Thread: Why do many teachers in the yogic tradition promote and support the theory of evolution?

@DreamBliss

From a positivist standpoint, there is no way to prove evolution to be “right or wrong”; the theory of evolution is the most successful model that explains biological observations with the least assumptions. Like any successful theory, evolution is falsifiable in light of new empirical evidence although it is a fact that organisms do evolve over a period of time corresponding to pressures in their environment like competition, climate change, etc.

Evolution via natural selection is the most comprehensive model we have to explain this phenomenon but we are always building upon the theory in light of new technological advances (like the advent of genetics like Blueline mentioned) so I fail to see how you equate Darwinism with a religion. The theory of evolution has changed significantly since his death so I think it is absurd to assert that “evolutionists” are dogmatic “Darwinists”; to be honest this misunderstanding of evolution (and more broadly the scientific method) is the source of your ill informed positions on the subject.

I don’t really have much novel contributions to add after Blueline’ post (which you didn’t directly respond to) but I did want to nitpick a few things.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

Therefore brand new creatures should be attaining the next stage in their evolution in our lifetimes, yet nothing has been reported.

You clearly have not done your homework. Many microbes, for example, have evolved immunities to antibiotics.
CDC - Antibiotic / Antimicrobial Resistance
Antibiotic resistance

Some species of ants, aphids, and other “pests” have become immune to certain pesticides.

Pesticide resistance
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/safety/factsheets/resistan.pdf

These are examples of artificial selection and there are a lot of instances of these in the 20th century if you do a little homework. Also please, the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life; hell Darwin explicitly says this in the Origin of the Species. Its perfectly fine to be skeptical about evolution but please do some research before you try to assert that the said theory is erroneous. You accused many of the responders on this thread of “regurgitating arguments” but you have literally regurgitated almost every single strawman argument against evolution; at least you didn’t mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But seriously you don’t see any holes in the “theory” of Creation? Would complete lack of evidence for starters, be a hole in your hypothesis?

Also your criticism of my criticism is nothing but a strawman as I contributed fuck-all to the discussion in my first post; I was being condescending…..and didn’t really feel like debating a creationist.

I also wanted to comment on your reluctance to accept that humans are animals and not a breath of the divine. It is supremely arrogant to assert that not only the entire universe was created for one small blue planet but that the entire universe was created for one single species inhabiting this planet….do I really have to go into depth about why this is one of the most ridiculous beliefs held by religious folks?

Like many before you, you hide behind the pretense of “spirituality” but I cannot imagine anything more “spiritual” than the notion that we humans, have evolved from single celled organisms; that we are intrinsically connected to all life on earth and do not maintain some privileged position in the cosmic scheme. That the chemicals which compose our DNA (and all of life’s for that matter) were forged in burning masses of hydrogen called stars billions of years ago. I simply cannot imagine how you derive your sense of spirituality from the notion that humans are “not just higher animals” but were made in the image of god itself.

In Genesis Yahweh gave man dominion over animals. After the Fall, man was disconnected from the divine and had to survive among the other animals. This idea that man is "fallen", that man is separate and somehow better than the other organisms we share the planet with is the characteristic of many western religions.

Yet many eastern religions (including Native American mythology) assert that we are just a single strand on the interconnected web of life. Many of these said religions see humans and animals as brothers, as equals. In a sense you are deriving your spirituality from the dogma of the western religions but these religions are empty, void of any notion of spirituality. This is perhaps a reason for why the yogis accept evolution to answer your initial question.

Good day sir.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I don't have the the paperwork or emails anymore from the doctors and professors concerning biochemistry and anatomy anymore that I presented to him as my argument. Besides, I don't have the time or energy to engage in such a complex discussion at present. Perhaps when I have some holiday time in the future I will discuss this matter on this board.

I will be eagerly awaiting this!

Maybe because those yogic/spiritual teachers are not reality-deniers like yourself?

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you explain what you mean by direction?

I mean something along the lines of "response to a selective pressure". It's a bad word to have chosen. The point though is that exploiting regularity is not a response to a selective pressure. It does not create more offspring or prevent the organism from dying before reproducing.

Sitting around recognizing patterns never did any organism any good unless the patterns are acted on.

