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

Originally Posted by cmind

Scripture was actually pretty darned clear. The Earth was made in exactly 6 days, and the very explicit genealogical record in Genesis puts the beginning at about 6000 years ago.

Well, then God must have been lying when he left all of that evidence in the geologic record, background radiation, the arrangement of DNA in every species we've studied, and hell, archaeological finds dating human settlement back more than twice that long. How can any of that evidence stand against your narrow reading of Genesis, founded on the assumption that a creation story will yield the best insights if one not only takes it absolutely literally, but subjects it to arithmetic? No, obviously your understanding of the text is perfect, and evidence be damned(like, literally!)!

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well, then God must have been lying when he left all of that evidence in the geologic record, background radiation, the arrangement of DNA in every species we've studied, and hell, archaeological finds dating human settlement back more than twice that long. How can any of that evidence stand against your narrow reading of Genesis, founded on the assumption that a creation story will yield the best insights if one not only takes it absolutely literally, but subjects it to arithmetic? No, obviously your understanding of the text is perfect, and evidence be damned(like, literally!)!

> Makes post about how assumptions are bad
> Assumes cmind is a creationist

Originally Posted by ultraviolet

What makes something biased to evolution?

I believe the point he's making is that Atheist are biased toward idiotic ideas like molecules-to-man which actually isn't evolution but atheist love to try and plug that into the whole equation because biological evolution is real and observable.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

First of all let me stop you right there. There is absolutely nothing which has been observed which supports the idea of molecules-to-man as an absolute fact. For one, no one can link modern humans with any of the hominids. Even scientist are not all in agreement of which theory to follow (out of Africa, Multi-regional, African hybridization; etc...) There are morphological similarities but you need a lot more than that to cancel out the truth of such similarities blatantly starring you in the face supporting the efforts which are truly indicative of a common designer rather than common ancestry; but whatever helps you sleep at night :p

Originally Posted by cmind

Scripture was actually pretty darned clear. The Earth was made in exactly 6 days, and the very explicit genealogical record in Genesis puts the beginning at about 6000 years ago.

You have a misunderstanding of scripture. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the days were. However, you can analysis this by reading the verse. There were a lot of things that happened on the first day. God created the entire universe. There are other Bible verses that address at least part of how God created the universe. No fewer than 11 verses from five different inspired authors claim that God stretches out the heavens. Many of these verses use present tense, indicating that God is still stretching out the heavens. How long did it take to stretch out the trillions and trillions of stars. The Bible doesn't say, but if we measure the current rate that the universe is being stretched, it would suggest a very long period of time.

What you also didn't know is essentially this, the Hebrew word yom has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that anything less than a few thousands of years interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a time period to exceed thousands of years can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.

Genesis 2:4- This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

Originally Posted by Xei

> Makes post about how assumptions are bad

I assume (!) you're referring to some post(s) in some other thread(s)?

Originally Posted by Xei

> Assumes cmind is a creationist

cmind was promoting the most simplistic form of scriptural literalism regardless of whether s/he accepts the results of that approach. Yes, I did throw in some 'you' and 'your,' but the criticisms of the position cmind presented stand.

> Assumes (!) I'm referring (?) to some post(s) in other thread(s) (?)
> Acknowledges that he made exactly the assumption I was talking about in the post I was referring to.

Ehh... what?

Don't take it too seriously, I was only joking, because cmind is definitely not a creationist. Yes your criticisms still stand; I never mentioned them. So... not sure what you're talking about really.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You have a misunderstanding of scripture. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the days were. ...

It's easy to find an earlier version of some Hebrew scripture that says something different, but the bible agreed upon at Council of Nicea is 100% clear.

Also, to people who think I'm a creationist, I guess I'll make this clear: I'm not, mmmk? I'm merely pointing out that you can't really use the 'different interpretation' excuse to continue to use the bible as some kind of historical document, because there's no room for interpretation.

Originally Posted by ultraviolet

What makes something biased to evolution?

I'll go ahead and answer this... If you read any Wikipedia entries and most of the stuff you Google you will see references to things I associate with evolutionary theory, I.E. millions of years this, billions of years that, mankind evolved, etc. None of these resources give any reason or proof for the things they state, and in this example these statements are, in my mind, biased towards evolution.

