Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

  • Thread starter Thread starter nmercier1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, here’s something about the author, at least…

**The Bhaktivedanta Institute (BI) is the scientific research branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Founded in 1976 by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, it advances the study of the nature and origin of life, utilizing Vedic insights into consciousness, the self, and the origin of the universe. Founder Swami Prabhupada is pictured in the logo, with the BI motto in Sanskrit language:
“Athato brahma jijnasa” “One should inquire into the Supreme.”

Recently the BI has established the world’s first graduate degree program (M.S./Ph.D) in consciousness studies at Bombay in collaboration with the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, one of India’s top technical schools. Subjects include Life Sciences, Artificial Intelligence, Mathematics and Philosophy of Science.

There are many research centers of the Bhaktivedanta Institute throughout the world. Michael Cremo is a member of the Los Angeles center. **
mcremo.com/bi.html

Krishna Consciousness… the guys who used to peddle flowers on college campuses, and would try to get you to say “Hare Krishna.”

A bit unusual for a Catholic to be promoting these guys um, Wolseley? No wonder you didn’t want to talk about it.
 
Barb << Krishna Consciousness… the guys who used to peddle flowers on college campuses, and would try to get you to say “Hare Krishna.” A bit unusual for a Catholic to be promoting these guys um, Wolseley? No wonder you didn’t want to talk about it. >>

Oh there’s more. A video based on “Forbidden Archaeology” from YouTube. I am combining all the parts together and will make them available as a .wmv download in a few minutes. Not much evidence for humans living 100,000,000 years ago, but a lot of interesting archeological finds with some speculations thrown in. Nothing that “challenges Darwinism.” Everyone can now go back to the science books I recommended published by reputable university publishers and ignore Michael Cremo. 😛

CHECK HERE in a few minutes for all parts

Phil P
 
The_Barbarian said:
You should know that antibiotic protocols are written, based on evolutionary theory. Indeed, some are now based on research that has predicted the evolution of new resistance in bacteria.

I’ve only met one other “health care provider” who didn’t know this, and she was an aromatherapist.
Click to expand...
Resistance in bacteria is an adaptation by the bacterium and does not require an acceptance of evolutionary theory. Methicillin resistant staph bacteria is still staph bacteria. When the bacteria becomes anything other than bacteria you’ll get my vote. Resistant bacteria adapt they don’t evolve into a different species.
 
Resistance in bacteria is an adaptation by the bacterium and does not require an acceptance of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
True, bacteria don’t have to accept evolutionary theory. But designing protocols for using antibiotics, to prevent the evolution of resistance does require evolutionary theory. That’s how we know how to do it.
 
Wols << As for the Hindu religious aspect, the “realm of pure consciousness” etc., that is not present in Forbidden Archeology, which deals strictly with “anomalous” archaeological evidence that the Darwinists threw away. Cremo’s other books deal with his philosophical and religious ideas, but not this one, which is limited to straight information that was ignored, dismissed, and in more than one case, suppressed—all because it contradicted standard Darwinian theory. >>

Cremo explains why he left out the religious aspects in his first book, from a review by NCSE:
…let’s examine portions of the two following letters that Cremo wrote to his supporters. This first one on page 300 (of Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact), is addressed to Dr Horst Friedrich:

“In your review, you note that Richard Thompson and I did not discuss the idea of recurring catastrophes or the evidence for advanced civilization mentioned in the Vedic literatures of India. That was deliberate on our part. In Forbidden Archaeology we wanted first of all to demonstrate the need for an alternative view of human origins. In our next book, tentatively titled The Descent of Man Revisited, we shall outline the alternative, drawing extensively upon Vedic source material. This will include, of course, the recurring cataclysms of the yuga cycles and manvantara periods, as well as discussion of Vedic descriptions of advanced civilization in ancient times, and in an interplanetary context as well. I hope that will satisfy you! A new picture of human origins will have to be comprehensive, in the manner you suggest in your NEARA Journal article, incorporating evidence not only for archaeological and geological anomalies, but also paranormal phenomena of all types, including evidence for extraterrestrial civilization.”

That’s only the beginning. Cremo goes on to describe, in complete detail, 3 unique avatarian manifestations of the Godhead and explains how Shrila Prabhupada spread Krishna consciousness around the world through God’s “confidential empowerment”. The religious significance of Cremo’s research is paramount.
No Catholic should support or recommend such books. Better to stick with a Pope and a Cardinal who have books on the subject.

