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

I want to be clear here... Evolution is at best a scientific theory and at worst a religion. It was propagated by a man named Darwin many years ago, a man who had been a Christian and then turned away from his religion.

I am a Christian, and like Darwin am turning away from my religion, attempting to disentangle myself from it to free myself completely. But I am not out to discredit it. I try to be respectful to people, and that means respecting their belief systems as much as I can, if I am able to (I can't respect destructive, evil religions.)

I can't take some scientific instrument and prove that evolution is right or wrong, or even that creation is right or wrong. Even if I had an instrument and was well trained in its use I could not guaranteed its accuracy. Carbon dating is an example of a scientific instrument and process that provides inaccurate results.

However I can draw some conclusions from my own perceptions, experience, and general wisdom:

1. The sun can not possibly be millions of years old. Suns have a limited lifespan, so scientific research has proven. If the sun is not millions of years old, then the earth can't be either.

2. Common sense tells me that throwing a bunch of junk in my room along with a good source of water and letting it stew for a few millions years would not cause anything new creature to crawl out of my room. New creatures are discovered, but if evolution were true new creatures would be evolving into higher life forms every day because the process started, according to the theory, millions of years ago. Now current creatures are mutating, and my friend would call this adaption, hearkening back to the theory of evolution, but I am discussing the process here of some species of ape (for example) in current times loosing its hair, wrapping fig leaves around its unmentionables, and using a spear to hunt something.

3. Disregarding the first two I have one final observation... The world is far too complex to be the result of random chance. The physical realm alone is complex beyond imagining. We are still making new discoveries every day. This doesn't even include the spiritual, non-physical realities. To me it speaks of a higher than human, far higher than human in fact, intelligence. The hand of an Artist, a Creator, which I would call God. I would believe this even if I renounced my faith. I would retain this belief, as it is my own, developed from my own experiences in physical reality, dreaming reality, and the usage of various universal mechanisms like the "Law of Attraction" and the "Law of Intention" (neither of which would be discussed in Christina circles as far as I know.) In short my personal belief is that apes are designed in our image, and we in God's.

In any case we come to the heart of the matter, what has been troubling me for a few days now. I have encountered numerous times in spiritual books by authors such as Deepak Chopra statements like, "...millions of years..." as well as references to man being an animal. It confuses me because many of these same authors profess to the existence of a God and the creative process. They seem to be concerned with the spiritual development of man, but still seem to want us to believe we are nothing more than evolved animals. I think people use this as an excuse. If I am nothing more than an animal, then I can act like an animal, human morals and societal standards are above me. How can a spiritually developed person see themselves as nothing more than an animal? No different than an ape, with only some arbitrary time gap of millions of years to differentiate them? It makes no sense to me.

So my question here is simply this... Why is the scientific theory and religion of evolution taught in many spiritual texts? Why profess a God but deny any power of creation? Why teach us to look inwards towards our divinity, how we are connected to God, and at the same time teach us that we are merely highly evolved animals? Which is it? Are we a divinely connected human being or a highly evolved animal?

What are your thoughts, and more importantly, why do you think or believe that? Be sure to include that last vital part! Stop regurgitating what you have been taught on others and look deep inside to see what, if anything, you believe and why you believe that. Support your beliefs! This is a thread for discussion, not a dumping point for theories which are not even your own! Follow my example. See how I am developing my own thoughts, outside the walls of creationism and evolution.

I am seeking some enlightenment here, some explanation. Help me find it!
- DreamBliss

Not this shit again.

I wonder if there will ever be a day where stupid, uninformed, and ignorant people keep their stupid, uninformed, and ignorant opinions and thoughts to themselves.

Quote:

---

Stop regurgitating

---

The irony is hilarious given that you're just regurgitating tired and cliche arguments for the hundredth time.

Seeing as this is a discussion forum...I will go ahead and try to answer you.

For one, I believe you are over simplifying your reasoning on evolution..and that how life actually started is a different theory from evolution itself (abiogenesis, read up on it, it is quite interesting), but that is for another thread since you arnt asking about that. I do, however, feel the need to say the sun can be and is millions of years old...Im not sure what research you have looked at that says it cant be, but it is a scientific consensus that it is. But, be that as it may, you are not here to have your beliefs refuted, you are asking for others, so I will give you mine.