I'm not sure what you mean by an alternate means. What we're talking about here is rationality versus empiricism. Yes, it may be true that it is 'possible' that there can be some kind of disembodied being with universal knowledge, or some alternate kind of cognition not based upon pattern recognition (the two hallmarks of rationalism). But this is no different from the fact that it is possible that there is a teapot orbiting the sun. It is not an argument from ignorance at all to say that cognition will generally be based on local pattern recognition. Considering that in the millions of instances of cognition that we have actually observed it is that which is actually the case, it is rather bizarre to spin this as an argument from ignorance. It's as rigorous as any argument can be; it's an argument from observations. The argument that there will be gravity on Mars is of exactly the same type. And anyway, the domain of this argument was not general cognitive beings, it was just animals. So there isn't even an inductive leap.

You're implicitly assuming that we have a representative sample of cognition processes though. So I would hardly call it rigorous. At least not to mathematical standards which is what I'd really prefer to reserve that term for. We do the same thing in applying anthropic principles in various ways. I find it rather disheartening that this passes as rigorous.

It's essentially just an argument from ignorance. It boils down to "We've never seen it be any other way so we don't think it ever will be". How is that different from "I don't know how that could be so it isn't". In both cases we're assuming that we have a representative sample, in the one case for empirical observations and in the other of arguments that could be used for whatever it is we're denying.

Of course you can reach true conclusions with arguments from ignorance. If you couldn't, we wouldn't make them all the time and they wouldn't be the basis of cultural common sense.

I don't think there's anything to show that this was the OP's argument. As it stands all OP said was 'stars have finite lifespans therefore stars cannot be millions of years old'. Although they have now elaborated, and said they were basing it on the 'scientific fact' that all stars only live for a few thousand years. In other words, like I said, denying the expanded sphere of observations and just doublethinking some bullshit up.

I don't think what you're saying is really that different, though. All I was explaining is why we find OP's behaviour condemnable. The reason they have adopted this condemnable mental activity is probably motivated in some part by what you say; cultural common sense.

I don't think that I went far enough.

I'm claiming that OP does not and probably never will have the capacity for rational thought. OP would be able to identify that all fruits are not apples not because that claim is a fallacy but because OP knows (as a matter of cultural common sense) that bananas are fruits too. We could toss the same basic format at OP all day long with conclusions that lay outside of any domain knowledge that OP might have. I predict a split of close to 50% between correct and incorrect answers. All X are Y therefore all Y are X. X = differentiable function, Y = continuous function.

Of course not with this one because the subject might actually read this but it would be an interesting experiment.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

The theory of evolution has changed significantly since his death so I think it is absurd to assert that “evolutionists” are dogmatic “Darwinists”; to be honest this misunderstanding of evolution (and more broadly the scientific method) is the source of your ill informed positions on the subject.

I think you're stopping early. Why does this "misunderstanding" of science persist?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I think you're stopping early. Why does this "misunderstanding" of science persist?

This is a question I have often asked myself but to cut right to the chase, I don't know. Why do people find the notion that the stars foretell our future and personalities more captivating than real astronomy? Is it because people are too lazy to educate themselves and find the answers that pseudoscience offers to be more comforting than the cold, hard empirical facts? Humans are masters of self-deception (I am not immune from this shortcoming either) I think often the search for truth is compromised by the desire for comfort. I can only speculate.

Also to clear up some of the ambiguity in my previous post I wanted to say this: It is an observable fact that organisms react and adapt to their respective environments. Evolution is a scientific model that describes this phenomenon more successful than any other proposed model. Evolution is falsifiable but it is unlikely that it will ever be falsified; it is probable that it will only be modified with the advent of better technology and methodology (for christ's sake genetics is only fifty years old, there is still so much more to learn).

Originally Posted by mcwillis

His PhD is in Biology. I gave him a short discourse in biochemistry and anatomy to get him to change his mind, which he did voluntarily, and I would like to add that it was I that ended our meeting early.

He has a PhD in Bio yet you gave him a discourse in biochem and anatomy?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

wow dreambliss, out of everyone here I thought I and blueline were the only ones who actually addressed your question which, in summary, was how can these teachers believe in both being divine and evolution. But I got thrown in the "everyone else" category and it didnt address much of the point of my post. Do you not see how teachers could see the prospective I presented?

