If I really want to learn my stuff on evolution vs. creation...

[variant]

The most neutral sources are the scientists.

They write untold amounts of primary source material that holds up to scrutiny among people who know what they are talking about.

 

[variant]

My roe with myself - I'm either a fundamentalist Christian or a pantheistic monist, the later scares me because I know that's the stuff of the NWO and the 6's however I still have to, in full honesty to myself, pursue the truth.

This sentence seems horridly misguided.

So much so that I have little hope for you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do think that common ancestry is the biggest point that I want to either clinch or properly disprove.

There's a Nobel prize in your future if you do. Unfortunately common descent is one of the most well-evidenced observations humanity's ever made - even the existence of atoms is more uncertain than universal common descent.

If clinched things get a lot more interesting for the bible and for reality in general just in that it seems every religion seems to have active deity in it

How does that follow? What does clinching common descent have to do with the observation that most religions have a deity?

we have this, also tend to call the heads of the others powers and principalities (lots of evidence to show that Asteroth has been a VERY busy lady in the last century or so) however if world events are conformed to the bible as much as distances in nautical miles from the temple mount have a direct correlation with their relationship to Israel (such as Paris 1,799 and London, 1,948)

Sadly for David Flynn, they don't. Paris and London are picked because they have international clout, and thus have influenced Jerusalem for centuries - no matter the distance to Paris, something French in 1799 would have affected Jersualem. Ignoring the facts that 'capital' and 'country' are so loosely defined, and 'nautical mile' is a hilariously arbitrary unit of measure, one can pick the capital of other countries and the idea falls apart - take the ancient capital of Zacpeten and find the spiritual significance of that.

and all the other stuff - we may very well be looking at a much different bottom line of reality.

The evidence begs to differ.

For me its sealed that the 'supernatural' and occult exist in actual as well as nonphysical intelligence and agency.

What evidence do you have that anything supernatural or occult exists?

If all religions however were peer rather than there being one true religion - then we really would be looking at Classroom Earth style ontology where we're all eternal beings of eternal stature and delegated some to be the teachers or maintain the structure of the 'game' or lesson plan. The bible would still be a fascinating treatise on metaphysics, the Christian trinity would continue to also be the most forthright and high integrity/honesty deity.

Perhaps, but that all hinges on that 'if'. There is simply no evidence to corroborate any of the world's religions.

My roe with myself - I'm either a fundamentalist Christian or a pantheistic monist, the later scares me because I know that's the stuff of the NWO and the 6's however I still have to, in full honesty to myself, pursue the truth. I love the bible, its an incredible treatise on the spiritual and quantum metaphysics of our world (John Edwards 'In the Hands of an Angry God' is also a great extension on understanding sin as well as the solidity of reality and what it means IMHO about what happens when and if that collapses or at that time when the restrainer proverbially takes his hand away).

In what way is the Bible an "incredible treatise" on quantum metaphysics?

The more I read the OT the more I feel like I understand why things went the way they did or what metaphysical rules or decisions kept Yahweh from simply changing the design of human thought such as correcting generational memory or why he didn't create a floating sky island somewhere to give a permanent violation of physics for all eyes of all generations to behold (then again the problem back then wasn't Epicureanism so much as other gods and goddesses seducing the people of Israel).

Delightful, but I'm still left wondering how this relates to your original post about evolution.

 

[pjnlsn]

This sentence seems horridly misguided.

So much so that I have little hope for you.

That part really clinches it - he's a nut

 

[Ecclectic79]

This sentence seems horridly misguided.

So much so that I have little hope for you.

No worries, I care to get this right.

 

[Ecclectic79]

There's a Nobel prize in your future if you do. Unfortunately common descent is one of the most well-evidenced observations humanity's ever made - even the existence of atoms is more uncertain than universal common descent.

Looks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.

To redraw the context of that whole post from what I just said - Christianity + creationism, everything jives. Christianity + common descent - things get hairy for Genesis. In either case however I'm not a reductive materialist so if evolution as commonly thought of holds as such, things just get strange for the big picture.

 

[variant]

No worries, I care to get this right.

Well my first bit of advice then would be to disregard self reinforcing ideas with little merit in the way of evidence.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Well my first bit of advice then would be to disregard self reinforcing ideas with little merit in the way of evidence.

Atheism was the first one that went in that regard so I'm not getting that one back, fortunately or unfortunately.

 

[variant]

Atheism was the first one that went in that regard so I'm not getting that one back, fortunately or unfortunately.

I have my doubts as to you using that standard objectively among the various ideas.

 

[Ecclectic79]

I have my doubts as to you using that standard objectively among the various ideas.

I'm really not wild on debating the issue because I know that fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Epicureans are pretty well on par in respect to being sold-out devotees to worldview.