In other words when I read something about rocks (for example) why can't I just read about the different kinds of rocks and the materials they are comprised of? Why do I have to read that either God created them or they formed over millions of years? And if they are going to state that the rocks were formed over millions of years, why don't they also include where they got that information? Give me the name of the scientist or scientists, briefly cover their research, tell me what instruments they used, etc?

None of the information I have found online does this. None of it differentiates between the hard facts (a rock is formed from this substance with this chemical signature, etc.) and the theories (it takes millions of years for the pressure of the earth to do such and such). None of it, in presenting theory, gives me the reason behind it, it simply states it as fact without any supportive material.

I hope this is clear -
- DreamBliss

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

I'll go ahead and answer this... If you read any Wikipedia entries and most of the stuff you Google you will see references to things I associate with evolutionary theory, I.E. millions of years this, billions of years that, mankind evolved, etc. None of these resources give any reason or proof for the things they state, and in this example these statements are, in my mind, biased towards evolution.

They say those things because that is what the theory entails. It has nothing to do with bias. If you're reading Wikipedia then look at the references and citations. That's more or less where you'll find their "reasons" and "proof."

In other words when I read something about rocks (for example) why can't I just read about the different kinds of rocks and the materials they are comprised of? Why do I have to read that either God created them or they formed over millions of years? And if they are going to state that the rocks were formed over millions of years, why don't they also include where they got that information? Give me the name of the scientist or scientists, briefly cover their research, tell me what instruments they used, etc?

The answer here is the same as the above. Unless you're specifically searching for "what is X-rock made of," you're almost destined to find information regarding how they formed. Again, if you're on wikipedia, look at the citations. And to be honest most sources are probably going to omit information regarding the details of the research on whatever you're searching for because most people tend not to care. If you want really specific details you'll have to look into peer-reviewed journals. And you'll need a paid subscription to quite a few, or a few trips to a library or something. That seems like far too much work just to figure out how old a rock is.

None of the information I have found online does this. None of it differentiates between the hard facts (a rock is formed from this substance with this chemical signature, etc.) and the theories (it takes millions of years for the pressure of the earth to do such and such). None of it, in presenting theory, gives me the reason behind it, it simply states it as fact without any supportive material.

What sort of sources are you using? And as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, a theory (in scientific lexicon) if not a synonym for "hypothesis." Theories are explanatory ideas supported by evidence, or as you would say, "hard facts."

If things are true, then they should match up. Geology(the study of earth and rock), and astronomy(the study planets, stars and things out in space), and biology(study of living orgasms) all agree that the planet is billions of years because it is the truth, not because their biased towards evolution.

If they all said something different, then that would imply that one of them must be wrong. If they all agree, then that shows that they are likely correct.

Originally Posted by cmind

It's easy to find an earlier version of some Hebrew scripture that says something different,

No it's not because if it were so easy you would've put it here instead of telling me.

Originally Posted by cmind

but the bible agreed upon at Council of Nicea is 100% clear.

Christianity existed long before the Council of Nicea and it wasn't until hundreds of years later that the first vestiges of this church government rose declaring a roman bishop as head of this church. Not even Constantine truly promoted Christianity as it actually was practice because Constantine's deeds didn't reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless no where in any bible will you find each creation day consist of 1000 years. You wouldn't even find an approximate time period referencing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before being ejected or how long Adam was alone before Eve was created; because the bible doesn't give this information.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

None of these resources give any reason or proof for the things they state, and in this example these statements are, in my mind, biased towards evolution.

Except for say those hundreds of references in the basic article on evolution on wikipedia, in addition to a lot of further reading.

In fact, half the page of the evolution article is taken up by linking to 'proof' of the claims. References are strewn throughout the main article's text. How can you possibly not notice that?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No it's not because if it were so easy you would've put it here instead of telling me.

Since you fail at reading comprehension, I meant it's easy to find an earlier version of scripture that says something different from the bible.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Christianity existed long before the Council of Nicea (blah blah)

Fine, then why the fuck are you talking about the bible that came out of the Council of Nicea?

