Evolution's Brick Wall

[Colter]

And what were you reached with?

What specific bait was used?

I found the UB after I was born again. It sounds more true than the books of the Bible. It has a consistent story.

 

[AV1611VET]

I found the UB after I was born again. It sounds more true than the books of the Bible. It has a consistent story.

And yet our scientists would disagree with it.

In that regard, can science then take a hike?

 

[inquiring mind]

I found the UB after I was born again. It sounds more true than the books of the Bible. It has a consistent story.

Remember the movie line: “The wound was cauterized in the very instant, as though the blade itself were red-hot. And yet, no blistering, no scorched flesh... the devil’s fire.” If you do not believe God’s Word, I can see where you could make yourself vulnerable to a similar attack (even if the wound just affects your ability to see the truth).

 

[Colter]

And yet our scientists would disagree with it.

In that regard, can science then take a hike?

Some of the science of the Urantia revelation has been validated. Some is still disputed. There is no evidence of Biblical YEC. The revelators know things that we don’t.

 

[Colter]

Remember the movie line: “The wound was cauterized in the very instant, as though the blade itself were red-hot. And yet, no blistering, no scorched flesh... the devil’s fire.” If you do not believe God’s Word, I can see where you could make yourself vulnerable to a similar attack (even if the wound just affects your ability to see the truth).

I do believe Gods Living words of truth, but I don’t believe the vastly exaggerated history of the Israelites who were perfectly capable of pride blindness. Faith in God isn’t to be confused with faith in nationalist propaganda.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of the science of the Urantia revelation has been validated. Some is still disputed.

And if science denies Urantia's revelations? what then?

 

[tas8831]

As I just posted above - about how we can know what is in the Bible through Him on High revealing such, we are not quick to receive Earthly knowledge without Him. Science is not an idol in our heart......

What I notice the most is how readily and consistently you totally ignore evidence and explanations - especially explanation about how out of touch you are with the science you pretend to have education in - and instead opt to post some bible verses and sermonize.

That tells me what I think all of the people posting here that actually do have science backgrounds recognized years ago...

 

[Colter]

And if science denies Urantia's revelations? what then?

Science wont be able to confirm or deny much of the revelation. Currently some of the scientific claims are unsubstantiated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science wont be able to confirm or deny much of the revelation. Currently some of the scientific claims are unsubstantiated.

So you're not going to answer me, I take it?

Just like an academian.

 

[Heissonear]

What I notice the most is how readily and consistently you totally ignore evidence and explanations

As per OP, many are not facing up to the missing evidence that evolution ever happened.

Please show one sequence of fossils between creatures that historically display detailed morphological changes from said first lifeform changing into said second lifeform over time.

Such as an X into a deer.

Or an X into a Y.

If you cannot, than there is zero fossil record proof evolution ever happened . Not one fossil sequence proof over all of geologic time.

Zero.

That means evolution is not based on actual fossil record evidence- but is based on conjecture.

Are you ready to face this fact?

 

[Colter]

So you're not going to answer me, I take it?

Just like an academian.

I did answer you, vast parts of the revelation are about spirituality. Science has no way of testing those claims like it can YEC or the Bibles flood myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did answer you, vast parts of the revelation are about spirituality. Science has no way of testing those claims like it can YEC or the Bibles flood myth.

Let me simplify this for you, Colter.

Urantia says X, science says Y

Do you go with X, or do you go with Y ?

 

[Colter]

Let me simplify this for you, Colter.

Urantia says X, science says Y

Do you go with X, or do you go with Y ?

Your question is hypocritical because you have no respect for science anyway.

The current conflicts between unproven science and the UB such as space respiration will remain an open question. I go with X.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question is hypocritical because you have no respect for science anyway

That's foolish talk.

The current conflicts between unproven science and the UB such as space respiration will remain an open question.

Which has what to do with what I asked?

I go with X.

Thank you for answering my question as I asked it. A very rare commodity here.

So you're saying science, in the rare cases it disagrees with your faith, can take a hike?

If so, I believe basically the same thing.

In the rare instances where science disagrees with the Bible, science can take a hike.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A wide range of evidence, but decisive evidence... show me the indisputable bridge.

The thing about the evidence that makes it so strong, is the fact that there's a whole range of independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same conclusion. And not a single line of evidence that concludes otherwise.

Also, if I had to choose one specific line of evidence that I find to be most convincing, it would be phylogenies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They don't have to.

