Evolution: don't let Satan make a monkey out of you!

[Eltanin]

I must make a correction to myself, as I reread some of my stuff. I did have macro and micro evolution flipped around. I am sorry.

I want to say that I believe in changes within species, but I don't personally endorse that species change from one to another...

 

[veteran]

I must make a correction to myself, as I reread some of my stuff. I did have macro and micro evolution flipped around. I am sorry.

I want to say that I believe in changes within species, but I don't personally endorse that species change from one to another...

Understood, but changes within a species isn't really what the theory of evolution is about anyway.

The theory of evolution actually is very ancient. It did not just begin with Darwin. And the final stage of their theory is most often left out on purpose, i.e., that of evolving from a human to a divine being, i.e., your own god.


The ancient pagan occultists held the idea that life evolved from simple matterial forms, and later hermeticists (like the alchemist Paracelsus, the so-called father of modern chemistry) tried to prove it. I use the term 'hermeticist' for those men of old not using today's modern definition of that word, but in their definition of it in association with their practice of alchemy.


To make it simple, the esoteric pagan occult traditions practiced the art of alchemy as a parallel to the idea of spiritual enlightenment. In other words, they believed if they could discover laws of the spiritual realm by finding some secret formula in alchemy, then they would gain the secret to immortality. One of their methods was the seeking to make gold from baser metals, what they called the "Magnum Opus" or "Great Work".

The ability to actually make gold from baser metals has been claimed done...

http://gata.org/node/5272


The alchemists called their result, if they could ever discover it, the "elixir of life", "philosopher's stone", "fountain of youth", etc.


In reality, there is NO secret method of gaining immortality using such methods as alchemy, but many of them didn't claim that's what alchemy was trying to really achieve anyway. What they were really looking for was a secret philosophical or mystical practice where one could attain to perfection of the flesh and become one's own god, only using alchemy to try and 'outline' the spiritual process.

What that means is they thought the flesh could somehow become 'perfect', i.e., immortality of the flesh. Their modern followers are still looking for a way to do that (i.e., cloning, freezing, genome study, growth hormone study, stem cell research, etc.).

That's where the theory of evolution of species truly originated from, from that kind of thinking of the pagan occultists. They deny the ONLY WAY of SALVATION THROUGH THE FATHER AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. They must... deny Him, since all the many centuries of their scientific study be all for nought to them (though it is all for nought).

 

[IBeMe]

Dodo_David{
Your above-quoted post proves my point. You are getting a scientific theory of how evolutionary events takes place (modern evolution theory) with separate hypotheses about abiogenesis
}

So, we have an extremely embarrassing situation here for devoted evolutionary disciples;

Scientist do not have a clue of how life could exist without God!

Not only do they not have a clue, they don't have a clue of where to look for a clue;

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem..." (NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay)

So, we have a theory without a clue!

How's a devoted evolutionary disciple to answer this embarrassing predicament?

Well, there's instructions all over the Internet...

We redefine the word, "evolution", and make a rule that the theory on common descent can't question THE common descent, it must be accepted by faith.

So, we now have a faith-based scientific theory on common descent with a rule added that you can't use scientific evaluation on certain sections of the theory.

What do we have now? ... We have a religion!

We have a religion that demands that you must except, by faith, that God didn't create life; because the staggering complexity of the most simple cell destroyed a mountain of theories.

Can real evolutionary scientist work with a theory that has a restriction clause, defining a forbidden area of examination?

Of course not ... it's utter silliness!

Let's look at NASA's "Evolution Webinar."

"Research in the area of prebiotic evolution seeks to understand the pathways and processes leading from the origin of planetary bodies to the origin of life."

So, real evolutionary scientist can't pretend that "origin of life" isn't a part of Evolution.

LOL ... a scientific theory that tries to hide from science :-)

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Dodo_David{
Your above-quoted post proves my point. You are getting a scientific theory of how evolutionary events takes place (modern evolution theory) with separate hypotheses about abiogenesis
}

So, we have an extremely embarrassing situation here for devoted evolutionary disciples;

Scientist do not have a clue of how life could exist without God!

Not only do they not have a clue, they don't have a clue of where to look for a clue;

"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem..." (NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay)

So, we have a theory without a clue!

How's a devoted evolutionary disciple to answer this embarrassing predicament?

Well, there's instructions all over the Internet...

