Forbidden Archeology: Beyond Creation vs. Evolution

[wayfaring man]

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.

Yeah, I agree.

For me what I call spirit fills the blank...I'm just unsure of the 'mechanics' so to speak.

 

[wayfaring man]

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

I kinda thought so...but would you be willing to test the process described, for yourself ?

Seems to work best for those who are quite unhappy with their status quo though...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I kinda thought so...but would you be willing to test the process described, for yourself ?

Seems to work best for those who are quite unhappy with their status quo though...

I am satisfied and that it works best with those that are unhappy is not a good sign. I don't think that I could do it earnestly, which is a requirement from my understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I agree.

For me what I call spirit fills the blank...I'm just unsure of the 'mechanics' so to speak.

So does a bacteria have "spirit"? It is clearly alive.

 

[wayfaring man]

I am satisfied and that it works best with those that are unhappy is not a good sign. I don't think that I could do it earnestly, which is a requirement from my understanding.

Right about the earnest part...maybe at another stage in life, you may find a willingness to give faith a try ?

To me it makes sense - the unhappy part - but I could see how some could take that as negative factor too...

At any rate it's apparently working for me, and many others...though some of us may be / or appear somewhat delusional.

That doesn't scare me; for I figure it takes all kinds to make a world full of contrast, where opposites serve to help define one another and challenge our untested beliefs / theories.

 

[wayfaring man]

So does a bacteria have "spirit"? It is clearly alive.

As far as I can tell anything that has life has a measure of God / His Spirit.

And if / when that spirit leaves the creature - it ceases to be alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right about the earnest part...maybe at another stage in life, you may find a willingness to give faith a try ?

To me it makes sense - the unhappy part - but I could see how some could take that as negative factor too...

At any rate it's apparently working for me, and many others...though some of us may be / or appear somewhat delusional.

That doesn't scare me; for I figure it takes all kinds to make a world full of contrast, where opposites serve to help define one another and challenge our untested beliefs / theories.

I am not arguing against a god here. Well let me be specific, I am only arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible. If that is the "God" that one follows that "God" can be shown not to exist. Providing that that God is an honest one. One can accept the theory of evolution and still be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I can tell anything that has life has a measure of God / His Spirit.

And if / when that spirit leaves the creature - it ceases to be alive.

How would you measure this "spirit" leaving an animal?

 

[wayfaring man]

I am not arguing against a god here. Well let me be specific, I am only arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible. If that is the "God" that one follows that "God" can be shown not to exist. Providing that that God is an honest one. One can accept the theory of evolution and still be a Christian.

I think there is an element of 'evolving', I'm probably more comfortable with the term adaptation though, because some seem to take evolution as an explanation for our existence in general, and that doesn't make sense.

Where did the first thing that led to the second thing etc. come from ?

Apparently Budda says - it just always was...but he doesn't seem to equate an eternal presence with a knowing entity.

Doesn't it make more sense that the things which exist are in existence because a knowing entity exerted a created force, then to say it all just happened on it's own ?

Hardly anything happens 'on it's own', most everything is the result of another thing exerting an influence. and the more intelligent the 'thing' the greater the influence it has....

And since the extremely vast universe is grandly complex, full of wonders and interactive systems with precise actions taking place...how can there not be a great intelligence responsible - somewhere in the mix ?!!

 

[wayfaring man]

How would you measure this "spirit" leaving an animal?

I don't think we have a 'spirit meter' ( yet any way).

Some folks claim when a person dies the lose a tiny bit of 'unacountable' weight...not sure about that though.

The may way we tell the spirit is gone - is basically by the shutting down of a biological processes. with no viability remaining...in case of freezing or some sort of stasis, if the organism was revivable that would suggest that spirit was still somewhat / somehow attached. The Scriptures mention a 'silver cord" which might fit here somehow.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7

One thing I'm fairly sure of - is there's a lot more unknown than there is known about these things...and it's generally not critical for us to know all about it either at this point.

The critical things to know are more along the lines of how to live well and be a plus not a minus to others in general.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Does the word "origin" mean anything in Buddhism?

The universe has always existed in some form, but it's never existed in the same form. Worlds are constantly being created and destroyed, not according to the dictates of a theistic God, but according to the outworking of karma. In the Buddhist teaching, it's the law of karma by which worlds, species, civilizations, etc. come into being and ultimately become extinct.

 

[Dharma Flower]

In case anyone is interested, this is the Agganna Sutta, the text in which the Buddha explains how the human race originated on this planet:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf

If you are a Buddhist who believes that the Buddha was the greatest man of all time, who possessed the fullest knowledge that could ever be possessed by any being, then you might accept what the Buddha teaches about mankind's origin on his word alone. It would simply be a matter of the Buddha said it, I believe it, that settles it.

It's simply an icing on the cake that Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson happened to compile dozens of scientific discoveries that better fit the Buddha's explanation for human origins than Darwin's theory of evolution.