I apologize for not properly responding to your first post. It took a few reads but I think I get what you're saying. I think I understand a little more of why yogic/spiritual teachers seem to subscribe to (what I am familiar with as) evolutionary theory. I need to put a qualifier here... Obviously what I am familiar with may no longer be accurate or up to date, and may not even be true.

stormcrow

Thank you. With your post I finally found the answer I was looking for, or rather a few people here have given me pieces and glimpses but with your post it all sank it finally. I think I get it now. They teach from this perspective because it is part of their spiritual belief system, I.E. that we are all connected, to each other and earth itself and that nobody is above or below anyone else, or rather we shouldn't think ourselves to be above or below anyone else (proper self perception.) Sorry if I'm not clear here. But I think I understand now. I will need to think on what everyone, including you, has said through this topic.

Photolysis

I am concerned for you. Such anger with an underlying hatred, if I am reading things correctly between the lines you have typed. Anger is preparation for action. It is a function of our bodies to prepare itself for fighting, to prepare ourselves for a threat, and underlying that is fear. What is it that threatens you so much and causes you to fear? This is not a question for you to answer publicly, just one to think about. Such anger will only cause you, and others around you, much suffering. I know because I used to be exactly like that. I used to be so firmly attached to the "party line" I would vent, fume and attack anyone who challenged me. But in my case I never looked beyond that to discover my own beliefs. I am so sorry to have brought about such suffering to you in my search here. I truly am. I hope you can forgive me.

I must also remind you, as gently as possible, that you have still not told me why you believe/think/feel as you do. I honestly want to know what research you have studied or performed, what books you have read, and where you have learned what you have learned that has lead you to what you believe/think feel. I would like to study some of those same resources myself.

I must confront you on one thing, but please do not see this as an attack. You have labeled many of my statements as Creationist lie #____. I am not arguing with you here, perhaps these are all indeed lies. I just want to ask another question. Have you gone to the museums where these bones are kept, taken them out of the case, and verified they are indeed bone, and not just bone, but bones that are actually of the creature they are claimed to be from, not something else? Can you prove that the research done at ICS is not real science? Can you prove that carbon dating is as accurate as you say in the instances you say? Do you have any personal, verifiable, credible researches or experiences here at all? Or are you simply stating what you have learned or are currently studying?

XEI

You have called me a liar and accused me of lying to myself. I will spend some time in introsepction after this post to see if this is true, but as of right now I do not see it. I see this only as an attack, much like Photolysis, from someone who is angry, and this anger, as I told them, derives from a sense of feeling threatened and fear. I give you the same question I gave them, what is it that threatens you so much and causes you to fear?

I said that what I believed about the sun was merely a beliefe a subscribed to. Please note that this is part of that foundation of Creationism on which my current beliefs are built. I have had no reason to discard this belief. Certainly nobody here has given me any link to scientific research or books that would show me this belief is wrong. So provide me these resources. I wil study them, and if this belief is wrong, I will discard it. I will do some research on my own and see what I can dig up at the library. I may have to put this on the back burner in light of my dream and astral projection studies, but I will study it.

I know there are other posts I should respond to here but my food is getting cold and I am very tired. I will return later with any additional needed responses.
- DreamBliss

Did you quit reading my posts?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Did you quit reading my posts?

No man! It's just that you're on another level beyond my poor understanding at the moment. I'll have to read your posts a few more times to get everything. In fact I think I'll print this thread out and study it. I'll provide my response when I am able.

Everyone Else

OK I have found a handful of books at the library and placed holds. But I need to update my knowledge of science and biology and I don't want books that present things as evolutionary or creationism fact, unless whichever bias the authors lean to is supported by scientific proof. Ultimately I want textbooks that are as unbiased and scientific as possible. Any suggestions?

Appreciate it! So far I have two books by Dawkins, from that side of the fence and one called War something or other that seems to cover the debate from both sides. Even found the "Rough Guide To Evolution", and the picture on the cover is the same as PhilospherStoned's avatar. But I'm not going to waste my time with books that tell me the earth is billions or millions of years old without explaining and supporting this statement. Nor am I going to read anything that says God created everything if it doesn't explain and support that statement. So please be careful with your book suggestions.

I would really love to read something on the origins of life from a spiritual perspective, if any such book exists. The Dali Lama's guide to Evolution or something like that. At least the information will be presented in an enlightening way that encourages flexibility and open-mindedness.
- DreamBliss

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

BLUELINE976Of all the posts so far I found yours to be the most thorough and enlightening, thank you!

