Too numerous and detailed to say off the top of my head. You'd best read it yourself.
http://www.mcremo.com/YASBLT_forbiddenarchaeology.pdf
jan.
Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?
- Thread starter Rav
- Start date
Too numerous and detailed to say off the top of my head. You'd best read it yourself.
http://www.mcremo.com/YASBLT_forbiddenarchaeology.pdf
jan.
Yeah that's not the book.
And if they didn't transform, then they had to be independently created. But, as Darwin showed, that can't be possible.
All you have to do is to explain how species appear out of thin air. Or you can just go with Darwin and the mystery is solved. They evolved.
I found no evidence in this document. So far, he is giving only anecdotes and subjective characterizations (such as calling the archaeologists "Darwinists"). He cites the Vedas on the second page, and mentions two or three archaeological finds, in which he claims scientists were deliberately altering the dates of their artifacts. But it's all anecdotes. He thinks they're all in a conspiracy, nothing more. From this he concludes that humans have been on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
It's about as far from a credible source as you can get. All he would need to do is produce one human fossil that's older than, say, 6 million years and he would be on the cover of every science magazine around the world.
Getting back to the subject at hand, if creatures did not evolve then they were independently created. If this writer is so dead set against "Darwinism" then he needs to be able to explain the origin of the animals on Galapagos. Were all the species independently created or not? If they did not evolve, then where did they come from? It's a huge, huge burden of proof for the person who believes in independent creation. The person who understands evolution need only show selective breeding, or the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria, or the changing of the colors of the moths in England before, during and after he soot changed the color of the bark where they need to camouflage themselves, or any one of countless other examples. Just one case is enough but the evidence for evolution is everywhere, while there is not even a shred of evidence supporting independent creation.
This is why any sound, rational mind will gravitate towards Darwin's explanation. Nothing else comes close to explaining where all those species came from.
My take, in my new video film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sMXqS8FKm0
'Into the Lands of the Gods';
Part 1; On the Graveyard of the Gods and the God of Intelligent Design.
Into the realm of supernatural figmentations
I drifted off, within my newest imagination,
To interview all the living Gods there,
Some who’ve left and some yet ruling everywhere.
…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sMXqS8FKm0
'Into the Lands of the Gods';
Part 1; On the Graveyard of the Gods and the God of Intelligent Design.
Into the realm of supernatural figmentations
I drifted off, within my newest imagination,
To interview all the living Gods there,
Some who’ve left and some yet ruling everywhere.
…
I have not read the entire thread. Only the OP. My response to the question is. I am an atheist these days but when I was a theist, I rejected evolution because I had an ego problem for one thing. I would tell atheists, "maybe YOU evolved from pond scum but I didn't". To accept that human beings evolved from lesser creatures is to take us off of the superior creation pedestal. The lengthy process of evolution also goes against the 6 day creation as stated in the bible. As I began to question my faith I then started thinking as the OP suggests. But in order to accept that as a possibility I had to accept that God is an idiot and doesn't think things through all the way and he is the shittiest designer ever. And his employment of trial and error even though he supposedly knows everything shows that he is just a jerk. Obviously, that left me with a very bad taste in my mouth for god and i refused to accept that God would be such an ass. Instead i accepted that he is not an ass, he just does not exist. So I am guessing that many believers would see accepting theistical evolution as a slippery slope to atheism. And they simply don't want to go there.
Jan Ardena,
I've given you everything you need to educate yourself if you're so inclined. It looks like you won't, though.
No. Please review my previous posts.
And what of Napoleon, Jan?
How long?
I've given you everything you need to educate yourself if you're so inclined. It looks like you won't, though.
No. Please review my previous posts.
And what of Napoleon, Jan?
How long?
Artifax?
That's what we're dealing with, fellas. Artifax.
I don't think anything more needs to be said.
I read this. He's railing against science, claiming there is a conspiracy to alter the dates of archaeological finds, just to shore up "Darwinism". He claims humans are hundreds of millions of years old.
None of it has any merit. There is of course no evidence that humans existed hundreds of millions of years ago. Modern humans are found appearing in different places on earth at different times, since human migration has sometimes been extremely slow. And these are all estimates anyway, since they're based on the remains found. Who knows how many more sites will be uncovered in the future and what other conclusions can be pieced together from the evidence. But no, there is no evidence of humans on earth so long ago as he claims. This is why he has no evidence to prove it.
Here is a fairly recent list, showing finds that date modern humans as far back 200,000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_islands_by_first_human_settlement#The_list
There is also a find in Israel that pushes this back to 400,000 years ago.
Ardipithicus was found several years ago in nearly complete skeleton, dated at 4.4 million years ago
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2009-10-01-human-chimp-fossil_N.htm
and note
http://news.discovery.com/animals/early-human-ancestor-asia-120604.html
But so far modern humans are found no earlier than about 200,000-400,000 years ago.
Right, it's an emotional response, one that bypasses all the evidence.
Yes, taken literally, it flies against all of the evidence. They want to say that all of the fossils were laid down by the Flood (not accounting for the order in which they appear) and that radioactive dating is flawed and that scientists are in a conspiracy and so on. All this to shore up whatever the book says.
