14 May 2014 06:25:38
Ed001, it seems recently a lot of debate has taken place on here about religion, whereby you could make a case for ignorant people believing, just as much as ignorant people dismissing religion and more so the idea of a god, as fact, when it can't factually be proven either way.
An assumption I'd make would be that most of the people who dismiss religion and have a strong hatred of the process of religious beliefs would do so on the premise of the theory of evolution. Which once again I would think they very ignorantly push as a factual belief. I remember a few years back you expressed your view on how evolution of the human species has been no more proven then religion, due to the missing link between apes and humans. (Not word for word, and sorry if I've put words in your mouth)
I was hoping, when time permits, you could once again share your views on the theory of evolution, and the missing link, as I think it would help those who dismiss religion for their theory of creation, be a little more tolerant.
Thanks mate
Melbourne CFC
{Ed001's Note - it is funny you should mention this, as I was talking to Ed033 the other day about a number of things that make me wonder how the Theory of Evolution can be accepted so readily as fact. The missing link is a major part of it, but one that could be as simple as just down to us not having found it yet. There are so many other things, I really wish I had made a list when we were talking so I could remember them all now. I will post the ones I can think of now, and add more when I think of them. Maybe some of them evolutionists could explain to me and so drop them out of it, but there are some that really don't make any sense.
For one, it has been shown that our natural biological clock is a 25 hour rhythm. Now why would a creature evolved on a world with a 24 hour daily cycle develop a 25 hour cycle naturally? It doesn't help in any way.
Why do humans spring into being so quickly? Everything else takes hundreds of millions of years, yet we supposedly evolved in what, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye! Now that would make sense if there is crossbreeding, similar to the way humans create dog species by specifically crossbreeding them in order to make a dog for a specific purpose (is that a minor form of intelligent design?). That would require humanoid creatures of a level of intelligence far in advance of monkeys and apes to already populate the earth, millions of years before we are told humanoids appeared.
Where are the transitions from light gathering organs to the many variations of eyes we see in the natural world today? There is plentiful evidence of minor changes, in size, shape, colour, length of appendages etc. What we have no evidence of is animals changing number of limbs, where eyes originated from or development of them into the many different types. There are many other transitions, which Darwin himself mentioned when he put forward the theory, saying it is one of the 4 major holes he himself envisaged.
I will leave it there for now and add to it later as I can remember the other things we discussed, as it was one of those spur of the moment conversations that I wish I had come and posted about on here straight away!
One more thing, I am not saying the Theory of Evolution is wrong, false or anything like that. What I am saying is that it is still merely a theory, with many gaping holes and should not be accepted as fact. There is nothing to be gained by closing our minds off to the possibility it could be wrong. Just like there is no harm in accepting that, while I am an atheist, I could very well turn out to be wrong and there is a creator figure at the centre of everything. The only way to learn more is to keep your mind open to new possibilities and accept that all of us are fallible and can be wrong.}
For one, it has been shown that our natural biological clock is a 25 hour rhythm. Now why would a creature evolved on a world with a 24 hour daily cycle develop a 25 hour cycle naturally? It doesn't help in any way.
Why do humans spring into being so quickly? Everything else takes hundreds of millions of years, yet we supposedly evolved in what, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye! Now that would make sense if there is crossbreeding, similar to the way humans create dog species by specifically crossbreeding them in order to make a dog for a specific purpose (is that a minor form of intelligent design?). That would require humanoid creatures of a level of intelligence far in advance of monkeys and apes to already populate the earth, millions of years before we are told humanoids appeared.
Where are the transitions from light gathering organs to the many variations of eyes we see in the natural world today? There is plentiful evidence of minor changes, in size, shape, colour, length of appendages etc. What we have no evidence of is animals changing number of limbs, where eyes originated from or development of them into the many different types. There are many other transitions, which Darwin himself mentioned when he put forward the theory, saying it is one of the 4 major holes he himself envisaged.
I will leave it there for now and add to it later as I can remember the other things we discussed, as it was one of those spur of the moment conversations that I wish I had come and posted about on here straight away!
One more thing, I am not saying the Theory of Evolution is wrong, false or anything like that. What I am saying is that it is still merely a theory, with many gaping holes and should not be accepted as fact. There is nothing to be gained by closing our minds off to the possibility it could be wrong. Just like there is no harm in accepting that, while I am an atheist, I could very well turn out to be wrong and there is a creator figure at the centre of everything. The only way to learn more is to keep your mind open to new possibilities and accept that all of us are fallible and can be wrong.}
Some brilliant points, to which I hope some of us on the page, who believe the theory of evolution will engage in some debate over.
Thanks heaps for taking the time.
Melbourne CFC
Thanks heaps for taking the time.
Melbourne CFC
{Ed001's Note - cheers mate, though I personally don't see why Creationists are so anti evolution anyway. I mean who is to say that a god that creates humanity and gives it free will, wouldn't allow animals to evolve and gain their own free will too?}
Agree · 3 · Disagree · 0
{Ed033's Note - It's also good to have a look at the Bock Saga for the history of mankind (over millons of years), if you haven't heard of it.