Let me preface this by stating I am agnostic to all spiritual things, so take my opinion as you will.

To me, there is no inherent contradiction between evolution and divine creation. It seems rather self evident that who or whatever created this world would also create the natural laws that go with it. But heres the thing, why would you create natural laws as a ground work for your creation and then ignore them entirely? You wouldnt, if you wanted a stable world. So, to me evolution could simply be the mode of creation this divinity used to create the life it wanted. Perhaps even influencing it slightly by introducing mutations it wanted to propagate. Once it had a species capable of spirituality (perhaps a special development in the brain) it introduced the soul, now suddenly you have a creature that is both highly evolved and divine.

edit: before you ask why let evolution take so long...if we are talking about a timeless being who is powerful enough to create a world...how long do you think millions, even billions of years would seem to it?

So, that is my opinion, note again I dont necessarily believe that explanation since Im agnostic, its just why I dont see a contradiction between evolution and spirituality.

I have a question, OP: Why do you keep such strong convictions and opinions about a subject which you're clearly completely ignorant about?

Educate yourself, it's disgraceful.

Quote:

---

1. The sun can not possibly be millions of years old. Suns have a limited lifespan, so scientific research has proven. If the sun is not millions of years old, then the earth can't be either.

---

Seriously, what the hell is this? Are you completely stoned out of your mind? How could you possibly make an 'argument' so obviously and trivially wrong? If squirrels had the power of human language, I imagine the average squirrel would have no problem with telling you in a second why this is nonsense. This is a serious question and not an insult; I am genuinely very curious as to your psychological state, because this is literally on a par with 'all apples are fruits therefore all fruits are apples' in the sense of 'how can somebody who is able to feed themselves be so incompetent at basic reasoning'?

I stopped reading right after this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

2. Common sense tells me that

---

Common sense used to tell 99.9% of people that the earth was obviously flat.

To be honest they were just as scientifically justified in making that (local) assertion as scientists are today when they make theirs.

Although it's commonly misunderstood how many people thought that the Earth was flat. It's been well known that it wasn't at least since the Greeks.

Because I'm a sucker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

I try to be respectful to people, and that means respecting their belief systems as much as I can, if I am able to (I can't respect destructive, evil religions.)

---

Admirable.

Quote:

---

I can't take some scientific instrument and prove that evolution is right or wrong, or even that creation is right or wrong. Even if I had an instrument and was well trained in its use I could not guaranteed its accuracy. Carbon dating is an example of a scientific instrument and process that provides inaccurate results.

---

Perhaps not a single instrument, but given the multitude of fossils, morphological characteristics and similarities, and molecular/DNA comparisons between any given organisms, you reach a relatively high degree of accuracy that they did indeed evolve from a common ancestor.

Carbon dating fails when it is used for that which carbon dating is not useful. If you use a tool incorrectly then you're bound to get some inaccurate results.

Quote:

---

However I can draw some conclusions from my own perceptions, experience, and general wisdom:

1. The sun can not possibly be millions of years old. Suns have a limited lifespan, so scientific research has proven. If the sun is not millions of years old, then the earth can't be either.

---

Suns have a limited lifespan, yes. But you haven't explained why suns, specifically our sun in general, cannot be millions (or in reality, billions) of years old. All you say is that scientific research has proven suns have limited lifespans, and of course this isn't an explanation since it gives no indication of how long those lifespans are.

Quote:

---

2. Common sense tells me that throwing a bunch of junk in my room along with a good source of water and letting it stew for a few millions years would not cause anything new creature to crawl out of my room. New creatures are discovered, but if evolution were true new creatures would be evolving into higher life forms every day because the process started, according to the theory, millions of years ago. Now current creatures are mutating, and my friend would call this adaption, hearkening back to the theory of evolution, but I am discussing the process here of some species of ape (for example) in current times loosing its hair, wrapping fig leaves around its unmentionables, and using a spear to hunt something.