Phil P
 
Philipp said:
Now please answer my previous question Mr. Senior member: Is the Person who revealed to Moses about that little old cataclysm that happened many years before Moses time some sort of nut case also?
Click to expand...
The Mosaic author was not a nut case, because he (or they) was reporting what had been passed down in Hebrew oral tradition for many years, and the Hebrews had no geological sophistication. Their knowledge of the world was confined to the Mediterranean levant. Without a familiarity with plate tectonics, subduction zones, crustal uplift, comparative geography, and basic hydrology, they could not know that a global flood was impossible, any more than Native Americans could know that it was impossible for the world to have been created by a muskrat diving to the bottom of the ocean and bringing up mud between its paws.
 
Good heavens. Some of those old stories even made Answers in Genesis’s list of “arguments we think creationists should not use.”

This guy is a nutcase. The “pleisosaur” and “Paluxy mantracks” cases are so crazy, no person in their right mind would buy them, if they actually saw the evidence.
 
drpmjhess said:
The Great Flood was a real event in the cultural memory of the Hebrews. Most civilizations have stories of great floods, because most found their start in river valleys. But a little basic knowledge of hydrology will show you that all the water in the world could not cover Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet. There could never have been a flood that covered every part of the Earth. It’s a wonderful myth, and I love hearing it in our darkened cathedral during the Easter Vigil.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Neo-Catholicism drpmjhess. You have reduced the Old Testament to complete myth, and have even opened the way to huge abuses of the New Testament, by allowing for symbolic, instead of more literal translations.

Sadly, I have experience with this all too well, my sister’s confirmation teacher believed practically everything in the OT was myth. No one was really 400 years old, the Great Flood didn’t really happen, it was just a lot of oral tradition that people made up because the had no answers. The primary author of Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit, do you not understand this?

What about the “Piltdown Man” incident? If one is false, why not others? What about “The Boy”?

What about the Archaeopteryx? Transition between reptile and bird you say! However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. The artists of evolution have simply placed, bird next to bird, and said, “Hey these guys evolved!”.

And, to The Barbarian. To my knowledge there are NO transitional fossils that actually show a partially complete animal. If evolution were true, we’d see almost no full fossils, but only transitional fossils. Every “transitional fossil” put forth by the evolution scientist is NOT a transition, but a fully formed creature, with no useless or half finished parts.

To all evolutionist, you are being fooled by an artist imagination. The transition charts you see are pure imagination, with some fossils in between, there is NO evidence save pure speculation that actually links these pictures together.
 
Wolseley said:
Another good one is amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Unabridged-Michael-Cremo/dp/0892132949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203490820&sr=1-1, which examines the vast body of evidence against evolution that the Darwinists threw away because it contradicted their pet theory. (Convenient, that----if the evidence doesn’t line up with your idea, ignore it! Problem solved.) And nobody can accuse the authors of being Christian creationists, since they both happen to be Hindus.
Click to expand...
There is a review of Forbidden Archaeology on the web. That book is unlikely to convince anyone with such poor quality evidence.
I agree, but don’t expect to convince our resident evolutionists here. They have their minds made up, so they won’t listen to you anyway, no matter what you present to them.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it is very easy to convince us - just provide some evidence. Personal belief is not evidence and your own interpretation of the Bible is not evidence. What I mean by “evidence” is something along the lines of Haldane’s Devonian rabbit. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

So in order to provide good evidence for Young Earth Creationism you should provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or lower in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable.

Until you can provide some solid evidence you will have great difficulty persuading me and I suspect many others.

rossum
 
So far, all you guys are doing is pull up reviews of this book on the web and base your critiques of it on that. That’s not good enough. Read the actual book itself, and then we’ll go from there.

As for the rest of your drivel, you can mock Cremo all day long, but it doesn’t change what’s actually in the book—which I repeat: none of you have read, so you basically have no clue what you’re talking about.

And, gentlemen, I am not going to do your work for you. Read the book yourselves, and go from there. I have read it, and so far, not one of your hysterical rants has a thing to do with what’s actually in it.

(shrug) It’s up you, of course. You can claim to know all about it when you don’t, or you can actually read it and know for sure.

Good luck.
 
rossum said:
So in order to provide good evidence for Young Earth Creationism you should provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or lower in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable.

Until you can provide some solid evidence you will have great difficulty persuading me and I suspect many others.

rossum
Click to expand...
IF you accept the system of dating that scientists use.

The system of Radioactive Dating has several flaws, which must be discussed, because if the actual system of dating is wrong, then the entirety of evolution is brought to it’s knees.

Let us discuss then:

Two assumptions are used for radioactive dating, that damage the truth of a billion year old Earth.

First, scientist assume that the radioactive substances have not suffered any contamination or leakage or evaporation or any other kind of spoiling or damaging factor that would make their accurate dating highly suspect.

Second, scientist assume that the actual decay rates of these substances never vary, which is definitely a problem. Decay rates can vary if cosmic radiation varies. The DR can also vary because of supernova explosions.

