« Religious fundamentalists kill bloggers and other secular activists | Main | Directionless, I feel like I've found my way »

May 30, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yes, I learned this when I was trying to understand why some fundamentalists who worked as engineers during the week could spend their weekends learning how to force creationism into the science curriculum in the public School system.

So I went to a conference at a big foursquare Baptist Church organized by the creation research Institute, and that was when I really learned that what was really fundamentals of them was the idea of the fall – that man is especially women were born into sin and needed to be redeemed. The Other aspect of that which I had not anticipated was that there could be no evolution since there was no death before the fall.

It's an amazingly airtight view and it explains why adherents are so much more powerfully motivated to dispute the question than skeptics – people who can understand and accept evolution aren't fighting for their very conception of the universe, because believing in evidence, they quickly find that creationists reject the role of evidence and therefore make terrible debating partners.

For most of us, evolution is a powerful explanatory paradigm that offers significant benefits for understanding the world as it is. For fundamentalists, it's a Manichean threat because it not only undoes The literal Bible but it also and does the need for redemption and sin.

I agree with your view on most books because they tell a lot of non sense,

I like to make an exception for books where writers try to express their own YES subjective experiences
like Rumi, Kabir, Jesus when He said " Before Abraham, . . I am,
like Augustinus when He wrote : " And I entered in a beautiful Light, . . THOU BEING MY GUIDE,

MELCHISADEK, . . that he was a Priest of the Highest God of them all

Zohar ( Talmud ) about the 7th Heaven and Jacobs fight/ascend : clearly in 7 stages UP,

The Dogas tribe in africa since old memories celebrating those people from Sirius, who modified our genes , - They might be instrumental in adding the 7th chakra to our blue print

Sitchin : writing from Assyrian clay tablets telling us WHY aliens did this for selfish reasons ; to have usable slaves for gold mining

Edgar Cayce : most famous US psychic , telling about those aliens and a lot about karma
and for those thinking : where now is the destruction of Japan that he predicted?
See CNN

There is so much more very valuable info we cannot ignore,
The Books of the Dead : Tibetan and Egyptian

Lots of Love to You Brian and not even have I mentioned now
the super sweet constant lovely sound above our eyes which is our Soul

777


777 - You're insane.

dear CL,

Isn't That what fundamentalists are doing :

Calling names without arguments?

777

I don't understand the argument that there weren't first humans simply because somebody says so based on the theory of evolution. I need proof and evidence. For example, who are supposed to be the first human people in the theory of evolution?

If the answer is "there weren't any first humans but a collection of them" where is the proof of this? Where is the evidence? I don't want speculation and conjecture, I want evidence. I want it to be put to me in one or two sentences, not told to read millions of books and textbooks on evolution and the ramifications of it. If someone does that, I am not inclined to believe they actually know the answer.

David R, if you expect reality to be capable of being expressed in a few sentences, you're bowing down before your simple-loving human mind, not reality-as-it-is.

Truth isn't always simple. Take a few minutes and educate yourself about evolution and human origins. There was no First Human. Do some reading, some thinking, some understanding.

Here's a few places to start that I found after some Googling:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm
http://www.foundalis.com/bio/1st/1sthuman.htm


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mitos_creacion/esp_mitoscreacion_1.htm

777

Brian,

I said nothing about reality or it being expressed in a few sentences. I specifically stated and asked if the idea that the theory of evolution has no first humans is valid.

What you then did was give links to articles that are supposed to support the idea that the homo sapiens species of humans come from previous diverse species or a mixture of them. The fact is simply this - all the species of sub human ancestors that resemble very closely the homo sapien sapiens species are not demarcated in any sense but are mixed according to you and these articles. I specifically asked you to give EVIDENCE of the first modern human species, which is US. You cannot seem to do this.

Not only that, but in the theory of evolution in the modern calculations, homo sapien sapiens is supposed to have come into existence about 50,000 years ago, which is the uttermost lowest limit level. The actual estimates go back for nearly 200,000 years and there are even estimates that go back millions of years! Yet there is no actual evidence of these time spans in human history. Human history only dates to 3000 or 4000 BC. This is a fact, and you cannot deny it. Why does human history only date to 4000 BC and humans are supposed to have had the same bodies and brains for nearly 100,000 years? The mathematics of this do not add up, not to mention the total lack of logic of it.