---

Common sense tells people a lot of things. But that isn't a particularly strong argument against abiogenesis or evolution since common sense can be fantastically incorrect.

Evolution is going on all the time, but as you must have thought, it tends to take a long time for the effects to become really noticeable. Much longer than a human lifespan, for instance. The reason why you don't see some species of ape acting like ancient humans, losing their hair, wrapping fig leaves around their privates, and using spears, is because you assume apes will eventually turn into humans. This is incorrect and not how evolution works. First, humans are apes. We're primates, and we're very closely related to other species of primates like chimps and bonobos. Second, maybe you were thinking of gorillas and wondering why they don't look more like us. It's because they're on a separate branch, or rather twig, of the tree of life compared to us. We share a common ancestor with them, but they are not on our same twig. They have their own evolutionary path and it differs from ours. What they may become in the future, whether it be another species or even extinct, is not known. It is not as if all primates are aspiring to be humans, or even on the path to being humans. I think your confusion comes from the inaccurate description sometimes given of evolution, namely that we evolved from apes. It paints a picture of humans evolving from MODERN apes, which isn't true.

Quote:

---

3. Disregarding the first two I have one final observation... The world is far too complex to be the result of random chance. The physical realm alone is complex beyond imagining. We are still making new discoveries every day. This doesn't even include the spiritual, non-physical realities. To me it speaks of a higher than human, far higher than human in fact, intelligence. The hand of an Artist, a Creator, which I would call God. I would believe this even if I renounced my faith. I would retain this belief, as it is my own, developed from my own experiences in physical reality, dreaming reality, and the usage of various universal mechanisms like the "Law of Attraction" and the "Law of Intention" (neither of which would be discussed in Christina circles as far as I know.) In short my personal belief is that apes are designed in our image, and we in God's.

---

Well again, humans are apes, so saying apes are shaped in our image doesn't make much sense. Secondly, if the world is so complex that it requires a creator, would this creator not also need to be immensely complex? I would assume he would be many orders of magnitude more complex than the universe it created, with all of its quirks and fascinatingly strange characteristics. So essentially, would he not need a creator as well?

Quote:

---

In any case we come to the heart of the matter, what has been troubling me for a few days now. I have encountered numerous times in spiritual books by authors such as Deepak Chopra statements like, "...millions of years..." as well as references to man being an animal. It confuses me because many of these same authors profess to the existence of a God and the creative process. They seem to be concerned with the spiritual development of man, but still seem to want us to believe we are nothing more than evolved animals. I think people use this as an excuse. If I am nothing more than an animal, then I can act like an animal, human morals and societal standards are above me. How can a spiritually developed person see themselves as nothing more than an animal? No different than an ape, with only some arbitrary time gap of millions of years to differentiate them? It makes no sense to me.

---

Well if we accept the biological definition of animal which is essentially a heterotrophic eukaryote that develops various tissue layers during embryonic development then of course humans are animals. Perhaps you're using a more colloquial definition that refers to something along the lines of an aimless, feral/wild creature that acts purely on instinct. In that case, humans are not animals. We've developed higher cognitive capacities and capabilities (well, some of us anyway) that differentiate humans from a large proportion of other organisms. None of that makes morals, standards, or some sense of spiritual development impossible, even under the biological definition of animal.

Quote:

---

So my question here is simply this... Why is the scientific theory and religion of evolution taught in many spiritual texts? Why profess a God but deny any power of creation? Why teach us to look inwards towards our divinity, how we are connected to God, and at the same time teach us that we are merely highly evolved animals? Which is it? Are we a divinely connected human being or a highly evolved animal?

---

Depends on their definition of god. Depends on what their concept of god is. For example if you think god is merely a term meaning the sum of all energy and matter in the universe, it's not hard at all to bring evolution into the picture.

Quote:

---

What are your thoughts, and more importantly, why do you think or believe that? Be sure to include that last vital part! Stop regurgitating what you have been taught on others and look deep inside to see what, if anything, you believe and why you believe that. Support your beliefs! This is a thread for discussion, not a dumping point for theories which are not even your own! Follow my example. See how I am developing my own thoughts, outside the walls of creationism and evolution.

