Forbidden Archeology: Beyond Creation vs. Evolution

[Dharma Flower]

Biblical creationists should be interested in the findings documented in Forbidden Archeology as well, since they challenge the theory of evolution regardless of what religion one belongs to.

 

[wayfaring man]

Biblical creationists should be interested in the findings documented in Forbidden Archeology as well, since they challenge the theory of evolution regardless of what religion one belongs to.

Evolution cannot possibly explain origin. For before something can evolve - it must already exist.

Such so called 'science' is pure non-sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution cannot possibly explain origin. For before something can evolve - it must already exist.

Such so called 'science' is pure non-sense.

Evolution explains the origin of the species. You are somewhat right, abiogenesis is the hypothesis that covers the origin of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical creationists should be interested in the findings documented in Forbidden Archeology as well, since they challenge the theory of evolution regardless of what religion one belongs to.

There is no challenge there. You simply have been fooled.

 

[Niall 9 Hostages]

Monotomic gold would help those blocks move real well. Ormus

 

[wayfaring man]

Evolution explains the origin of the species. You are somewhat right, abiogenesis is the hypothesis that covers the origin of life.

abiogenesis - is the belief that the living somehow came out of the non-living.

This is incomplete - for while the physically living are largely made up of the same elements as the non-living, it is spirit which gives life; and spirit exists independently from matter, though it does mingle with it some / for a time.

God is a Spirit. God is The Father of spirits.

Our knowledge base is currently incapable of solving this mystery completely.

I don't completely understand gravity either, but I'm a firm believer in it's existence.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Here is another example of a suppressed scientific discovery documented in Forbidden Archeology. Insects, angiosperms, and gymnosperms were found in Cambrian age deposits in the Khewra salt mine in Pakistan, hundreds of millions of years before they were supposed to have appeared in the fossil record:

The age of the Salt Range Formation in the Salt Range Mountains of Pakistan was a matter of extreme controversy among geologists from the middle nineteenth century to the middle twentieth century. Of great importance in the later discussions were fragments of advanced plants and insects discovered in the Salt Range Formation by researchers such as B. Sahni. According to Sahni, these finds indicated an Eocene age for the Salt Range Formation. But geological evidence cited by others was opposed to this conclusion, supporting instead a Cambrian age for the Salt Range formation. Modern geological opinion is unanimous that the Salt Range Formation is Cambrian. But Sahni's evidence for advanced plant and insect remains in the Salt Range Formation is not easily dismissed. It would appear that there is still a contradiction between the geological and paleontological evidence, just as there was during the time of active controversy. During the time of active controversy, E. R. Gee suggested that the conflict might be resolved by positing the existence of an advanced flora and fauna in the Cambrian. This idea was summarily dismissed at the time, but, although it challenges accepted ideas about the evolution of life on earth, it appears to provide the best fit with the different lines of evidence.
saltrange

What these discoveries in Forbidden Archeology suggest is that either complex life forms, including human beings, appeared many millions of years sooner than the evolutionary timeline would allow or that the fossil record is totally unreliable in assessing prehistory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

abiogenesis - is the belief that the living somehow came out of the non-living.

Calling it a belief is not accurate. Mere belief is all that you have. Some, but not all, of the significant problems have been solved in abiogenesis. That is why it is still considered to be a hypothesis and not a theory.

This is incomplete - for while the physically living are largely made up of the same elements as the non-living, it is spirit which gives life; and spirit exists independently from matter, though it does mingle with it some / for a time.

No, that is merely an unsupported belief of yours.

God is a Spirit. God is The Father of spirits.

As is that.

Our knowledge base is currently incapable of solving this mystery completely.

Correction, your knowledge base is insufficient, don't accuse others of having your flaws.

I don't completely understand gravity either, but I'm a firm believer in it's existence.

So you believe in oneaspect of science that you don't understand but not another. That is both inconsistent and illogical.

 

[juvenissun]

According to the Buddhist teaching, there is no Creator God. Instead, the universe has always existed in some form.