Their information is in spite of the Bible; not with respect to It.

Put another way, the discrediting is embedded in the information they disseminate.

Maybe, just maybe, that says something about genesis instead about the data of reality?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But in all other species, the previous version disappears save for the genus Homo, where all the weaker previous versions continued on.

Homo Habilis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Neanderthalis
Homo Erectus
...

None of those are around today.
Not that there is some rules stating that they couldn't be though.
But they aren't.

Incidentally, I shared about all I care to on this topic. If you want to talk about God, I am all in. I have no time for debate, especially topics like this with folks with your world view. I just, well... you're welcome to believe whatever you want.

You have no time for "debate", yet you post on a "debate forum".
You wish to talk about "god", yet you post in the science sub forum.

I'm gonna go ahead and tell you that you are in the wrong thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its moved on largely due to the rediscovery of his work which yeilded at least two laws of heridity that clearly recognized limits to the gene pool producing adaptive change.

"clearly"? Then you should have no problem clearly presenting these supposed "limits". Please do.

Mutations are mostly nuetral but when the have an effect its usually deleterious

And sometimes they are beneficial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

Still lying about the evidence, I see...

 

[Colter]

That's foolish talk.Which has what to do with what I asked?Thank you for answering my question as I asked it. A very rare commodity here.

So you're saying science, in the rare cases it disagrees with your faith, can take a hike?

If so, I believe basically the same thing.

In the rare instances where science disagrees with the Bible, science can take a hike.

You fear science, I don't. You fear that science might debunk your deepest beliefs about reality. Im willing to acknowledge where I have been wrong both factually and morally. You don't seem to even understand what science is and what science is NOT.


One does not need "science" to explain that God never directed the Israelites to kill men, women and children war captives sparing only the little virgin girls as plunder for the solders. You just need to grow a set and defend the character of God!!!!


SCIENCE AND RELIGION


103:7.1 Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit.

>
>

103:7.4 The union of the scientific attitude and the religious insight by the mediation of experiential philosophy is part of man's long Paradise-ascension experience. The approximations of mathematics and the certainties of insight will always require the harmonizing function of mind logic on all levels of experience short of the maximum attainment of the Supreme.

103:7.5 But logic can never succeed in harmonizing the findings of science and the insights of religion unless both the scientific and the religious aspects of a personality are truth dominated, sincerely desirous of following the truth wherever it may lead regardless of the conclusions which it may reach.

103:7.6 Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

103:7.7 What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

103:7.8 The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality.

103:7.9 The science of the material world enables man to control, and to some extent dominate, his physical environment. The religion of the spiritual experience is the source of the fraternity impulse which enables men to live together in the complexities of the civilization of a scientific age. Metaphysics but more certainly revelation, affords a common meeting ground for the discoveries of both science and religion and makes possible the human attempt logically to correlate these separate but interdependent domains of thought into a well-balanced philosophy of scientific stability and religious certainty.

103:7.10 In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.

103:7.11 All divisions of human thought are predicated on certain assumptions which are accepted, though unproved, by the constitutive reality sensitivity of the mind endowment of man. Science starts out on its vaunted career of reasoning by assuming the reality of three things: matter, motion, and life. Religion starts out with the assumption of the validity of three things: mind, spirit, and the universe—the Supreme Being.

103:7.12 Science becomes the thought domain of mathematics, of the energy and material of time in space. Religion assumes to deal not only with finite and temporal spirit but also with the spirit of eternity and supremacy. Only through a long experience in mota can these two extremes of universe perception be made to yield analogous interpretations of origins, functions, relations, realities, and destinies. The maximum harmonization of the energy-spirit divergence is in the encircuitment of the Seven Master Spirits; the first unification thereof, in the Deity of the Supreme; the finality unity thereof, in the infinity of the First Source and Center, the I AM.

103:7.13 Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness—something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values.

103:7.14 There is a real proof of spiritual reality in the presence of the Thought Adjuster, but the validity of this presence is not demonstrable to the external world, only to the one who thus experiences the indwelling of God. The consciousness of the Adjuster is based on the intellectual reception of truth, the supermind perception of goodness, and the personality motivation to love.

103:7.15 Science discovers the material world, religion evaluates it, and philosophy endeavors to interpret its meanings while co-ordinating the scientific material viewpoint with the religious spiritual concept. But history is a realm in which science and religion may never fully agree. UB 1955