---

I think you should look around to what our creationist friends are saying and note that what you're saying and what they're saying is oddly similar.

Man, you scientist types are all so mean. And those that are nice are arrogant.

Why can't we just leave the poor creationists alone?

And can we get that "dislike" button?

Or at least one that says "HAHAHAHAHA"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I am genuinely very curious as to your psychological state, because this is literally on a par with 'all apples are fruits therefore all fruits are apples' in the sense of 'how can somebody who is able to feed themselves be so incompetent at basic reasoning'?

---

Keep in mind that humans are monkeys that have over-specialized in social manipulation. We are "designed" to gain status through socially manipulating others and to be manipulated by our surrounding culture. We rely almost entirely on cultural assumptions (Einsteins notion of "common sense") to position ourselves in the world and will consistently behave in such a manner as to preserve said assumptions. Remember, it's very important to keep the culture going as evolution has essentially handed over our entire fate to it. A human that left culture would find itself on its own. This would be almost certain death.

(edited in)
In this context it makes no sense to develop capacity for rational thought. Most rational thoughts end up in some stupid la-la land of abstraction or require one to spend time collecting evidence to make sure they correspond with reality. Neither is locally profitable behavior in terms of reproducing and so we would expect to see a selective pressure against it.

The vast majority of our specifically human brain seems to have developed as a social manipulation machine. I imagine that there's interplay between being good at detecting lies (reasoning) and being good at being duped into conformity with the established society. We might expect, and seem to find, a variety of responses to this difficulty in balance. There are probably multiple points of "stability" within the ancestoral landscape with regards to capacity for rational thought.

I'm sure that OP is very creative in other ways.
(/edited in)


The magic monkey myth is very old and much cultural detritus (in the form of assumptions) as accumulated around it. Many people that should know better still implicitly believe in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Keep in mind that humans are monkeys that have over-specialized in social manipulation. We are "designed" to gain status through socially manipulating others and to be manipulated by our surrounding culture. We rely almost entirely on cultural assumptions (Einsteins notion of "common sense") to position ourselves in the world and will consistently behave in such a manner as to preserve said assumptions. Remember, it's very important to keep the culture going as evolution has essentially handed over our entire fate to it. A human that left culture would find itself on its own. This would be almost certain death.

---

I don't think common sense has much to do with being a social animal. In fact I think all cognition of all animals is fundamentally based on the premise of 'common sense', defined generally as, 'if it was like that before, it will be like that again'. If you think about it the entire purpose of evolving mental faculties is to perform this very action. The assumption of regularity in your local pocket of reality is really the single and utterly crucial feature of all thought, and the only one relevant to a survival advantage. In fact it's basically what thought 'is'.

Nothing is exempt. Even science is really just an extension of common sense; it's just that the focus on pattern finding is more explicitly driven, and the domain of observation widened as far as it can be.

This is the kind of common sense relevant to the OP. Based on his local observations, he rules out various ideas. We only think this is wrong because observations have been broadened, and so the OP's notion of common sense is based on doublethink and lying to oneself about what he knows has been observed. That is the part which we find intolerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamBliss

The world is far too complex to be the result of random chance. The physical realm alone is complex beyond imagining. We are still making new discoveries every day. This doesn't even include the spiritual, non-physical realities. To me it speaks of a higher than human, far higher than human in fact, intelligence. The hand of an Artist, a Creator, which I would call God. I would believe this even if I renounced my faith.

---

I agree with you absoultely on this point. I have had deep discussions with atheists about this and have even managed to convert a highly educated scientist from an atheist into a monotheist within three hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think common sense has much to do with being a social animal. In fact I think all cognition of all animals is fundamentally based on the premise of 'common sense', defined generally as, 'if it was like that before, it will be like that again'.

---

We're talking about different types of common sense. The kind I meant was Einstein's. To paraphrase, common sense is that collection of assumptions which have been learned by the time one turns eighteen.

Quote:

---

If you think about it the entire purpose of evolving mental faculties is to perform this very action. The assumption of regularity in your local pocket of reality is really the single and utterly crucial feature of all thought, and the only one relevant to a survival advantage. In fact it's basically what thought 'is'.

