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

[Ecclectic79]

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?

 

[Lollerskates]

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?

For me, I majored in physics. It was completely accidental that it actually helped me understand the intricacies of my faith (and by intricacies, I mean I still don't understand a lot .)

If you really want an unbiased, comprehensive study I would suggest a rigorous concentration of one of three major branches of science: biology, chemistry, or physics (and, at least math up to multi-variable calculus). A combination of them is probably the best thing. Each person is different, so I cannot say what you should go for: for me, particle physics helped me, for other people, marine biology may be the ticket. You should do this first before you read literature that tries to prove or disprove anything.

After you have a strong foundation in one of those disciplines, then supplement it with philosophy, anthropology, archeology, and/or history. Then, begin reading arguments that prove, or disprove evolution/creationism. It is important that you can, at least in theory, reproduce the same type of arguments for or against evolution/creationism, and that you can provide an equally sound counter-argument. If you read arguments for or against evolution and creationism in which you are forced to take someone's "more learned" word, you become dependent on that person's evidence.

Is this the type of information you were asking for, or was I completely off?

 

[Ecclectic79]

It sounds great, it also sounds like I'd need three more majors to understand it that comprehensively.

I am at least checking this article right now:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Haven't gotten very far with it so I still don't know what I'll make of its 29 points. However common descent is definitely the core issue I think - ie. we see microevolution all the time, people really don't dispute that much, but its macroevolution or the issue of common descent that seems to be the contention between both sides. I'm hoping to at least clear up any mysticism in that department to where I can have a strong opinion one way or another without simply going with the opinion of whoever sounds the most honest and detailed (IMHO that's still not good enough unless I take that from both sides of the argument and compare/contrast).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I recommend Potholer54's Made Easy series on YouTube. Part of the series goes into biological origins. I wouldn't say he's deadpan, but he's concise, certainly gets his facts right, and always substantiates with sources.

#3: Abiogenesis
3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy - YouTube

#6: Natural Selection

6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy - YouTube

#7: Theory of Evolution

7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - YouTube

#8: Human Evolution

8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy - YouTube

#9: Human Ancestry

9 - Human Ancestry Made Easy - YouTube

 

[Ecclectic79]

TY, I'll have to check that out when I'm done with the current article I'm reading.

 

[twinc]

TY, I'll have to check that out when I'm done with the current article I'm reading.

as and for and from a Catholic - consult the experts and specialists in both and all the disciplines of theology and science,these will be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

 

[Wiccan_Child]

as and for and from a Catholic - consult the experts and specialists in both and all the disciplines of theology and science,these will be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

Ecclectic79, avoid the Kolbe Center, as they simply promulgate the common creationist canards that have been disproven for decades now. Their errors are most glaring when they delve into mathematics (their analysis on human population being particularly delicious for their naive treatment of population dynamics, which, in reality, is very complicated).

Actually, scratch that, the Kolbe Center might be a good place to go, as it shows you the calibre of Creationists arguments.

 

[twinc]

Ecclectic79, avoid the Kolbe Center, as they simply promulgate the common creationist canards that have been disproven for decades now. Their errors are most glaring when they delve into mathematics (their analysis on human population being particularly delicious for their naive treatment of population dynamics, which, in reality, is very complicated).

Actually, scratch that, the Kolbe Center might be a good place to go, as it shows you the calibre of Creationists arguments.

actually you will clearly see that it is not welcomed by Atheists and materialists - when all else is said and done its experts and specialists are not one sided and lobsided but cover both and all the disciplines of theology and genuine not pseudo humpty dumpty science - twinc

 

[keith99]

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?

If you expect to find a 'neutral' source you are a dreamer.

Instead look for arguments from both sides.

Since Evolution usually manes Darwinian evolution I would suggest reading The Origin of Species.

Creationists will not like that as you will know the actual claims made and the reasoning behind them.

On the other side why not start with reading Genesis? Similar claims regarding what it says also exist.

 

[pjnlsn]

as far as objective sources on evolution, just look at any standard text or such. as far as objective sources on creation, just look at.......well, I guess any text from a standard evangelist. Anyone would do, but just don't listen to the way they judge their own beliefs, or what they imply the only alternatives are. I.e. don't listen to them when speak of 'atheists' or 'naturalism,' or anything like that. And I suppose if you see someone who's not a biologist but who writes about atheism specifically, ignore the way they judge their own beliefs, as well as anything they say about theists or theologians or religious people.