Part 1 of 2 Red Ice Radio interview of Michel Merle on his 20+ years of listening to Ior Bock about Ior Bock's family saga
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/05/RIR-140509.php
Bock Saga web site of the group that listened to Ior Bock for 20+ years
http://torshammer.eu
Video Presentation by Tony Topping about the Bock Saga part 1 of 2
http://youtu.be/18b685skD3M?t=14m50s
Video Presentation by Tony Topping about the Bock Saga part 2 of 2
http://youtu.be/QgniryBfGRU?t=3m
Part 1 of 2 Red Ice Radio interview of Michel Merle on his 20+ years of listening to Ior Bock about Ior Bock's family saga
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/05/RIR-140509.php
Bock Saga web site of the group that listened to Ior Bock for 20+ years
http://torshammer.eu
Video Presentation by Tony Topping about the Bock Saga part 1 of 2
http://youtu.be/18b685skD3M?t=14m50s
Video Presentation by Tony Topping about the Bock Saga part 2 of 2
http://youtu.be/QgniryBfGRU?t=3m
Agree · 2 · Disagree · 0
Personally I think its just closed mindedness. Most people, unfortunately, tend to see the world in black and white, when it is generally pretty grey. I think creationists tend to think if they accept evolution then the rest of their belief systems are not as valid as they once were.
That and society as a whole tends to struggle admitting they are wrong about something, whereas I think the ability to admit you don't know something or are in fact wrong about something is one of the greatest strengths we can possess.
Not saying either side is wrong BTW.
Melbourne CFC
That and society as a whole tends to struggle admitting they are wrong about something, whereas I think the ability to admit you don't know something or are in fact wrong about something is one of the greatest strengths we can possess.
Not saying either side is wrong BTW.
Melbourne CFC
{Ed001's Note - I fully agree with that. It is part of learning is accepting you were wrong about something.}
Agree · 2 · Disagree · 0
Will definitely look into that Ed033. Thanks mate. If time permits please feel free to share your view, as it is always well respected on here
Melbourne CFC
Melbourne CFC
{Ed033's Note - It's a big subject, first of all, how about looking at some evidence that Jesus and the new testament was invented by the Romans and Christianity was used to pacify and brainwash people into 'turning the other cheek' instead of fighting the Romans.
Caesars Messiah video - The roman Conspiracy to invent Jesus
Caesars Messiah video - The roman Conspiracy to invent Jesus
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
14 May 2014 13:38:54
What puzzles me is how homo sapiens is supposed to have been around several hundred thousand years but civilisation has only been around for only 12000?
So why the large gap. I also read an interesting site about an ancient nuclear war in India and how the resulting fall out has made carbon dating unreliable and that all these results that come back as millions of years are actually more recent.
Interesting topic. Obviously in school we had no religious education so only got the scientific version.
Kim Philby
What puzzles me is how homo sapiens is supposed to have been around several hundred thousand years but civilisation has only been around for only 12000?
So why the large gap. I also read an interesting site about an ancient nuclear war in India and how the resulting fall out has made carbon dating unreliable and that all these results that come back as millions of years are actually more recent.
Interesting topic. Obviously in school we had no religious education so only got the scientific version.
Kim Philby
{Ed001's Note - carbon dating has been shown multiple times to be completely unreliable.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
1st time poster, long time reader. I suggest reading The sign of the Cross. In all essence it is your typical pot-boiler but alludes (and supports fairly well) the Roman invention of the Messiah
Also, on the evolution note, during my degree I studied some biological psychology in which we looked at the rapid evolution of a species of moth during the industrial revolution whereby they evolved their wings o become less susceptible to smoke particles and also they altered the colour structure so they were not a bright white as they were beforehand.
Geordiesteve
Also, on the evolution note, during my degree I studied some biological psychology in which we looked at the rapid evolution of a species of moth during the industrial revolution whereby they evolved their wings o become less susceptible to smoke particles and also they altered the colour structure so they were not a bright white as they were beforehand.
Geordiesteve
{Ed001's Note - if you had found them to have grown an extra set of eyes to see better, or more wings to fly through the smoke, then it would have been more relevant mate. Changing colours is commonplace without evolution, after all humans do it in the sun! So the only real change was to their wings, but not the number of them or anything which would really prove evolution. I mean changing the structure of the wings is again little different to our skin becoming leathery in a windy environment, it doesn't prove any kind of evolution happened.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Good point Ed, perhaps I should expand on what we talked about; this was not something that happened overnight to a living generations but happened slowly and subtly over the course of generations. Perhaps this is more an example of adaptation than anything; I was not looking to support any real theory of evolution but just to show another side to the story.
Geordiesteve
Geordiesteve
{Ed033's Note - People might find examples of micro-evolution/adaptation but where is the evidence of all the transitional species i.e. x species changing into y species over millions of years in the fossil record or even transitional species around today?
lloyd pye presentation on everything you know is wrong - explaining what's wrong with the mainstream science idea of 'human evolution'
lloyd pye presentation on everything you know is wrong - explaining what's wrong with the mainstream science idea of 'human evolution'
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
{Ed033's Note - To Kim Philby, The Bock Saga may answer your question. See my Bock Saga post above
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0