---

I'd disagree that that's the entire purpose of evolving mental faculties. Specifically, it does no good if it's not directed in some way. That direction is the "purpose". Using local regularity is just a means to an end. It may well be that some entirely alternate means is possible: I find myself reduced to an argument from ignorance in attempting to argue that it's not.

Quote:

---

This is the kind of common sense relevant to the OP. Based on his local observations, he rules out various ideas. We only think this is wrong because observations have been broadened, and so the OP's notion of common sense is based on doublethink and lying to oneself about what he knows has been observed. That is the part which we find intolerable.

---

Again, I disagree. The OP would have no problem using reasoning to conclude (as you noted) that all fruits are not apples. Yet OP concludes that all upper bounds on the age of stars must be less than millions of years because some upper bounds are less than millions of years.

The common sense at play here is, e.g., the mistaken assumptions that

1)evolution is mistaken.
2)humans occupy aprivileged place in reality


Common sense (as you're using it) is then tossed out the window to preserve these foundational cultural assumptions.

Random chance isn't exactly as random as most people make it out to be. Things don't just pick up a new trait randomly and then keep it and it just so happens to be useful. Genetic mutations occur and the DNA that was copied the most (had the best chance of survival) is the DNA that literally continued its existence. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I guess I could see how it seems difficult for things not to be designed from the standpoint that the earth is younger than a few million years, but if you give it 4 billion, it seems to make a bit more sense. That's a lot of time for useful mutations to occur and keep in population, spread, and mutate some more. Tell me, what do you think of the fact that humans have DNA that is close to that of any animal, or that other animals have similar body structures, organs, bones, or similarities of any kind? What about vestigial features, like the tail bone in humans? What about the wealth of evidence you've obviously been unexposed to? By the way, scientific theory is not the same as your everyday theory. It isn't just a guess, it's something that's well documented and observed and has been so for many, many years.

Does your common sense tell you that water with the atmosphere that the earth had back then (which is quite different than it is now), along with underwater volcanic eruptions, could not possibly form amino-acids (the building blocks of life) even after millions of years? No one is suggesting a fish just sprung into existence in the water, but if you have amino-acids the potential for organisms to form is highly likely. It sounds like you put about twenty minutes of thought into all of this, or were simply too lazy to actually do any research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I agree with you absoultely on this point. I have had deep discussions with atheists about this and have even managed to convert a highly educated scientist from an atheist into a monotheist within three hours.

---

In their defense, they probably weren't very smart.

"Mysterious world therefore gods lol."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

In their defense, they probably weren't very smart.

"Mysterious world therefore gods lol."

---

Two degrees with hounours, a masters and a doctorate. He was a tough nut to crack.

Before I begin I want to be very clear... I am recovering from some sort of virus - flu I think - very weak - hard to think. In fact I wrote this thread in (mostly) that condition, except I felt stronger then.

XEI, Stormcrow and Scatterbrain
Please forgive me if I presume incorrectly or take anything out of context here. My impression of you three is as follows:
- You are all very intelligent/educated.
- You all subscribe to the religion/theory of evolution.

There are a couple things wrong with what you all have said...

In the first place whatever you know or believe about the origin of all life has to be a theory. Why? Well you weren't standing there when God created everything, should that theory be true, or when the first creature crawled out of the water, should that theory be true. You can theorize, study the scientific results of others (and you have to trust that these are accurate and unbiased), create and use a vast array of instruments, but ultimately you were never there, so you can never know for sure.

In the second place I asked you to not regurgitate what you have been taught, to look inside and pull out what you, personally, subscribe to and why you believe that. Yet despite the intelligence you obviously have, or want us all to believe you have (I make no assumptions either way), somehow you manage to not follow simple instructions. None of you have told me exactly why you think/believe/feel as you do.

Now if you don't want to that's fine - this is your right. I would never presume to force anyone to do anything that don't want to do. Flowing is always better than resistance, so it seems in my limited experience living in flow. Trying to blast a hole in the rock may shatter it, will definitely harm the rock. Flowing against it over time will cause water to flow through, and the rock will be unharmed, taking on a new and interesting shape. I am not calling anyone here a rock, or implying anything. Just using an illustration for the way I try to live and interact with others.