None of the information I have found online does this. None of it differentiates between the hard facts (a rock is formed from this substance with this chemical signature, etc.) and the theories (it takes millions of years for the pressure of the earth to do such and such).

This is because there is no differentiation. You are only convinced that there should be one because, wait for it... you're biased. Both of those things are supported by evidence which you can read about. The articles aren't biased towards evolution, they're biased towards reality. It's as if you seem to think that there can't be any evidence either way and hence that any observation which supports one conclusion and not the other must be biased; no, there's no reason that reality shouldn't provide any evidence as to what is true. It does, and there's plenty of such evidence in the pages you've been linked to.

Originally Posted by cmind

Since you fail at reading comprehension, I meant it's easy to find an earlier version of scripture that says something different from the bible.

Scripture is the Bible :p and you still came back a second time empty handed and didn't produce nadda'.

Originally Posted by cmind

Fine, then why the fuck are you talking about the bible that came out of the Council of Nicea?

And you need to watch your language you don't have any kids here. If this subject makes you that upset then you need to stay out of R/S bottom-line. Secondly I wasn't talking about the bible that came out of the Council of Nicea why would you draw that conclusion? The reason why I even stated anything about the Council of Nicea is because you're the one who brought it up in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If this subject makes you that upset then you need to stay out of R/S bottom-line.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Scripture is the Bible :p

Hi Ne-Yo. The Bible is scripture but not all scripture is The Bible. Just like all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples. This is a lot like the venn diagram I described for you one time. Do you remember that?

The point being that it is perfectly concievable to find things "in scripture" that are not "in the bible". It would not be possible to find things "in the bible" that are not "in scripture" because the bible is an instance of scripture. You could perhaps find something "in the bible" that is not "in all scripture".

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

And you need to watch your language you don't have any kids here. If this subject makes you that upset then you need to stay out of R/S bottom-line.

More importantly, you need to watch your inferences. Young people that are learning to think correctly are reading this. It's important that we all make our best effort to approach situations with at least a modicum of rationality and not, like prophets of the devil, purposefully and knowingly distort basic facts and logic in such a manner as to make it appear that this is a routine and acceptable form of debate or that doing so is a reliable manner of arriving at useful models of reality.

Seriously, do you want a population that can be lied to and manipulated any which way by any want-to-be dictator with a bit of charisma or a population that has lapsed into a bit of a linguistic atrophy after having become dependant on the simple, four letter word, f-u-c-k as a general mechanism of emphasis?

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

Secondly I wasn't talking about the bible that came out of the Council of Nicea why would you draw that conclusion? The reason why I even stated anything about the Council of Nicea is because you're the one who brought it up in the first place.

Wait. Isn't "The Bible" that collection of documents that was canonized at the Council of Nicea?

You've at least admitted that there are or were multiple bibles to be considered.

I think this might be my last post in this thread...

OK so I changed my mind. I know I said I would come in here after reading everything and post, but I have decided not to do this. Man I'm done with this thread! I received my answer (thank you.) I am more interested now in working on spiritual/non-material matters and will be returning my focus and energies there.

I have decided to daily state my intention, and that is to know the truth. Not the subjective truth, not somebody else's truth, but the real, actual Truth. I.E. There is God or there is not. There is only Heaven and Hell or there are several layers/levels. I am one with everyone else, experiencing life in this body, or I am not, etc. Now I will live my intention. In seeking Truth I have to be open to all viewpoints.

So from now on Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Alien Design, etc. are all THEORIES. Why? Because we can't know for sure. We can never know for sure. We weren't there. We might be able to astrally travel back to the beginning, since we can travel through time astrally, but we still couldn't be sure that we were seeing what we thought we were seeing. We can't even be sure that what we know now, what we call scientific fact now, is in reality the whole story. I've been watching Stargate Universe. Bunch of people with little Ancient Technology experience dumped onto a thousands year old spaceship at the outer edges of the universe. I can use this as an illustration. We are like those people. Sure we could walk up to a door and open it, but we have no idea that this is the way the door was intended to be open, if this is the most efficient way to open the door, or if this is the only way to open the door. That which is called fact now may in the future be disproved and changed as we as a species continue to learn. The battle between string theory and quantum theory, that one book I glanced at today alluded to, is one example of this.