I'm glad you think so, but I would like a full response to it if you're willing.

As I recall there were tests done on the sun and solar events that proved a limited lifespan of all suns, to give a better time estimated 10s of thousands of years, not millions, were the estimated average lifespan. I used to read a lot of hard core, science based science fiction and studied this subject extensively. But I do not have any of the information on hand, so consider this merely my belief. A theory/hypothesis I subscribe to.

Perhaps you should reconsider using arguments that have no evidential support before putting them forward in a serious discussion.

Someone said that evolution would take more than a human lifetime to complete. Of course, I do understand the theory. What I am saying as that even in our lifetimes, something should have evolved to a higher lifeform, because according to the theory it started the process many millions of years ago. Evolution is as far as I know an ongoing processes. Therefore brand new creatures should be attaining the next stage in their evolution in our lifetimes, yet nothing has been reported. New creatures have been discovered, but that are new discoveries, not new creatures. There are still parts of the rainforest and ocean that we have not fully explored. The primates the theory says we evolved from should have themselves evolved into whatever else their next stage is.

I didn't say evolution takes more than a lifetime to complete, because evolution does not "complete." It isn't a conscious process that has some goal in mind. You even said that you know it is an ongoing process, so when coupled with the fact that there is no goal, not all creatures will necessarily reach some "next stage," whatever that may be.

To explain simply, evolution is not like Pokemon. There are no "higher stages" or "next stages" or anything like that. Organisms are more or less suited to their environment. In fact some species may show very little change if they have a stable environment and a low level of genetic mutations that cause major morphological changes that allow them to survive better (or worse) in given environments.

And the primates humans evolved from did evolve. It's in the actual sentence you wrote. The primates we evolved from evolved into humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. And the ancestral species before that evolved into gibbons as well as the hominids just listed. And the ancestral species before that evolved into Old World Monkeys like baboons and the ancestor of the hominids, and the list goes on. From our point of view they may look like they have evolutionary stages that will always be the same, but that is incorrect. If you traveled back in time and watched the first hominid species, and you knew NOTHING about evolution, you would not be able to say what they would necessarily evolve into. But that's not because you are ignorant of evolution, it's because predicting all genetic mutations and all future environmental changes is probably outside the range of what we can predict at the moment.

But lets just toss that last paragraph out and call it mindless drivel. Instead let's ask a question... How does Darwin, a man born over a hundred years ago, without modern technology or science, know anything at all about the origin of life? What's his proof? Sure they have skeleton's. The evolutionists keep digging up pieces of what they call the missing link. But over and over again the bones have proven fake or not what they were said to be. How can modern scientists follow the findings of a man with questionable motivations from over a hundred years ago? Isn't that the equivalent of digging out a surgical textbook from the 1800s and using its instruments and processes on a current patient, ignoring all modern science and tools? The truth is neither of these paragraphs can be ignored. There are holes in this theory/religion, simple as that.

Well to begin Darwin isn't known for talking much about the origins of life. He said something about a "warm little pond," otherwise known as a "primordial soup," but other than that people don't refer to Darwin to learn about how life could have started on Earth. Given that, the rest of your post doesn't apply to Darwin at all. There have been few cases of "fossil fraud" compared to the vast amount of legitimate fossils, so it isn't the case that "over and over again" bones have proven to be fake. And the whole "missing link" thing is vastly overplayed. Loads of "missing links" between humans and their ancestors have been found. It's not as if there is only ONE link.

Much of what I have learned came from here:
The Institute for Creation Research

They may have changed but they used to approach things from a scientific angle, not throwing out Bible verses alone but using actual scientific proof to support what they teach. This is unique among Christian teachings. Sure they attack Evolutionists, but usually to expose lies, deceit and untruth. I admire them for fighting so long and hard against such a great opposing force. But again if it is proven that they have been lying or misleading, then I would no longer read their materials or support them. No attachment, no aversion.

If what you've posted here is any reflection of what they teach, you can be sure they're not using any sort of scientific angle or method and are in fact lying to and misleading people.

You know another question has occurred to me...