To at least give you a snippet of where I'm coming from or why I'd say such a thing - a good part of what got me started down that road was the current NDE work being done by people like Mario Beauregard, Pim Van Lomel, etc.. I'd add Princeton's random number generator work as well regarding either personal consciousness effecting them or world events doing so. Wanting to figure out what it all meant and what I could do with it I had a run in with theosophy last year, did some things I probably shouldn't have, got results that confirmation bias doesn't explain, and I also got to find out some things about Luciferianism and new age as well as refamiliarizing myself with the book of Revelations and getting the distinct sense that we may be closing in on the trib.

I won't ask you to agree with any of that, just trying to line up my background so that things have some kind of context.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I do think that common ancestry is the biggest point that I want to either clinch or properly disprove.

I guarantee if you take a DNA sample of yourself, then take a DNA sample of any other life form anywhere on Earth. Have the two samples sequenced and compared. You will indeed find both samples can be traced back to a common ancestor.

Every organism has a line of decendency that intersects with another, the organism at this intersection is the common ancestor. Chimps are our close "cousins" zebras and bats more distant, reptiles, insects, plants and mushrooms even more distant.

So all life does indeed share the same genealogy.

Darwin's suspicions confirmed!

This is old news now.

 

[Ecclectic79]

I guarantee if you take a DNA sample of yourself, then take a DNA sample of any other life form anywhere on Earth. Have the two samples sequenced and compared. You will indeed find both samples can be traced back to a common ancestor.

Every organism has a line of decendency that intersects with another, the organism at this intersection is the common ancestor. Chimps are our close "cousins" zebras and bats more distant, reptiles, insects, plants and mushrooms even more distant.

So all life does indeed share the same genealogy.

Darwin's suspicions confirmed!

This is old news now.

I'm pretty certain it is confirmed, I just didn't want to be in the trap of believing it just because the public school system says so. Evolution and common descent always sounded remarkably intuitive and in line with natural processes as we know them, I just wanted to make sure I have the 'really well built confabulation' possibility of it ruled out.


As far as I remember there was a claim that chromosome pair 21 was really the fusion of two chromosomes hence our split from the ape family.

 

[variant]

I'm really not wild on debating the issue because I know that fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Epicureans are pretty well on par in respect to being sold-out devotees to worldview.

That's fine, I'm not really interested in debate either.

To at least give you a snippet of where I'm coming from or why I'd say such a thing - a good part of what got me started down that road was the current NDE work being done by people like Mario Beauregard, Pim Van Lomel, etc.. I'd add Princeton's random number generator work as well regarding either personal consciousness effecting them or world events doing so. Wanting to figure out what it all meant and what I could do with it I had a run in with theosophy last year, did some things I probably shouldn't have, got results that confirmation bias doesn't explain, and I also got to find out some things about Luciferianism and new age as well as refamiliarizing myself with the book of Revelations and getting the distinct sense that we may be closing in on the trib.

I won't ask you to agree with any of that, just trying to line up my background so that things have some kind of context.

Well at least you've got some raw curiosity going for you.

Be careful though I've found though that the more raw intelligence someone has to work with when they are a believer, the more elaborate the justifications become.

The two masters of belief and rationality can not always be combined and folks are often suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance when they get into an overt over-analysis.

I've seen people collapse into paranoid delusional states over the book of revelations and such so I worry when people go down that road.

I prefer simplicity and straight forwardness, and that is what the answers will become when they are correct.

When you really know something it becomes so remarkably easy, that is the key.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Well at least you've got some raw curiosity going for you.

Be careful though I've found though that the more raw intelligence someone has to work with when they are a believer, the more elaborate the justifications become.

I've seen people collapse into paranoid delusional states over the book of revelations and such so I worry when people go down that road.

Its similar to what happens to people when they start researching conspiracy, secret societies through history, UFO phenomena, etc.. I agree it can be corrosive/caustic to mental health, albeit I've had the luck of getting my sanity hammered on from a much younger age so I'm willing to dive off into this stuff and try sorting it all out to the best of my ability.

What I realize I need to do however is really build a strong catalog of what the implications are of both 100% literal truth of the bible and 'classroom Earth' monism, not only what they do to each other but things like whether its even possible for the Christian trinity to exist and not be what they say they are. Its the later that does the most damage to monism but its the massive damnation by circumstance and evolution weighing in favor of monism. My beliefs in the Christian direction could either a) get me saved or b) keep me on a wheel of metempsychosis/reincarnation that I want nothing to do with for failing an autonomy lesson, alternately monism could either a) tell me to look within and thus get off the wheel or b) land me in hell for being conned out of my salvation by one of Lucifer's hug-bombing deceptions - the worst part of that being separated from what I wanted to begin with, God.

I'd agree though, as an atheist it was much simpler and I had a very big fear once I started to question it that I'd be in for a nasty emotional rollercoaster. I had that more I think with monism than with Christianity though.