Also, the ratio of 300-1 for Argon-40 is a problem too. Argon-36 and ratios of 36 and -36 are found on Venus and Mars.

Consider this also, if evolution were NOT true, and God created everything nearly or completely instantly, if there was a HUGE oak tree in the Garden of Eden, and if that oak tree had 50 rings, people would think it was 50 years old right? Yeah, it’s wouldn’t be! It would be about 5 hours old! Understand now? Perceived age, as opposed to actual age. Two different things, evolutionist (who are mostly atheist, at least until Catholics started falling for it) completely ignore that, because they don’t believe in the Garden of Eden, or the Fall anyway!
 
infestedsmith said:
Welcome to Neo-Catholicism drpmjhess. You have reduced the Old Testament to complete myth, and have even opened the way to huge abuses of the New Testament, by allowing for symbolic, instead of more literal translations.
Click to expand...
Merely because one part of the Bible is not taken literally does not mean that all parts of the Bible should not be taken literally. There are parts of the Bible that I suspect you do not take literally, for example I do not think that any Christian takes all the rules in Deuteronomy literally:“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.”

Deuteronomy 28-29.I am not aware of any Christian who thinks that virgin rape victims should be forced to marry the man who raped them. Every Christian has parts of the Bible that they do not take literally, I suspect that you are no exception.
What about the “Piltdown Man” incident?
Click to expand...
Yes, scientists can be fooled by forgeries. So can Christians. This is not news. If susceptibility to forgeries was evidence of falsity then both Christianity and evolution would be falsified. I suggest that you try a different line of argument in future as this one can be used to falsify your own religion.
What about the Archaeopteryx? Transition between reptile and bird you say! However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. The artists of evolution have simply placed, bird next to bird, and said, “Hey these guys evolved!”.
Click to expand...
You have a mistaken idea of what a transitional animal looks like. All transitionals are fully functioning animals - if they weren’t then they wouldn’t have survived to reproduce. Remember that we have “half-finished” components ourselves. Our sense of smell is far less good than a dog - that is a half-finished component yet it is good enough for our needs. Our eyes are far less acute than an eagle - another half-finished component yet they are good enough for our needs. As long as the transitional has systems that are good enough then it will survive. An Ostrich has wings that are good enough, so it survives.

As for Archaeopteryx, the case is pretty clear-cut:
Code: 
                    Feathers   Flight   Bony Tail   Teeth
                    --------   ------   ---------   -----
Early Dinosaurs      No         No       Yes         Yes
Feathered Dinos      Yes        No       Yes         Yes
Archaeopteryx        Yes        Yes      Yes         Yes
Early Birds          Yes        Yes      No          Yes
Modern Birds         Yes        Yes      No          No
That looks pretty transitional to me.
And, to The Barbarian. To my knowledge there are NO transitional fossils that actually show a partially complete animal. If evolution were true, we’d see almost no full fossils, but only transitional fossils. Every “transitional fossil” put forth by the evolution scientist is NOT a transition, but a fully formed creature, with no useless or half finished parts.
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood the meaning of “transitional” in this context.
To all evolutionist, you are being fooled by an artist imagination. The transition charts you see are pure imagination, with some fossils in between, there is NO evidence save pure speculation that actually links these pictures together.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of evidence that is not “pure speculation”. For example we have a broken gene in our vitamin-C synthesis pathway. There are four genes in the pathway and we have a broken copy of the fourth gene. All other primates, including chimpanzees, also have exactly the same fault in exactly the same gene. Primates, and only primates, carry that particular fault in that particular gene - no other animals have that fault in that gene. Google for the GULO gene for details. That is evidence of common descent and it is not imagination - you can read and compare the DNA sequences for yourself.