Who could look at the child born with spina bifida or hydrocephalus and go into Shakespeare's "What a piece of work is man! (the paragon of excellence, etc.)"
Yeah, let's let you suffer through tortures like the Plague, until folks like Lister and Pasteur discover causes and folks like Fleming and Salk discover cures. Oh well, too bad, the rest of you should have been born later. Hah! Oh, wait, I already knew that. Hah! My bad! Hey: that'll teach 'em! What. Well at least I didn't turn 'em into pillars of salt! That was for fornicatin'. This here is for ...for ...well, for just bein' plumb stupid. Everyone knows you're supposed to wash your hands before you eat. Duh! Stupid morons, got what they deserve. And don't whine about morality. Do as I say, not as I do.
Which is why no one but the creationist is linking science (teaching evolution) to atheism.
That seems to be the perceived eventual consequence according to a religious fundamentalist whose theology is tied up in the specifics of Gods relationship with creation. As Phillip E. Johnson (widely considered to be the "father" of the ID movement) once said "I wanted to know whether the fundamentals of the Christian worldview were fact or fantasy. Darwinism is a logical place to begin because, if Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is fantasy." But he didn't engage in this examination before he became a Christian, but some time afterwards. In fact he was "born again" during a period of disillusionment after his wife left him, so the quality of his religious commitment is the whole "Jesus saved me, and this is such a profound personal truth that everything else has to be brought in line with it in one way or another" sentiment. So when he says "if Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is fantasy" he's really effectively saying that if Darwinism is true, his very soul is lost. Things really don't get much more profoundly personal than that. It all adds up to "I really need Darwinism to be false".
Not all theists have this sort of problem.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
That already presupposes that there IS a "Christian worldview". I'm not convinced that there is, certainly not a precise one. There's more of a family of worldviews, kind of revolving around the "God" concept (interpreted a wide variety of ways) and around the mission of Jesus (again, interpreted in a wide variety of ways)
Why? Why does "Christian metaphysics" have to be dependent on a literal reading of the first few verses of Genesis? I believe that many of the ancient Hebrews probably understood it more allegorically than our fundies do today.
It's certainly possible to read the first verses of Genesis as a traditional myth that expresses (what Jews and Christians believe is) a basic underlying truth: that God is ultimately responsible for creation and for bringing order out of chaos. That God had an intention and a purpose when he created the universe. That mankind has an important place in God's plan. And probably some ethical stuff about sin, the need for redemption and so on, depending on how one interprets the "fall" passages.
In other words, the opening passages of Genesis kind of set the stage and establish the intellectual framework in which the rest of the Bible take place. It isn't necessary to read the Genesis account of creation as a literal (even, in the case of the fundies almost pseudo-scientistic) depiction of historical events that took place exactly as described over six actual days.
My point is that if people loosen up on that fundy-stuff, then there needn't be a whole lot of contradiction between Darwin and Christianity. A Christian can (and many millions of them do) imagine some kind of theistically-guided evolution, in which the universe grows and flowers over billions of years, under God's constant care and guidance, towards some ultimate apotheosis, known only to God.
Even the widespread atheist faith in progress, the idea that the future will be better than the past and that history is ultimately headed somewhere -- is very much the same thing, a secularized version of the same general idea. Time and change have a goal, a positive underlying purpose.
I don't really believe that myself, but I can't totally dismiss it.
The "theory" is that Adam introduced sin into the world - thereby condemning us to death. The only way out of this was for a sinless person to die. Thus the "need" for a literal reading of Genesis... otherwise, Jesus died for an allegory.
NO! That's too literal. God is just a metaphor for something like nature or doing good deeds...
The problem here is that many Christians don't take an allegorical view of the Bible, particularly Genesis. And good luck getting the fundies to "lighten up."
This is, obviously, absurd. There is no such thing as "atheist faith," and you grossly (intentionally, in all likelihood) misstate what anti-theists actually think. There is no belief here in some kind of destiny, or underlying purpose, but rather the belief that disabusing ourselves of superstition can lead potentially to a better future. The worst you can say about it is that it is idealistic. But to say that atheists believe there's some kind of "point" to it all? No, that's ludicrous.
A non peer-reviewed book does not mean it's bullshit. Especially when the fraudulent, and dishonest shenanigans of the book
reveals that very process.
So every research that ends up contradicting the current dogma, is a failure?
No doubt the sites that debunk this book, calling it crazy, are as dogmatic, and religious about darwinism as you.
jan.
But then if anybody disagrees with the current dogma (which they have over the past hundred years), they're instantly wrong, and a lot of work goes
into discrediting them. Your people can be nasty when they feel their house of cards shake, which tends to happen alot, so ya'll tend to be nasty, alot.
jan.
At this point, these posts should qualify as trolling.
Jan Ardena:
Not necessarily. Can you show us any such research that is a success?
What a revealing statement from you, Jan. No doubt, eh?
Have you considered that the fact that you have no doubts about the nature of sites you haven't even looked at may paint you as dogmatic?
Also, any thoughts on Napoleon yet?
Not necessarily. Can you show us any such research that is a success?
What a revealing statement from you, Jan. No doubt, eh?
Have you considered that the fact that you have no doubts about the nature of sites you haven't even looked at may paint you as dogmatic?
Also, any thoughts on Napoleon yet?