There are tons of different species of birds and dogs, but they aren't cats or trees or plants or hippos. There are so many different species of animal and life that have similarities but definite distinctions and they aren't related to each other in the evolutionary tree. Similarities in species on a genetic level produces sameness with plants and fruits and these markers of similarity do not have the same genetic makeup outside of the species. Different species have different genetic markers. If you say a banana is 50% a human, you failed to mention that a human is 50% NOT a banana. And those extra genetic markers that AREN'T the same as other species you are avoiding in order to accommodate your bias that there is no God.

This wouldn't even be so bad were it not for the fact that even if evolution was somehow true, where species change into other species, it is still not an argument against the existence of a God.

Atheism is redundant and void of logic.

Most of the professors that study evolution get really old and confess that it makes no sense and has no connections. Perhaps you aren't their age yet, Brian, but your research is one sided, biased, and completely ignorant of proper scientific detective investigation and perusal of books and articles that show that there are massive problems with the Darwinian theory of evolution, or Darwinism.

So again, if the people can't explain the origin of our species by pointing to the first man or woman, or woman and man, with evidence and proof and facts, that anybody can see, and understand in 2 sentences, I am very disinclined to believe in that nonsense.

Have a good day.

David R, you really need to educate yourself before you write inane comments. I'm fine with reasoned arguments giving an alternative scientific view, but not gibberish.

Read some books about evolution. Have you done this? Or did you just parrot some religious garbage that you read on the Internet? Please, cite reputable scientific studies the next time you want to weigh in on the evolution of humans. Don't just make stuff up.

And don't demand that scientific truth be capable of being explained in two sentences. Maybe that's all your mind can handle, but that's not how reality works. Why don't you explain to us how quantum mechanics works in two sentences. Then ask a physicist if you've adequately captured the truth of quantum theory.

Brian, you will have to forgive me, but you are the one talking gibberish here. Not me.

Contrary to what you just said, I have indeed read books on evolution. Many books.

When you couldn't refute or debunk me there, you tried to confuse my questions to you with attempting to explain quantum physics in one or two sentences. I said 2 by the way.

And I don't believe you read what I wrote properly. Your reply reveals a lack of intellectual acumen in the response you actually gave here, because it only took you about 2 minutes to reply. Please read what I wrote again, and attempt to respond to it in detail, pointing out all the parts that are wrong. I don't need links to articles and writings on Google that you assume I have no read or need to read, I need you and your knowledge to explain how I am wrong. If you can't do that, admit it and we can move on from there.

David R., I don't have time to educate you about evolution. Read Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale." Or many other books on this subject.

If you don't have time for that, read my blog post about how there was no first human. And watch the video. Educate yourself about modern science. You might like it.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2014/08/there-was-no-first-human-which-explains-a-lot-.html

Brian, your attempt to educate me failed because you didn't respond to absolutely anything I said.

I have read Dawkins. He is wrong.

What more?

David R. if you don't accept the scientific facts about evolution, a subject Dawkins is expert in, you're hopeless. Go back to your religious dogma and imaginary fantasies. Reality is too much for you.

Did you even watch the 4-minute You Tube video I linked to about there being no first human? Was even that too much reality for you?

777 is completely batshit bonkers but I enjoy his commentary - apparently he is a rockstar.

Evolution is correct as is Creationism

The turning point s ; creation manipulations :

I - Increasing hugely brain cell quantity : millions of years ago

II - Much later Impressive qualitative Manipulations

III - CORRECTIONS and termination of failed specimen regularly

The point is that these "aliens" don't come with ships but via a kind of copied chakra tunnels not exactly wormholes but similar pathways
they installed mainly for their own purposes :
It's unbelievable but they try to construct physical vessels they can / might occupy themselves
They made / make many mistakes and would have destroyed the present often ugly result
IF NOT , to their sheer flabbergasting astonishment ,
the seventh chakra in our species had been developed
which is indeed the direct connection with the Almighty
which they know c q suspect

From that moment on -while very puzzled-
all their efforts are aimed
at copying this strange super connection for themselves

May all of You use that lovely entrance asap

"May my mind may be imbued with Thy Name, Night and Day, Oh Lord"

777

So Brian, you have resorted to ridicule now. That's what happens when a person loses a debate.

There are many other experts in the theory of evolution that totally disagree with Richard Dawkins. Why don't you look them up to get a balanced perspective? After all, that is what a real skeptic should do.