Granted I don't understand the theory very well and my scientific knowledge is lacking. However, assuming a sentient, humanoid form is the ideal one to evolve to, how come there aren't other bipedal, human, sentient life forms on earth other than humans? I mean you would expect that the human race would not be the only sentient, humanoid, bipedal race on earth, should evolution be true, right? If we evolved from one branch of the primate family, shouldn't other branches have produced other races? What about the reptilian branches? How come there are no sentient, humanoid, bipedal reptilian races?

Just curious here...
- DreamBliss

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

... assuming a sentient, humanoid form is the ideal one to evolve to, how come there aren't other bipedal, human, sentient life forms on earth other than humans?

Surely you're trolling. The question was answered in the post right before yours.

Evolution is not a conciously directed process that aspires to some ideal. So, in assuming that a sentient, humanoid form is the ideal one to evolve to, you have already stepped beyond the assumptions that one can make from evolution. Hence evolution does not predict what you claim that it does and your refutation of it is invalid.

In other words, you've constructed a suicidal strawman.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

You know another question has occurred to me...

Granted I don't understand the theory very well and my scientific knowledge is lacking. However, assuming a sentient, humanoid form is the ideal one to evolve to, how come there aren't other bipedal, human, sentient life forms on earth other than humans? I mean you would expect that the human race would not be the only sentient, humanoid, bipedal race on earth, should evolution be true, right? If we evolved from one branch of the primate family, shouldn't other branches have produced other races? What about the reptilian branches? How come there are no sentient, humanoid, bipedal reptilian races?

Just curious here...
- DreamBliss

Well again, humans are not the end results of all species. There are no "ideals" per se. There aren't bipedal, human, sentient life forms because the all species that were classified in the genus Homo except for Homo sapiens are extinct.

Evolution being true says nothing of what one should expect regarding sentient life. If such life arises, cool. If not, oh well. It depends on what sort of environmental pressures there are, what sort of genetic mutations occur, etc.

The other branches of the primate family did produce other races. I listed them in my previous post. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas, baboons, and loads others are examples. The reason why we don't see reptiles that are cognitively similar to humans is because of the reptiles' evolutionary history. Obviously they never produced any sort of brain allowing for sentience as far as we know.

Species evolve to better survive, if you are an apex predator and your environment is stable and not really changing, there is no real reason to adapt and so evolution is slow. That is why things like sharks and alligators have remained mostly unchanged for such long periods of time.

That said it is believed that there was another branch of humans, the Neanderthal. It is believed we either killed them off, or out competed them for resources and they died off. Though it is also believed that there was some mating between our two species. Though if we could mate it puts some question on if they were a different species, or maybe some sort of subspecies.

The neanderthals weren't an early version of man though, they were around at the same time as modern man and had they survived there would possibly be two groups of humans today. Though like many species, they died out.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

Photolysis

I am concerned for you. Such anger with an underlying hatred, if I am reading things correctly between the lines you have typed. Anger is preparation for action. It is a function of our bodies to prepare itself for fighting, to prepare ourselves for a threat, and underlying that is fear. What is it that threatens you so much and causes you to fear?

Please, spare me the badly-done armchair psychology, it's almost as painful to read as all the other nonsense.

I get annoyed by these kinds of posts for one particular reason: by virtue of having internet access you have access to a huge amount of the sum of human knowledge. If you even bothered to do a basic google or wikipedia search on topics such as evolution you would dramatically increase your understanding. Yet you did none of these. You attack subjects you have no knowledge of. You claim to search for the truth, yet put essentially no effort into it.

I must also remind you, as gently as possible, that you have still not told me why you believe/think/feel as you do. I honestly want to know what research you have studied or performed, what books you have read, and where you have learned what you have learned that has lead you to what you believe/think feel. I would like to study some of those same resources myself.

When it comes to someone with your complete lack of knowledge, there is no point in me recommending textbooks or linking off to anywhere that requires even the most basic grasp of science. Read wikipedia to get a very basic overview, then search out introductory texts on the subject.

This youtube series is excellent for those such as yourself, providing you actually bother to watch them.

1 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1) - YouTube

I must confront you on one thing, but please do not see this as an attack. You have labeled many of my statements as Creationist lie #____. I am not arguing with you here, perhaps these are all indeed lies. I just want to ask another question. Have you gone to the museums where these bones are kept, taken them out of the case, and verified they are indeed bone, and not just bone, but bones that are actually of the creature they are claimed to be from, not something else? Can you prove that the research done at ICS is not real science? Can you prove that carbon dating is as accurate as you say in the instances you say? Do you have any personal, verifiable, credible researches or experiences here at all? Or are you simply stating what you have learned or are currently studying?