My point is that there is never going to be a way to know everything perfectly and for certain. So in an ideal society all theories must be embraced equally, taught equally, or not at all. Our schools should have scientific books with a Creationist viewpoint, an Intelligent Design viewpoint, and any other alternative right next to Darwin's Origin of the Species and other such texts. There should not be some war between science and religion, because perhaps at some point the two will be found to merge together. What would we do if an ancient alien ship came into our universe and started orbiting our planet, Rama style? What if that ship refused to respond to any known law of human science? What if that spaceship responded only to spiritual energies, and the manipulation of those? You'd have to go find a guru in India to open the thing. It could happen, the possibility will forever be there, no matter how vehemently you may wish it wasn't.

So I will live my intention. I am now open to ALL THEORIES. I will free myself from my Creationist beliefs and bias, which will be very hard for me to do, and I will study the other beliefs out there. For now I am limiting these studies to a sort of scientific refresher course. Since most books in the science section are Evolutionary in nature, at least here, I will have to be open to this theory to read them. But I will adopt as my own belief only that which is the absolute Truth. The rest I will accept as concepts that make sense, that work right now, etc. I have no real interest in science in my life right now. My focus is beyond this world, into the next. Trying to get to the Truth of that will probably take the rest of my life, at least.

I do have one final sort of barb for those who believe in the theory of Evolution. I was reading the inside jacket of one of Dawkin's books, and whoever wrote that text had some series insecurities. They kept calling Evolution fact, kept saying that ID was threatening it, calling the actions of those opposing Evolution insidious. Well according to most here Evolution is fact, right? Scientific fact, right? Well if that is true, then how could any Evolutionist be threatened by any Creationist, Intelligent Designist, etc.? If the theory you call scientific fact is indeed fact, then it is also truth (lower case t - you can never know the Truth for certain). Current scientific studies will disprove any insidious, opposing theory, if there is no truth in it, right? These other theories will simply die out if there is no truth, no substance of any kind, in them, correct? The only reason to feel threatened by any other viewpoint is if your faith in your own, in the truth if it, is shaky. If there is in fact something wrong in the theory the scientific community as a majority subscribe to - Evolution. Why are they so insistent that this theory be taught above all others? Why bash into anyone's head who might think differently that Evolution is fact? What is it that makes Evolutionists so afraid, so worried?

As I said earlier, a truly advanced, ideal society would not teach one theory over all others. They would present knowledge as, "such and such is what we currently believe to be true, based on the research of these people. There is an alternative, and it is this..." The library would be open to any scientific book, based on any scientific viewpoint. If you believe in one thing at the exclusion of all beliefs you close your mind, shut it down, to anything else. But a scientist, to my knowledge anyway, can't discover anything that falls outside his beliefs if he refuses to acknowledge anything outside them. So in an ideal society the minds of every scientist are open to every belief, not judgmental. If something is disproved they simply set it aside with the understanding that maybe it's wrong now, with current knowledge, but something may be learned later that makes it right. You never know, you never can know, so you can't assume you do.

In our society as it is now Evolutionists should be thrilled. Their theory is the only one taught in schools! As scientists they should be horrified, because our children will go out into the world with no idea how to handle something that falls outside the theories of science they have been collectively taught. In other words our society has stagnated itself scientifically in this country. Sooner or later the results of our actions will come back to haunt us. But my children, if I am blessed with any, will be part of the minority that are open-minded and accepting of all theories, so nothing will fall outside their belief system, because they are open to all of it. Discoveries are made when someone is looking, seeking. They are never found if someone is looking with a fixed, clouded, or distracted gaze.

You guys can continue to fight if you like. I put down my weapons and walk away. Defense of anything other than ultimate Truth is a waste of precious time and energy.
- DreamBliss

Cop out.

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.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

please know full well from this point forth that your beliefs are based on denial and an attempt to lie to yourself.

I'd be lying if I said I was surprised that I had to repost this.

You know you're talking nonsense. You wouldn't ever dream of teaching kids that Australia doesn't exist just because it isn't in front of them, or that their own parents never existed because they aren't in the room, or that Abraham Lincoln descending from space on the back of a giant space goat should be given equal credence as a theory because we can't travel through time to see him. You know this is fallacious. You know this is fallacious.