I don't have any religion or dogma. I don't have imaginary fantasies.

You need to research the other side of the argument before you swallow whole the biases of "experts" like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchen;s and Dennett. Your cult leaders.

Moreover, you ought to stop making assumptions about people and what they know. You ought to ASK QUESTIONS first. It is only polite. You know nothing about my knowledge of evolution and what books I have or haven't read. Don't be so ignorant.

David R, you obviously aren't used to the rough and tumble world of scientific debate. See:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2015/05/why-being-critical-and-contentious-is-a-must-for-citizen-activists.html

Challenging B.S. is part of this. Finding the truth about reality is REALLY important. You and other religious believers are entitled to your opinions, as the saying goes, but not your own facts.

So when I call you out on your untruthful statements, you get upset. Why? Because you don't have any facts to stand on when it comes to the question of The First Humans, so I"m winning and you're losing.

Get used to it. This is what happens when you spout religious dogma rather than scientific facts.

So tell me this:

(1) Show me several peer-reviewed studies in respected journals that claim there were Two First Humans, and that what Richard Dawkins says (as reflected in the video I gave you a link to) is scientifically wrong as regards continuous gradual change in our ancestral chain.

(2) Give me the names of the "many other experts in the theory of evolution that totally disagree with Richard Dawkins." At least five. Send links to their academic backgrounds, awards, papers published, etc. Remember, you said "totally." So I'm interested in their theory of evolution, which much include an explanation for how there could have been Two First Humans, which is your special interest/obsession.

Understand: I'm not interested in attacking you personally just for the heck of it. I'm attacking your use of B.S. religious dogma in your attempt to undermine scientific facts about how life on Earth evolved.

If you can't put up, shut up. That's the way science works. Get used to being challenged on this blog, because I don't put up with science-deniers quietly.

Lastly, I agree with this final paragraph in a review of a book about Dawkins and his writings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618361/

You either accept the universal principles of mainstream evolution, or you wander around in an intellectual wasteland. Where do you want to be, David R?
-------------------
"Any molecular biologist who has not read The Selfish Gene should do so, and will thoroughly enjoy Richard Dawkins as well. Readers may ask why they received so little of this material as a core part of their education. Why is there so much resistance to mainstream evolution?

We are happy to teach the descriptive part of evolution, but omitting hardcore evolutionary theory is like teaching chemistry without the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

As some authors point out in Richard Dawkins, there really is no intermediate position: you either accept the universal principles of mainstream evolution, or you wander around in an intellectual wasteland."

You made four points and then gave a conclusion, wherein you claimed I was some kind of non-intellectual nerd bastard.

So, for the sake of clarity, let's assume I have never read Dawkins or even seen him on TV or internet videos. You still have a problem there.

Brian, Brian, Brian, the problem is not that you don't have absolute knowledge, it's that you just THINK you do. This has nothing to do with mysticism or metaphysics.

Didn't you tell the world in your "CHURCH OS THE CHURCHLESS WANKERS" website that there are wrong interpretations? What criteria are you using to determine your sense of what is right?

again, all that happens when people lose arguments is to bully with ridicule their opponent, like playground FUCKERS. :)

Church of the Wankers - interesting ring to it.

I'd join... Church of the Wankers. But had to Google this British slang word. Geez, why can't you guys speak proper English like we Americans do?

I'm joining the "batshit bonkers" group (Hi George).

Thanks Brian for letting 777's comments through, helps me a lot. I'm not a fundamentalist type satsangi nor an ex-satsangi and its kinda lonely, especially when unusual happenings occur, like telepathic contact. Is anyone out there? Yup, I think so, and they're watching us... :)

Kirk of the Kirkless

That's right Brian - let me translate

Sidewalk = pavement
Elevator = lift
Fanny = vagina (try not to get this one wrong)

Howdy Observer,
Who you been communicating with from the other realms lately? Observer have ever zapped around the cosmos on a photon or is it only the satgurus that can do this?

Hey George,

"Who you been communicating with from the other realms lately?"

Who knows? A tremor in the Force? lol

Its all fun...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngElkyQ6Rhs

Sorry (off topic)

Thanks for the link trailer of to come in December
May the Force be with You Sir, rapidly 24/7
It's terrific and ticket cost zero :-)
<3

777 obviously thinks he knows English better than English people. Loads of Indians believe that. It is so sad.