As a chemist I was trained in and performed mass spectroscopy on samples, and made use of the underlying principles in many other areas. I have seen and used these techniques firsthand, and they also have many uses in the real world. Radioisotopes are very important in medical imaging.

This is what happens when ignorant people dismiss areas of science they have no knowledge of. If you dismiss radioisotopic dating (which surprise surprise consists of more than just carbon dating), then you have to throw out other areas of science such as radioisotopic imaging in medicine. Unfortunately for you there is plenty of evidence that this works.

If you were less ignorant of science, you would understand that this is why scientists can be so confident in certain ideas; the knowledge is applied in many different areas and it works. Which is precisely what you would expect if the underlying knowledge were accurate.

By studying for a chemistry degree I also have a very significant working knowledge of a wide variety of areas of physics, in addition to a decent knowledge of biology, which I also have knowledge of from my studies outside my chemistry degree.

What are your scientific qualifications?

Can you prove that the research done at ICS is not real science?

Anyone can do that easily by simply going on to their site and reading what they write. They use 'science' to try and find a predetermined conclusion: that the Bible is true. They never publish anything that contradicts their view, they never use publications that appear in respectable scientific journals, and there is plenty of evidence out there of them lying or otherwise twisting the conclusions of authors, as you can see if you read actual cited papers.

Now, before you throw out accusations of how they're simply rejected by mainstream dogmatic science, as is the tendency with people like yourself who know nothing of the subject, stuff gets challenged and changed in science all the time as new discoveries are made. The easiest way to fame is to demonstrate how existing established models are incorrect or incomplete.

Someone who disproved evolution would go down in history as one of the greatest biologists of all time. Science doesn't believe in say evolution because of tradition, science accepts evolution as accurate because so many times scientists have tried to disprove it, but the evidence all independently points towards the same conclusion.

You would know this if you knew anything about the subjects you criticise.

There is a big contingent of Christians who see evolution as compatible with their beliefs.... who think that the creation story is figurative rather than literal. I just wonder how familiar this group actually is with evolutionary theory. Certain religions (including Christianity) are particularly bad about conflating metaphysics with ethics. It's one thing to admit that maybe your metaphysics may be better explained by evolution..... but are they aware that evolutionary theory has lots to say about morality as well?

In getting back to the main question posed in the OP (which had precious little to do with evolution vs creation), the reason that "yogic" traditions have an easier time reconciling evolution with their beliefs is that the don't commit this whole metaphysics/ethic conflation fallacy in the first place.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

There is a big contingent of Christians who see evolution as compatible with their beliefs.... who think that the creation story is figurative rather than literal. I just wonder how familiar this group actually is with evolutionary theory. Certain religions (including Christianity) are particularly bad about conflating metaphysics with ethics. It's one thing to admit that maybe your metaphysics may be better explained by evolution..... but are they aware that evolutionary theory has lots to say about morality as well?

People have to try to reconcile their religion with science, otherwise they sound off the wall crazy. In this day in age, no one will take you seriously if you say the earth was created 6,000 years ago or something. You might as well be arguing that the moon is made out of cheese.

I think the reason people hold onto the silly beliefs is because they fear if they admit their religion is wrong on some issues, it might lead to their religion being wrong on the rest.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

XEI

You have called me a liar and accused me of lying to myself. I will spend some time in introsepction after this post to see if this is true, but as of right now I do not see it. I see this only as an attack, much like Photolysis, from someone who is angry, and this anger, as I told them, derives from a sense of feeling threatened and fear. I give you the same question I gave them, what is it that threatens you so much and causes you to fear?

I explained why I'm angry; I'm angry for the same reason that you would be angry at somebody who squanders their abilities and habitually lies.

I'm not threatened by you at all. You can't even answer simple questions I put to you, why do you think I'd be threatened?

I said that what I believed about the sun was merely a beliefe a subscribed to. Please note that this is part of that foundation of Creationism on which my current beliefs are built. I have had no reason to discard this belief.