I'm not too supportive of the Intelligent Design movement, but this paper by William Dembski is one of the best summaries of the reasons for doubting the Darwinian understanding of human origins that I've read:
https://billdembski.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

After briefly describing the human fossil record, Dembski explains the genetic differences between chimps and humans, then he explains the physical differences between chimps and humans, and lastly, he gets to the most interesting part, which is the differences in moral awareness and intelligence between chimps and humans.

If you look at the human being as first and foremost a unit of consciousness, that also happens to reside in a physical body, then the idea that we originated from random mutations may not be satisfying.

If the human being is primarily a unit of moral and spiritual consciousness, instead of just a collection of molecules, then it would not be surprising at all to me if we devolved from higher beings rather than evolved from previous life forms. Please keep in mind that no Creator God would be necessary for the Buddhist version of how human history began.

I don't mind it if others have a different opinion regarding humankind's origin, especially since we're dealing with matters of prehistory, before any written records were made by eye witnesses of what really happened.

 

[juvenissun]

The universe has always existed in some form, but it's never existed in the same form. Worlds are constantly being created and destroyed, not according to the dictates of a theistic God, but according to the outworking of karma. In the Buddhist teaching, it's the law of karma by which worlds, species, civilizations, etc. come into being and ultimately become extinct.

No life, no karma.
No karma, no life.
The concept of origin in Buddhism is a mess.
Origin is not a meaningless word in Buddhism. But ultimately, it is meaningless.

A confusing religion at the root.

 

[Dharma Flower]

No life, no karma.
No karma, no life.
The concept of origin in Buddhism is a mess.
Origin is not a meaningless word in Buddhism. But ultimately, it is meaningless.

A confusing religion at the root.

It appears that you don't really know what Buddhism actually teaches, and instead you just feel like insulting a religion other than your own.

 

[juvenissun]

It appears that you don't really know what Buddhism actually teaches, and instead you just feel like insulting a religion other than your own.

If I am wrong, then tell me where was I wrong.

No karma, no life. Is this right?

 

[Dharma Flower]

I have a question for the atheists or non-theists of this forum. Do you consider it within the realm of possibility that humans devolved from higher beings rather than evolving from other species? In the very least, do you recognize belief in human devolution as a non-theistic alternative to belief in common descent with apes?

 

[Dharma Flower]

I would assume that the atheists of this forum have never heard about an alternative to evolution that doesn't include a theistic God.

 

[Dharma Flower]

Another book critical of human evolution that fits the Agganna Sutta's account that we devolved from higher beings is The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William Fix. This video summarizes Fix's book:

Some might not like Fix's use of terms like psychokinesis, but if beings from a higher realm descended to this world and, over time, manifested material bodies for themselves, without the intervention of a theistic God, that would be similar to psychokinesis.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have a question for the atheists or non-theists of this forum. Do you consider it within the realm of possibility that humans devolved from higher beings rather than evolving from other species? In the very least, do you recognize belief in human devolution as a non-theistic alternative to belief in common descent with apes?

It doesn't sound like an impossible concept, but it isn't supported by the evidence. Genetics and fossils show humans diverging from creatures more similar to the other apes, rather then some kind of secular angel/alien.

Evolution works by tiny changes in genes being statistically more successful in a population in an environment.

I'm curious why your hypothetical "higher" beings are degenerating into humans? In this concept are humans a stupider, hardier version of these creatures who have adapted to survive without their higher technology?

I would assume that the atheists of this forum have never heard about an alternative to evolution that doesn't include a theistic God.

The Raelians believe humanity (and all life) was designed by the Elohim, a super advanced, benevolent alien race.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have a question for the atheists or non-theists of this forum. Do you consider it within the realm of possibility that humans devolved from higher beings rather than evolving from other species?

Is it possible? Yes, in that while all the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction, I'm not able to maintain intellectual honesty without acknowledging that there are gaps in our knowledge of human evolution.

For it to be true though, virtually all of evolutionary biology and palentology as we know it would have to be shown to be incorrect.

So, while it is possible, it is so incredibly unlikely that I do not consider it even remotely plausible. I'd be less surprised if heliocentrism was overturned, for example.

In the very least, do you recognize belief in human devolution as a non-theistic alternative to belief in common descent with apes?

No. It's not an alternative to common descent. No even in the slightest.

It has no evidence to support it. Honestly. What is presented by C&L and others as 'evidence' put the cart before the horse. It assumes its conclusions, and then takes vaguely controversial/unsolved/poorly understood individual pieces of the fossil record and willfully mis-construes and deliberately mis-interprets them to fit prior assumptions.

It is wishful thinking. The conclusions presented are so far beyond what can actually be deduced from the evidence that it's almost painful how dishonest it is.

Nothing, repeat nothing, in the fossil record suggests the existence of any of the following:

"Higher beings"
"Devolution from higher beings"

On the contrary, there is a concordance of evidence for common descent from an previous ape like ancestor. This evidence is across the fossil record, the genetic record and even biogeography.

Common descent is a picture that has been pieced together over the past 155 years. Its been argued, debated, challenged, defended, amended, re-written, adjusted, adapted to new evidence. Yet, the core idea remains the best supported hypothesis. It's not an opinion, it's as close to an established fact as you'll get when dealing with biology.