rossum
 
infestedsmith said:
IF you accept the system of dating that scientists use.
Click to expand...
I will accept any system of dating you wish to use, as long as you can provide evidence to support it. Even without dating a piece of rock with a fossil cow and a fossil trilobite in it would be good evidence for you.
Two assumptions are used for radioactive dating, that damage the truth of a billion year old Earth.
Click to expand...
First, scientist assume that the radioactive substances have not suffered any contamination or leakage or evaporation or any other kind of spoiling or damaging factor that would make their accurate dating highly suspect.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not “assume”, they take very great pains to measure the amount of contamination etc. I sugest that you read the section on “isochrons” in Roger Wiens’ piece Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective. As the title indicates the author is a Christian geologist.
Second, scientist assume that the actual decay rates of these substances never vary, which is definitely a problem. Decay rates can vary if cosmic radiation varies. The DR can also vary because of supernova explosions.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not assume what they can measure. Radioactive decay rates can be measured in distant astronomical objects such as supernovae and quasars. Most decay rates are known constant for at least the last few hundred thousand years, some have been measured constant for ten billion years. See the section “Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?” in Roger Wiens’ piece linked above.
Also, the ratio of 300-1 for Argon-40 is a problem too. Argon-36 and ratios of 36 and -36 are found on Venus and Mars.
Click to expand...
Reference please, I am puzzled as to how Argon ratios on Martian and Venisuan rocks were measured. Atmospheric argon is a different question, though there I fail to see the connection with dating rocks on earth.
Consider this also, if evolution were NOT true, and God created everything nearly or completely instantly, if there was a HUGE oak tree in the Garden of Eden, and if that oak tree had 50 rings, people would think it was 50 years old right? Yeah, it’s wouldn’t be! It would be about 5 hours old! Understand now? Perceived age, as opposed to actual age. Two different things, evolutionist (who are mostly atheist, at least until Catholics started falling for it) completely ignore that, because they don’t believe in the Garden of Eden, or the Fall anyway!
Click to expand...
Firstly, if God made things look exactly as if they had evolved from primitive one-celled ancestors 3.5 billion years ago, who am I to disbelieve Him? All that I can perceive is the perceived age. Secondly, to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky:One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

rossum
 
infestedsmith said:
Welcome to Neo-Catholicism drpmjhess. You have reduced the Old Testament to complete myth, and have even opened the way to huge abuses of the New Testament, by allowing for symbolic, instead of more literal translations.
Click to expand...
Your logic escapes me. How does reading parts of the Old Testament as mythology – which is mainstream scholarship in Catholic seminaries – reduce it to complete myth?
 
It is popular in some circles to look at the entire Bible as mythology. A fiction created by A) Our genes, in their mad, selfish rush to make sure we reproduce. Or B) Man himself for whatever reason. The worship of the human mind is rampant in some circles. Our genes combined with random mutations and natural selection are the only reason our brains got bigger. Our brains being, of course, nothing more than a biological device just like the rest of our bodies. Man, salt crystals, same thing. You don’t exist. You are just an ambulatory carrier of genetic material that has programmed you. The sacred and holy gene is your god now.

Sad.

God has communicated to man but only the fool says in his heart that there is no God.

Pope Benedict has identified the fact that there are those in the thrall of a new rationalism. Cardinal Schoenborn has identified the issue and knows that the Catholic Church is now in the position of having to defend reason itself.

God bless,
Ed
 
The_Barbarian said:
No, it’s like saying that a computer is an essential component of an information-management system. It’s not the output, but you need the computer to get the output. Likewise, a human mind is only possible with a functioning human nervous system. It’s OK; God created our bodies, too. Denying this is simply surrendering to the gnostic notion of “body bad, spirit good.”
Click to expand...
I already stated that consciousness required a nervous system to manifest itself but clearly they are two different things and you don’t prove your point that consciousness has a material component by pointing out that the brain does. I’d be happy to read something about this if you can cite anyone supporting your claim.

Ender
 
What about the Archaeopteryx? Transition between reptile and bird you say!
Click to expand...
Close. It actually has more dinosaur characteristics than birdlike ones. But it’s pretty close to the transition between dinosaurs and birds.
However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.
Click to expand...
Maybe not useless. But certainly the skull is halfway to birds and the skeleton of the wing, while not quite birdlike, is greatly modified toward the wing of a bird.

And the back is still partially flexible, not fused as in birds. The tail is almost entirely that of a theropod dinosaur. And the teeth are entirely dinosauran, and there is no beak. It is so much a dinosaur, that the first specimen found, with no feather imprints was thought to be a pterosaur or a dinosaur. And maybe it is, depending on where you want to draw the line.
And, to The Barbarian. To my knowledge there are NO transitional fossils that actually show a partially complete animal.
Click to expand...
There are thousands of them. One of my favorites is Diarthrognathus. It has both mammalian and reptilian jaw joints; the transition to the dentary joint is only partially complete in this animal.
If evolution were true, we’d see almost no full fossils, but only transitional fossils.
Click to expand...
Which is what we see. Almost all fossils show transitional forms.
Every “transitional fossil” put forth by the evolution scientist is NOT a transition, but a fully formed creature, with no useless or half finished parts.
Click to expand...
All transitionals are fully formed creatures. They couldn’t live if they weren’t. As Darwin pointed out, the transitionals would have to be complete organisms themselves. And so far, every one found is a complete organisms.

Why not learn a bit about it? Start by telling us what a transitional between a reptile and a mammal should be like. Keep in mind, that such a transitional would have to be fully formed and capable of survival on its own.

Then we’ll take a look at the fossil record and see what we can find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top