And then just take what the scientific papers say on evolution (or whatever) and take what a creationist says about creation (on creation itself, not anything else) and then just compare the two, I suppose. I.e. judge for yourself the two sides and weigh them accordingly.

At least that's the basic principle.

As far as the general idea, I suppose Origin of Species would be a good one. And then as far as source texts on creation, the book of Genesis, I suppose. I wouldn't really know beyond that.

 

[pjnlsn]

actually you will clearly see that it is not welcomed by Atheists and materialists - when all else is said and done its experts and specialists are not one sided and lobsided but cover both and all the disciplines of theology and genuine not pseudo humpty dumpty science - twinc

Especially don't listen to what twinc says about his opponents.

 

[Lollerskates]

Now you see why I say you need to become solid in the disciplines I listed. You have enough argument in this thread to show you the reality of the creationism vs evolution issue. You said you would need to attach three more majors: MIT courseworks is free, and open. Start there.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

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?

I learnt a lot about evolution from a book by the name of "The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins, although the author is an atheist (so expect a bias) he is also an expert evolutionary biologist with extensive knowledge on the subject. He explains some of the complex science of the natural world with great clarity. I then read another one of his books called "The blind watchmaker" This helps explain why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. I am a very skeptical person, after reading these two books along with half a dozen other books on evolution by random authors from the library I became thoroughly convinced of the theory of evolution.

There are not just two sides of the story.

Man has produced hundreds of creation stories over the last few thousands of years. If you believe Genesis is our best fit creation story try reading the Genesis story again with a clear head and an open mind.

Evolution is our best fit model, none of the creation stories could even begin to compare with it.

 

[twinc]

Especially don't listen to what twinc says about his opponents.

especially dont listen to what his opponents have to say about twinc and the experts and specialists at www.kolbecenter.org and/or at www.daylightorigins.com - btw Atheists and materialists absolutely and ardently believe and accept the greatest miracle in the world - twinc

 

[Upisoft]

btw Atheists and materialists absolutely and ardently believe and accept the greatest miracle in the world - twinc

That is not true. Some atheists or materialists may believe in miracles, but not all of them. Nor there is any connection. At least atheism does not postulate anything more than lack of belief in god(s).

 

[twinc]

That is not true. Some atheists or materialists may believe in miracles, but not all of them. Nor there is any connection. At least atheism does not postulate anything more than lack of belief in god(s).

of course it is true but denied by Atheists and materialists - all believe and accept that creatures made of [dematerialised]matter can and do suffer pain,feel,know,hear,taste and see - twinc

 

[Upisoft]

of course it is true but denied by Atheists and materialists - all believe and accept that creatures made of [dematerialised]matter can and do suffer pain,feel,know,hear,taste and see - twinc

That actually has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[pjnlsn]

especially dont listen to what his opponents have to say about twinc and the experts and specialists at www.kolbecenter.org and/or at www.daylightorigins.com - btw Atheists and materialists absolutely and ardently believe and accept the greatest miracle in the world - twinc

Yes, that's the idea: Don't listen to what anyone says about their opponents, it's a recipe for dislike to motivate statements rather than clear thinking.

 

[pjnlsn]

of course it is true but denied by Atheists and materialists - all believe and accept that creatures made of [dematerialised]matter can and do suffer pain,feel,know,hear,taste and see - twinc

The existence of a deity, and attendant concepts (including the idea of miracles), is unlikely and unproven.

However, many find the nature of the human body to be marvelous and grand, and while the simple fact that matter is itself made up of largely empty space may surprise many people, these things have nothing to do with religion. Or atheism.

That we feel pain and have other senses is simply the way things are. And 'matter' is simply the word for that which all things are made of, be they human or other animal, or otherwise.

 

[Ecclectic79]

I do think that common ancestry is the biggest point that I want to either clinch or properly disprove. 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 - 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) and all the other stuff - we may very well be looking at a much different bottom line of reality.

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

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). 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).