Finally I am not regurgitating the beliefs of others which have been taught to me. This was a direct attack on me and blatantly untrue. I told you what my beliefs were, my own, current, personal belief system, and why I believed that. I set an example I wanted others to follow. Please read my posts more carefully before you post your response.

I will re-iterate this... It is my personal belief, in agreement with, not subscription to, that everything which exists was created. Looking at the complexity of the physical world, and then the additional complexity of the spiritual world, it is easier for me to see a hand behind it all than random chance. I believe there is mutation, brought on by environmental changes as well as adaption. But I believe everything on earth that is here now is very similar to everything on earth when it was made. I believe in one of two possibilities...

1. God spoke everything into existence, and this would explain the sound I have read which vibrates through everything.

2. God thought everything into existence, and this supports the Christian idea of omnipotence, as it is easy to be perceived as being everywhere if everything is in one's mind. (Dreamers are omnipotent in this way.) This also supports the idea mentioned in several books on astral projection of thought manifesting, very quickly, as form, even faster in the higher vibrational states, and of course God is in the highest state.

This is my origin theory/hypothesis, completely and uniquely my own, developed from my studies, experiences, and personal observations, built, as I said, on the foundations of Creationism, but also independent of this theory. My origin theory/hypothesis is completely flexible and fluid, able to evolve through the adaption of new truths and discarding of anything that is not true.

BLUELINE976

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

PhilospherStoned

I appreciate your approach as well, thank you! I will be re-reading both of your posts when my head doesn't feel like it's stuffed with cotton balls.

mcwillis

Thank you for your defense, I really appreciate it! Thank you!

Everyone Else

Just a few clarifications needed... When I said ape I was speaking in general terms. I was of course using it as an all-inclusive label for the primates it is theorized/believed we evolved from.

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.

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.

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.

Please understand a few things...

1. I was not aware that others have posted similar threads, and I had no intention of dredging up old debates. I may have similar beliefs to whoever started these posts that caused such offense, but I am not those posters. I violated forum law here, I did not search. Didn't want to, to be honest. I wanted to start this thread with my own take and questions, not sift through the postings of others. I apologize for any offense.

2. My beliefs are not set in stone. If you can prove to me that evolution is true I will change my beliefs. I have no attachment or aversion here. I seek out the truth, and will discard anything that is proven untrue. I draw from my own experiences and feelings, lacking any scientific basis from which to work, and have developed my current beliefs on the foundations of those I acquired as a Christian. I was a Creationist, and still have Creationist beliefs, but unlike when I first became a Christian I am now willing to let these beliefs go should they prove false. Understand this! You can say I have Creationist beliefs, but you can not label me a Creationist, any more than you could label me an Evolutionist if I adopted any of its beliefs. I simply have beliefs from various sources, but I do not belong to any particular camp anymore. If you must label me you can call me a TrueOriginist, or something like that, because this is the only thing my final collection of beliefs could be housed under. Once again I stress... I seek the truth. I see holes in the theory/religion of Evolution. I don't see them in the theory fo Creation - yet.

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.

I think I covered everything... I would still like to know why yogic/spiritual teachers support the theory/religion of evolution...
- DreamBliss

Quote:

---

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

---

That explains things. Try looking up real science in future.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Uh, no, this is complete and utter bullshit. The only thing I can possibly think of was that Lord Kelvin calculated that the sun could only be a few million years old because he had no knowledge of nuclear fusion.

Quote:

---

I used to read a lot of hard core, science based science fiction and studied this subject extensively.

---

...

There's a reason why getting qualifications in science doesn't involve reading science fiction. Many authors actually have little knowledge of science. This is like saying "I studied physics extensively by watching Star Trek".

Quote:

---

But lets just toss that last paragraph out and call it mindless drivel.

---

Sounds good, seeing as this "higher lifeform" crap shows you have no understanding of the subject.

Quote:

---

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?

---

*sigh*, creationist lie, number 2417. Darwin never said anything about the origin of life.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Creationist lie number 3102.