No, again, you are intentionally failing at basic reasoning. You know this makes no sense.

You said that the reason you don't believe in evolution is because you know of evidence that the sun cannot be very old.

It is you who made the claim. Evidence for the sun being old should be totally irrelevant, the issue here is whether or not your argument makes any sense, and whether you have any reason for actually believing what you believe, or if it is just bullshit that you are making up. If it is in fact just a 'belief' and you have no evidence at all, it is completely fucking insane to try to use this as an 'argument' against evolution. It's not an argument, it is something you are choosing to believe with no basis whatsoever. It's totally ridiculous to think that simply saying 'it's not true' will convince other people. It's horrific that simply saying 'it's not true' has convinced yourself.

Don't be confused though: it isn't as if I can't give you evidence that the Earth isn't a few thousand years old; there is an overwhelming quantity of observed evidence which clearly shows this to be the case, which you could have found in ten seconds with a single Google search. Why didn't you? (Answer: because you are trying to lie to yourself and you hide yourself from any evidence which would force you to abandon a belief that you are emotionally invested in). In fact the Earth can be dated to within a margin of error of only a few percent. Anyway, as I have no reason to believe you will ever aspire to do the work yourself, I did it for you. If you fail to click on the links below and read them, please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Age of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stellar evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both sides of the argument is besides the point. The fact of the matter is simply that the bible has 'never' indicated an approximate age for the Earth, Sun, Universe, whatever. However we have testable and observable scientific evidence which gives us the age of both, which may I add does not in any way contradict scripture.

That my friends, is the point.

I'm sitting here, trying to figure out how to reply. Probably I shouldn't - it will only cause suffering and conflict. But I am driven and compelled to understand here.

It has been implied that I have been, am being, evasive. That's simply not true. I have chosen to address some posts before others - that's all. I have tried to be an open book and answer as many questions as I have been asked. It seems to me my accusers are the ones who have been and are evasive.

I have been called a liar by someone accusing me of not reading or studying things correctly. Yet if they had actually properly read my posts they would see this is not true.

I have been called ignorant, implied to be stupid and unintelligent, throwing up strawmen, etc. My question to those saying these things is how are your words ever going to inspire me to research, change my views, or listen to you? Do you really listen to someone when they are shouting and swearing at you? This thread has been a more genteel, civil version of exactly that sort of thing. You will never convince anyone to change their minds by force, or by using forceful words.

I received my answer so now I will study the posts of this thread and wrap up my responses. Then I will probably remove myself from posting further. Not out of cowardice, running away, trying to protect my views in light of convincing evidence, etc. Simply because this thread is costing me energy better spent in other pursuits, and it us causing suffering, something I do not want to cause.

I have Googled and done my own research on several things that have been mentioned here. The reason why I take these sources with a grain of salt is because they are biased mostly to evolution and partially to creation. In my mind a true scientist is unbiased. He/she states personally verified facts as facts and leaves the rest to the realm of hypothesis and personal belief. Above all he/she keeps their mind open to all evidence and changes their personal beliefs accordingly. I want the unbiased, scientifically proven truth in what I read, not the current scientific viewpoint. This of course makes it much harder for me to inform myself in these matters. I will probably have to sift through books from both sides of the fence, and some material from other places entirely. This is what I have decided to do.

Thank you for answering my question and helping me to understand this subject better. My last posts will come in the next week or so -
- DreamBliss

facepalm.jpg

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

I have Googled and done my own research on several things that have been mentioned here. The reason why I take these sources with a grain of salt is because they are biased mostly to evolution and partially to creation. In my mind a true scientist is unbiased. He/she states personally verified facts as facts and leaves the rest to the realm of hypothesis and personal belief. Above all he/she keeps their mind open to all evidence and changes their personal beliefs accordingly. I want the unbiased, scientifically proven truth in what I read, not the current scientific viewpoint.

What makes something biased to evolution?

Why do many teachers in monotheistic traditions promote and support the theory of evolution? Because they can reconcile their worldview with observable patterns in our existence. If God created the world and the world contains monumental evidence of the relatedness and common ancestry of all life, then by rejecting that evidence aren't you saying that God is lying to you? Are you prepared to call God a liar on the basis of the most simple-minded of several competing interpretations of Genesis? Are you asserting that literary criticism should sometimes trump rigorously tested scientific theory?