Does the word "origin" mean anything in Buddhism?

 

[wayfaring man]

Calling it a belief is not accurate. Mere belief is all that you have. Some, but not all, of the significant problems have been solved in abiogenesis. That is why it is still considered to be a hypothesis and not a theory.
No, that is merely an unsupported belief of yours.
As is that.
Correction, your knowledge base is insufficient, don't accuse others of having your flaws.
So you believe in oneaspect of science that you don't understand but not another. That is both inconsistent and illogical.

Sounds like a lot of semantics and presumption.

When I claim to not completely understand something you scoff egotistically ...but when your 'fan base' has insufficient data, you refer to such with reverential optimism. Such renderings come across as a possible personality disorder.

Do you believe living things could come out of the non-living on their own...without an outside influence ?

I don't believe scientist can bring living out of non-living, but if they could - that would be an outside influence also.

So it is logical that the 'influence' which combined with the non-living to make the living - is much greater / higher / smarter than we are....seeing we can't produce that effect.

Unfortunately, we can return the living to the dust from whence they were formed, but we cannot reverse the process.

This is because we are much lower than God, in pretty much every way possible.

 

[wayfaring man]

Here is another example of a suppressed scientific discovery documented in Forbidden Archeology. Insects, angiosperms, and gymnosperms were found in Cambrian age deposits in the Khewra salt mine in Pakistan, hundreds of millions of years before they were supposed to have appeared in the fossil record:


What these discoveries in Forbidden Archeology suggest is that either complex life forms, including human beings, appeared many millions of years sooner than the evolutionary timeline would allow or that the fossil record is totally unreliable in assessing prehistory.

Personally, I don't place much faith in our ability to 'pin down' distant time lines. Some suggest the verses which say, 'replenish the earth' Genesis 1:28 + Genesis 9:1 imply we are not the first humanoids to live on the earth.

To which I say, 'perhaps'.

None of our sciences are perfect, because we are imperfect.

Throughout history 'scientific facts' are regularly debunked time and time again.

It can be fascinating to study, but can often lead to as many questions as it does answers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hey!! No fair. Wally is my source!

Oops! Sorry 'bout that, he's my source too! Some years ago I got in touch with him and bought his DVD showing the full range of his extraordinary projects.

Considering that much of the expert knowledge of the skills of raw stone quarrying, dressing, moving, and construction without modern technology (even the wheel) has been lost over the centuries, it renews one's faith in human ingenuity to see hands-on engineers like Wally show their skills

 

[Speedwell]

Do you believe living things could come out of the non-living on their own...without an outside influence ?

It depends on what you mean by "outside influence." Nothing we know about biochemistry rules out the possibility of life arising by natural causes, but that in itself does not rule out simultaneous divine causality.

I don't believe scientist can bring living out of non-living, but if they could - that would be an outside influence also.

It would certainly illuminate our understanding of how life might have arisen--and the same divine involvement in the experiment as in the original event could in no case be ruled out.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the physically living are largely made up of the same elements as the non-living, it is spirit which gives life; and spirit exists independently from matter, though it does mingle with it some / for a time.

I'm not sure what definition of life you're using, but if you accept that bacteria are living things, then I'd be interested to know where the spirit was involved when Craig Ventor recently produced a synthetic bacterium (called JCVI-syn3.0) by removing the genetic material from an existing bacterium, leaving just the bacterial shell, and replacing it with a custom-assembled genome from which all but the essential genes had been removed. The result was a novel bacterium with a smaller genome than any found in nature (531,560 base pairs and just 473 genes)

This synthetic bacterium functioned and reproduced just like any natural bacterium, so I would suggest that it's alive if they are.

If you don't consider bacteria to be living things, what is the simplest organism that qualifies, in your opinion?