Quote:

---

How can modern scientists follow the findings of a man with questionable motivations from over a hundred years ago?

---

Because we don't you ignorant fool. Huge amounts of science have been done over the past century which independently supports Darwin's general idea. Like say, Genetics. Darwin also had no knowledge of many aspects of modern evolutionary theory.

Either you got the wrong idea, or someone told you this, at which point they were lying to you... again.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, they never have. They have always been a creationist organisation attempting to misuse science to make themselves sound more credible. Their arguments involve a fundamental ignorance and misuse of science to suit their agenda, and to try and get creationism into science.

So, the question remains, are you going to educate yourself on some real science, see through their blatant lies and misinformation, and change your opinion?


Oh, bonus round:

Quote:

---

Carbon dating is an example of a scientific instrument and process that provides inaccurate results.

---

Creationist lie number 4333.

Carbon dating is accurate within a certain range and on a certain type of material. The limitations of the technique such as giving inaccurate results on samples that do not obtain carbon derived from the air (such as marine specimens) are well known. Carbon dating is also not used to determine the age of many samples because of the relatively small dating range, and because many fossils contain no carbon whatsoever.

DreamBliss, you are a liar and you know it. It's bad enough that you have the nerve to lie to others, but the truly horrific thing is that you are successfully lying to yourself. Please read the novel '1984' by George Orwell.

You know that your arguments are wrong. In particular, you know full well that there is no evidence that the sun cannot be more than a few thousand years old. It's pathetic, you yourself even said, 'I don't have the evidence at hand, it's just a belief that I ascribe to'. In other words, bullshit that I believe because it makes me feel good, in the face of any evidence. You can't provide the evidence because it doesn't exist. You know it doesn't exist; you know that you know it. You probably heard some vague statement once from God knows where, and then because it made you feel good, you told yourself it was infallibly correct, and made sure to never look any further into it. In doing so, you are besmirching your human power of contemplation gifted to you by nature. You actually do not deserve the human body that you are so lucky to have by behaving in this appalling manner.

Am I wrong? Go and get the evidence then. Go and show me the scientific observations and calculations which proved that stars die after a few thousand years. And when you fail to find any such thing, and when you have educated yourself about the science of star lifetimes, and when you have looked up the multitude of indisputable evidence that the world is NOT younger than even a few million years (that's right, actual evidence from actual reality, not some bullshit fantasy that you choose to tell yourself), I want you to realise fully what it is that you have done, and never do it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I agree with you absoultely on this point. I have had deep discussions with atheists about this and have even managed to convert a highly educated scientist from an atheist into a monotheist within three hours.

---

I imagine what actually happened is that he gave up to make you go away. Unless his PhD was in women's studies or something. There's no way you can be an educated scientist and not understand that the history of the physical and biological sciences are largely the story of discovering that complex and diverse phenomena can be, and indeed are, the result of a tiny number of simple processes. Not to mention that even if this were not the case, monotheism is not even a coherent answer. But then, maybe you would like to present your argument and evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'd disagree that that's the entire purpose of evolving mental faculties. Specifically, it does no good if it's not directed in some way. That direction is the "purpose". Using local regularity is just a means to an end. It may well be that some entirely alternate means is possible: I find myself reduced to an argument from ignorance in attempting to argue that it's not.

---

Can you explain what you mean by direction?

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.

Quote:

---

Again, I disagree. The OP would have no problem using reasoning to conclude (as you noted) that all fruits are not apples. Yet OP concludes that all upper bounds on the age of stars must be less than millions of years because some upper bounds are less than millions of years.

---

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.

Consider the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Qlhyp0oZo

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Oh man.... I'm so glad I saved this thread until after I took half a Xanax. Otherwise I would have had to write something.... not very nice.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I imagine what actually happened is that he gave up to make you go away. Unless his PhD was in women's studies or something.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

monotheism is not even a coherent answer.

---

I got him to agree that there is a universe intelligence that created the entirety of all matter that we as humans are able to perceive through our five physical sense. In essence he agreed that god must, from a scientific viewpoint, exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

But then, maybe you would like to present your argument and evidence.

---

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.