We redefine the word, "evolution", and make a rule that the theory on common descent can't question THE common descent, it must be accepted by faith.

So, we now have a faith-based scientific theory on common descent with a rule added that you can't use scientific evaluation on certain sections of the theory.

What do we have now? ... We have a religion!

We have a religion that demands that you must except, by faith, that God didn't create life; because the staggering complexity of the most simple cell destroyed a mountain of theories.

Can real evolutionary scientist work with a theory that has a restriction clause, defining a forbidden area of examination?

Of course not ... it's utter silliness!

Let's look at NASA's "Evolution Webinar."

"Research in the area of prebiotic evolution seeks to understand the pathways and processes leading from the origin of planetary bodies to the origin of life."

So, real evolutionary scientist can't pretend that "origin of life" isn't a part of Evolution.

LOL ... a scientific theory that tries to hide from science :-)

^^^^ This.

 

[IBeMe]

my statement: "... we're supposed to go from dust and gas to the complexity of life we have today by random occurrences."

Dodo_David{
Also, you have repeated the false belief that modern evolution theory requires complete randomness.
}

When you start out with dust and gas, there's nothing else but random occurrences to produce a change.

Dodo_David{
It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work.
}

This statement only refers to random mutation, it has no bearing on the overall demand of randomness the whole theory requires.

We have to go from dust and gas to the complexity of life somehow???

At one time, random mutation was the heart of the theory of evolution.

It's been proven that you can't get very far with random mutation.

So, now we have a theory with its heart ripped out.

The statement, "not necessary that mutation should be random", is only trying to fill the vacuum left in the theory of evolution after all the theories, based on random mutation, fell dead on the floor.

Random mutation is still believed to play a big role...

"Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue." (evolution.berkeley.edu)

So, we have a theory with a lot of holes, and a lot of scientist looking for theories to fill the holes; and just about all in disagreement with each other.

dead theory walking...

 

[snr5557]

...I have a feeling that most people (not all) don't fully understand evolution or science in general. Otherwise a lot of the comments on here would not have been made.

 

[lforrest]

Hello snr5557, and welcome to the forum!

...I have a feeling that most people (not all) don't fully understand evolution or science in general. Otherwise a lot of the comments on here would not have been made.

No doubt your correct, but I don't fault anyone for their ignorance of science or the theory of evolution; it isn't for everyone to study these subjects. Many evolutionists will consider themselves intellectually superior because their opponents fail to inform themselves of these topics. I am one whom doesn't play these games despite having an education in the sciences. Luke 7:32

 

[snr5557]

@Iforrest

Thank you.

Yeah, I've been in other debates on evolution and other science-related topics. I've been sending out questions about how other religious people think about science. I've never personally met someone who doesn't believe in evolution etc, so I try to see their point of view. I find it really interesting.

 

[Dodo_David]

...I have a feeling that most people (not all) don't fully understand evolution or science in general. Otherwise a lot of the comments on here would not have been made.

I agree. The relationship between faith and Science is a particular area of study that I have been engaged in for quite a number of years.
I actually started out as a Young-Earth Creationist who believed the same claims that YECs have made in this discussion thread.

Then I realized that I hadn't heard/read the other side of the debate. It was if I were a juror in a murder trial and I had only heard the case presented by the prosecutors. Academic honesty compelled me to read the works of scientists who actually support Modern Evolution Theory. I discovered that the "prosecutors" were spreading some false claims.

I am not endorsing Modern Evolution Theory, and it doesn't bother me if people reject it as long as they have a correct understanding of what they are rejecting.

 

[snr5557]

@Dodo_David

Thank you, that's kind of what I'm doing only vice versa! Of course I would never not believe in evolution since I know it's true, nor would I renounce God.

What do you mean you don't endorse it? As in you don't try to convince others that it's true?

 

[Dodo_David]

@Dodo_David

Thank you, that's kind of what I'm doing only vice versa! Of course I would never not believe in evolution since I know it's true, nor would I renounce God.

What do you mean you don't endorse it? As in you don't try to convince others that it's true?

I am not a biologist. So, it is not up to me to endorse a scientific theory pertaining to the scientific discipline of Biology.

However, I will say that it is a violation of the rules of Science to require empirical data or a scientific theory to pass a religious litmus test.

 

[snr5557]

@Dodo_David

I guess that makes sense.

And I agree, you can't make science bend to religion.