God, what a disappointing waste of a human. What a cognitive trainwreck.

Intellectual cowardice combined with ignorance. A tantalising combination.

Normally I'd just point out the stupidity but frankly, I don't have the patience for it. And you don't have the intellect to understand it.

EDIT: Actually I will.

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

So from now on Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Alien Design, etc. are all THEORIES.

Number of those on the list with strong evidence behind them: 1
Number of those on the list with no evidence behind them: 3

The battle between string theory and quantum theory, that one book I glanced at today alluded to, is one example of this.

*sigh*, what nonsense.

So in an ideal society all theories must be embraced equally, taught equally, or not at all.

You're an idiot. Thankfully intelligent and rational people disagree with you.

Our schools should have scientific books with a Creationist viewpoint, an Intelligent Design viewpoint, and any other alternative right next to Darwin's Origin of the Species

Which would mean they would not be scientific books since they would not contain science. You're an idiot.

What would we do if an ancient alien ship came into our universe and started orbiting our planet, Rama style? What if that ship refused to respond to any known law of human science? What if that spaceship responded only to spiritual energies, and the manipulation of those? You'd have to go find a guru in India to open the thing.

I don't even know what to say...

I do have one final sort of barb for those who believe in the theory of Evolution.

It would be best if you refrain from them; you're extremely ignorant of the subject matter and you're also an idiot.

They kept calling Evolution fact, kept saying that ID was threatening it, calling the actions of those opposing Evolution insidious. Well according to most here Evolution is fact, right? Scientific fact, right? Well if that is true, then how could any Evolutionist be threatened by any Creationist, Intelligent Designist, etc.?

It isn't threatened scientifically you half-wit. It's threatened politically by religious people who want their beliefs taught in science classrooms when it failed in the scientific arena, and by idiots like yourself who give equal value to all ideas, from those backed up with hundreds of years of evidence to random nonsense dreamed up by morons.

But a scientist, to my knowledge anyway, can't discover anything that falls outside his beliefs if he refuses to acknowledge anything outside them. So in an ideal society the minds of every scientist are open to every belief, not judgmental.

You know nothing of science. I'll reiterate: you're an idiot.

In our society as it is now Evolutionists should be thrilled. Their theory is the only one taught in schools!

Actually it's not in a variety of places around the world, which you would know if you were less ignorant. Oh and it's also the only decent scientific theory.

As scientists they should be horrified, because our children will go out into the world with no idea how to handle something that falls outside the theories of science they have been collectively taught. In other words our society has stagnated itself scientifically in this country.

You. Are. So. Fucking. Stupid.

You. Know. Fuck. All. About. Science.

Well since his true intentions are fully revealed, I still wanna know how mcwillis lectured a guy with a PhD in bio on biochem and anatomy.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

...You're an idiot...

And, from what I have read, I must assume that you are a hostile, biased, opinionated, close-minded, material/physical world obsessed individual with absolutely no capacity to understand, grasp, or comprehend anything spiritual or outside your sphere of belief. You are so brittle that you will shatter into thousands of tiny pieces the instant anything comes along that shows you were wrong all along, which, in time, it may. Then again maybe you will die in happy ignorance, and go into the void your probably assume is all that exists after death.

But this is only my hypothesis - since I don't know you I can't really know for sure can I? I can only read what you have posted, and assume that this is the whole picture.
- DreamBliss

By my reckoning, your score is the lowest level you descend to. Most of you guys are doing pretty bad.

Why do people argue against someone who makes such a bad and obvious play
Op makes an intro where he he attempts to take both sides
Said Op then rants about the side he actually isn't on, hoping to just get people to "think" about it, trying to push his views onto everyone else no matter how wrong ( and they usually are)
Then said Op wants to hear your "ideas" on it, while honestly he's just trying to force his shit down your throat by trying to get you to be empathic toward his feelings.

It's like what the guy on the pedophilia topic did a month ago. It's pointless to try and argue, they aren't going to change, just look over the thread.

To quote my Avatar, Can't tell if trolling.... or just stupid.