@ dear David R,


777 has mentioned loads of time that he is not that good in english, then why that comment?

And I would differ from you here, Indians do not believe that 777 has a good command over english.

But one thing most people (including me) definitely believe that 777 has a great love filled heart and that he is receiving HIS grace consistently.

But to feel that we have to start filling our heart with Love too.


Lots of love to everyone.

~OI

QUEISTIONS FOR Atheists
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

AV, I love questions. Answers to yours below. My response to your question is preceded by --
---------------------------
QUEISTIONS FOR Atheists
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

-- Nothing is absolutely certain. Knowledge is a matter of probabilities. The probability is very low that God exists, because there is no demonstrable evidence of this.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

-- There is no evidence of intelligent design, which is religion's new term for creationism.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

-- Something has always existed. The universe, for example. Or the cosmos, if there is more to reality than just our universe.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

-- Science looks for evidence, not for things that can be seen.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

-- If there is solid evidence for God, then God exists. There isn't, so God almost certainly doesn't exist.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

-- No one knows for sure what caused or preceded the big bang. What we can be sure of is that nothing produces nothing, and something produces something. This is why I said that something always has existed.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

-- Yes, existence always has existed.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

-- The cosmos isn't an encyclopedia. Nor is this world.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

-- No. Mind is made of matter.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

-- Right and wrong is a human invention.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

-- No. There are no moral laws.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

-- No.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

-- No. Existence has always existed.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

-- No. There is no cause to existence.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

-- There is no demonstrable evidence that the anthropic principle is true.

All good answers except point 6 and I'm not sure science has answers here.

I'm also not sure that science says the something (the universe) has always existed. Afterall, the Big Bang was supposedly the explanation of how everything came into existence from nothing.

A few years ago it was even considered scientific nonsense to question what caused or came before the Big Bang because everything including time and matter and the universe only suposeflu came into existence at time of the bang.

George, I've read a lot of books about modern cosmology. I don't recall a cosmologist ever saying that at the big bang, the universe arose out of nothing.

What they say is, currently we don't know what preceded the seeming beginning of time at the big bang.

The big bang could have been preceded by previous big bangs, and "big crunches." The big bang could have been caused by quantum fluctuations arising in other parts of a vast multiverse composed of countless other universes.

Importantly, the singularity many theories find at the moment of the big bang represents a breakdown of our understanding of relativity theory. It is very doubtful that this actually represents a moment of infinite energy in zero space. Again, it is where current understanding breaks down mathematically.

You're right that scientific attitudes toward the big bang over time. This is what science does: progress and alter its theories.

Brian,

hawking (one of the main protagonists of BB theory) pretty much sets this out in a history of time. Time, space, matter the universe all came into existencd at the time of the bang. It was considered a non-sensual question to ask what caused the bang or what happened before the bang. If time started at the bang, we have an effect without a cause. From the viewpoint of soace-time everything has an origin at the moment of the bang.

Putting another question to you what caused the bang? What was before the bang? How do you even know there was something? You can't - because all causality, all matter, all time, stops and starts at the bang,

George, there only are theories about what caused or preceded the big bang -- including whether time began at the big bang.

I've read a book by two scientists that presents an intriguing counterpoint to Hawking, "The Endless Universe." Here's a link to a review, along with an excerpt:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/reviews.html
----------------
"You might think readers attracted by the notion of an alternative to the Big Bang would already have a pretty good idea of what the Big Bang is. But the authors make no such assumption.

Attempting to reach as wide an audience as possible, they start from scratch, with mini-crash courses on quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, the history of cosmology and even superstring theory -- all in preparation for presenting their minority report.

I was glad for the clear reminders about things I'd read and forgotten, but I couldn't shake the feeling that they didn't quite know their audience -- and that they were writing the book too soon.

The authors make a good case that their theory can account just as well as inflation does for recent observations -- like the precise measurements of the universe's background radiation by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe -- and without so much filigree (unless you count all those strings and branes).

And they promise to avoid the question of what came before the Big Bang. In the standard cosmology, matter and energy, along with space and time, seem to emerge out of nowhere. In the cyclic model, these ingredients are there all along, recycled as the great wheel turns.

Ah, but where did the wheel itself come from? For now, we'll have to leave that to scientists on some other brane."

An endless beautiful Sound is above your eyes
and you people discuss the dust under your nails

777

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.