If you do consider bacteria to be living things, at what point did 'spirit' become involved in the construction of JCVI-syn3.0? was it in the empty bacterial shell, or the synthetic genome, or did it appear at some point during the insertion of the synthetic genome into the shell? and as the biochemical function of over 2/3 of those genes is known, what part in the life of the organism does 'spirit' play?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops! Sorry 'bout that, he's my source too! Some years ago I got in touch with him and bought his DVD showing the full range of his extraordinary projects.

Considering that much of the expert knowledge of the skills of raw stone quarrying, dressing, moving, and construction without modern technology (even the wheel) has been lost over the centuries, it renews one's faith in human ingenuity to see hands-on engineers like Wally show their skills

Then you have a more legitimate claim than I have. I too have known of him for years but I did not buy his DVD.

But I agree on you about Wally 100%. He is a rather fascinating man. No "woo" just know how.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like a lot of semantics and presumption.

When I claim to not completely understand something you scoff egotistically ...but when your 'fan base' has insufficient data, you refer to such with reverential optimism. Such renderings come across as a possible personality disorder.

Do you believe living things could come out of the non-living on their own...without an outside influence ?

I don't believe scientist can bring living out of non-living, but if they could - that would be an outside influence also.

So it is logical that the 'influence' which combined with the non-living to make the living - is much greater / higher / smarter than we are....seeing we can't produce that effect.

Unfortunately, we can return the living to the dust from whence they were formed, but we cannot reverse the process.

This is because we are much lower than God, in pretty much every way possible.

Right now the evidence does support abiogenesis. It does not support any god or gods. Show me some evidence for a god and not bad arguments and you can change my mind.

 

[wayfaring man]

Not familiar with that...but doesn't sound like totally going from non-living to living...

-------------------------------------

'from which all but the essential genes had been removed.'
--------------------------------------

Aren't genes components of the living ?

Sounds more like a reconstruction of living / viable matter.

------------------------------------

'what part in the life of the organism does 'spirit' play? '

------------------------------------

I'm unsure of how it works exactly, but the spirit is an animating force which adds a 'life' to matter.

For one thing - it seems to have a electro-chemical effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not familiar with that...but doesn't sound like totally going from non-living to living...

'from which all but the essential genes had been removed.'

Aren't genes componets of the living ?

Sounds more like a reconstruction of living / viable matter.

Going from "non-living to living" was probably not a hard line. Just like the changes from one species to another has no boundary the same probably occurred in abiogenesis. As I said earlier, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That means that there are some serious unanswered questions.

 

[wayfaring man]

Right now the evidence does support abiogenesis. It does not support any god or gods. Show me some evidence for a god and not bad arguments and you can change my mind.

Not sure if I can meet your criteria ...but for me the idea of God seemed plausible enough.

Then once when life had me down, I started reading Scripture on my own, and liked to story of Jesus to the point of hoping it was true... but without proof, I still felt a bit lost.

Then I read in Luke 11 how Christ said we should ask our Heavenly Father for the gift of The Holy Spirit.

So I thought - why not give it a try.

So I prayed in my mind, that if God can hear me, I'm asking for that gift.

Then I went to sleep for the night.

The next day I was walking next door when a little whirlwind came suddenly around me and whooshed about...I then sensed an uplifting sensation and my life took on a new perspective of positivity, which I had sorely lacked before...and many other things have happened since.

I realize this is highly subjective, and admit it is possible I could be dreaming...but don't think that's the case...therefore I encourage others to try it for themself...some have had a similar upturn.

The way I understand it in part, is that all living things have a measure of God's spirit, that's what makes them alive, as opposed to a lump of clay, or a pile of dust / ashes.

When / if God gives the gift of The Holy Spirit, in light of what Christ has done on our behalf, it's like getting another 'charge' on top of the one we already have.

Another aspect of the 'renewed life' is one's conscience is made to be 'more active', this is to reinforce right behavior on our part.

This I believe (at least in part) is what The Lord was referring to when he said - we must be born again to be accepted into His Kingdom.

See John 3

Hope this helps... and like it when we can share ideas in a friendly manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since almost all religions have that sort of claim, no I do not take it as valid evidence.