is to find support in the data of paleoanthropology and archaeology for the Vedic scriptures of India. Their methods are borrowed from fundamentalist Christian creationists (whom they assiduously avoid citing). They catalog odd "facts" which appear to conflict with the modern scientific understanding of human evolution and they take statements from the work of conventional scholars and cite them out of context to support some bizarre assertion which the original author would almost certainly not have advocated. Cremo and Thompson regard their collection of dubious facts as "anomalies" that the current paradigm of paleoanthropology cannot explain. Sadly, they offer no alternative paradigm which might accommodate both the existing data and the so-called anomalies they present; although they do indicate that a second volume is planned which will relate their "extensive research results" to their "Vedic source material" (p. xix). Kuhn noted that "To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself" (1970, p. 79); and that is precisely what Cremo and Thompson do. They claim that "mechanistic science" is a "militant ideology, skillfully promoted by the combined effort of scientists, educators, and wealthy industrialists, with a view towards establishing worldwide intellectual dominance" (p. 196).

    The work is frustrating because it mixes together a genuine contribution to our understanding of the history of archaeology and paleoanthropology with a bewildering mass of absurd claims and an audaciously distorted review of the current state of paleoanthropology.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cremo and Thompson have little understanding of history and almost no understanding of the disciplines of paleoanthropology and archaeology. In the introduction, Thompson is identified as a generic "scientist" and "a mathematician," while Cremo is "a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust" (p. xix). Their naive approach to history is revealed in their discussion of the alleged discovery of broken columns, "coins, handles of hammers, and other tools" quarried from limestone in France between 1786 and 1788 (p. 104). In order to establish the credibility of this report they note that it was published in the American Journal of Science in 1820. They attempt to support their charge that modern scientists are dogmatic by observing that "today, however, it is unlikely such a report would be found in the pages of a scientific journal" (p. 104). The American Journal of Science in the 1820s published many reports that would not be found in modern science journals. Mermaids (Shillaber 1823), sea serpents (American Journal of Science and Arts, 1826), and the efficacy of divining rods for locating water (Emerson, 1821) were topics of interest to scientists of that era. That such material was presented in a 19th century journal with "Science" in the title is no measure of its reliability or its relevance to modern science; likewise, that modern marine biologists no longer consider mermaids a worthy subject for research is no measure of their dogmatism. Cremo and Thompson might disagree, however, for they devote an entire chapter to reports of "living ape-men" such as Bigfoot, which, even if true, contribute nothing to their thesis that anatomically modern humans lived in geologically ancient times. Chimpanzees are "ape-men" of a sort, sharing 99% of our genetic makeup, and their coexistence with Homo sapiens sapiens does no violence to evolutionary theory.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a book designed to titillate, not elucidate. The authors discuss a weathered rock more than 200 million years old which they identify as a fossilized partial shoe sole (p. 115-116). They allude to "microphoto magnifications" of the fossilized stitches which allegedly show "the minutest detail of thread twist and warp" (p. 116), but do not present these magnified images. Instead, they reproduce a somewhat blurred photograph of the weathered outlines which do not, at least to this reviewer, resemble any portion of a shoe sole.

    Cremo and Thompson discuss the three to four million year old fossilized footprints discovered at Laetoli, and note that scholars have observed "close similarities with the anatomy of the feet of modern humans" (p. 262). Cremo and Thompson conclude that these footprints actually are the tracks of anatomically modern humans, but they offer no explanation for why these individuals were not wearing the shoes which supposedly had been invented more than 296 million years earlier.



    I guess the notion that you should cite from credible sources escaped you somewhat?
     

Share This Page