 

[SoulReason]

What's the best place to go?

I'm looking for the most dead-pan, non-biased, and all encompassing source that I can find which just as readily points out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of both sides and speaks as well to the nature of carbon dating, the age of the universe, etc..

While I read Signature in the Cell a long time ago I still feel like I understand an argument but that it still didn't elucidate things much aside from attempting to poke holes in evolution with statistical analysis and probability multipliers which could mean something or nothing all depending on whether or not the author had all of the catalysts considered.

While I absolutely do believe that what's going on in the world today from all angles proves without a doubt that there is something of a hidden/occult war between opposite forces and I consider myself on the sold-out Christian side of that war I still want to get my head around Genesis a little bit better, ie. to understand what it is and what it isn't.

For anyone whose done this kind of research and wanted to get the raw truth rather than simply getting patted on the back for views they already had (in favor of either evolution or creation) - what sources did you find to be of the best quality at explaining these things? Who had their order of salience laid out best in terms of addressing the logical lynch-pins of both and tearing down or edifying those pieces of logic in the most honest manner possible?

Fear of worldview bias is reasonable. At some point, we have to trust reputable sources that are prepared to show cross references and give links and demonstrate little or no bias. Wikipedia is one such source.
SR.

 

[pjnlsn]

Looks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.

To redraw the context of that whole post from what I just said - Christianity + creationism, everything jives. Christianity + common descent - things get hairy for Genesis. In either case however I'm not a reductive materialist so if evolution as commonly thought of holds as such, things just get strange for the big picture.

Sorry about calling you a nut btw.. You actually quite a bit more reasonable than people here are on average.

anyway to mirror Wiccan_child, it's basically absolutely certain. I mean we're using a two word phrase to describe it, and so it's an incredibly general idea. Saying there is common descent, It's like saying 'everything is made of matter.'

The less certain parts are the details, really. And the thing is, it'll probably be a lot of work if you want to verify the whole of evolutionary biology, or even just all of it as regards ancestry alone.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Yeah, I think what I'm looking for is to be reasonably sure that macroevolution was the case before resting my sense of history and reality on it as bedrock.

One of the things that bothers me with the ongoing culture debate with this - you have incredibly brilliant spiritual warfare authors out there who'll tie together the most amazing and cogent interpretations for things happening in the world right now and for all of recorded history and mythology (Tom Horn is a great example) but then by the stance of the bible they're forced to then go back and villify Evolution as a concept brought together and even debunked by Darwin's claims to its limits, pushed by the occult because it fit the pantheistic monist worldview to a T, and that Aldus Huxley made sure it got shoved down the throats of the entire world. Did Kabbalists or some other mystics speak everything backward from the 6,000 year mark? It makes no sense. Some people say that all is as it appears and that Adam was simply dropped in post-hoc....err..... it still sits wishful just like we'd need a global flood at 2,400 BC for that 6,000 year thing (apparently 120 jubilee years) to fit a literal chronology.

I hate seeing people who do that much great research on other things being forced back to party lines on Genesis, I wouldn't tell them how to do things but if macroevolution is indisputable at this point its a painful thing to watch people I respect do that. It makes me wish that there were some redress for those who want to take the bible as the infallible word of God.

 

[twinc]

I guarantee if you take a DNA sample of yourself, then take a DNA sample of any other life form anywhere on Earth. Have the two samples sequenced and compared. You will indeed find both samples can be traced back to a common ancestor.

Every organism has a line of decendency that intersects with another, the organism at this intersection is the common ancestor. Chimps are our close "cousins" zebras and bats more distant, reptiles, insects, plants and mushrooms even more distant.

So all life does indeed share the same genealogy.

Darwin's suspicions confirmed!

This is old news now.

not at all and insisting that it is so does not make it so - our closest cousins sre water melons and jelly fish as i read it - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Looks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.

Ah, my mistake. I apologise if I became a bit... gruff

To redraw the context of that whole post from what I just said - Christianity + creationism, everything jives. Christianity + common descent - things get hairy for Genesis. In either case however I'm not a reductive materialist so if evolution as commonly thought of holds as such, things just get strange for the big picture.

Maybe. Personally I think they only get hairy for those who put a lot of stock in the gritty details, but it seems the driving point of Genesis is "humans as a whole are sinners by nature, and are thus in need of a divine saviour (Jesus) to redeem them"; Eden isn't so much paradise lost, as a story of how humans will always corrupt paradise, hence why we don't have it today. The Serpent isn't a literal talking reptile, but more a metaphor for that whispering voice of temptation that we have all heard once or twice (or more).

While I have my own issues with this more salient interpretation, it's far less problematic than a strict literal view.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

not at all and insisting that it is so does not make it so - our closest cousins sre water melons and jelly fish as i read it - twinc

Common decent is a fact, all lines of verifiable evidence support it.
You just interpreted it incorrectly.