Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: mOjOm

I've had my most "existential" moments after losing/renouncing my computer and cell phone. I think disengagement with our material obsessions reveals the world of spirit. I also think this is why false "idols" are such a plague to humanity, with the cell phone being the epitome in our contemporary era:

Cell Phone Enslavement

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

Why exactly do you have to do that anyway???

Are you suggesting that God put people on the earth and gave them life just to make them sit naked and alone somewhere with nothing until they die???

What's the point???

I don't think anyone has really given much thought as to how valid the rules are in this made up little game religion has going for it. It's all based around making life as pointless as possible in order to allegedly get rewarded in death. What a crock of shat!!

I feel you, I feel the same way at times.

But, in the bible it is explicitly stated that one will "not taste death" if they live in accordance to the path laid out for us. In hindu tradition this is the "escape from samsara" which occurs in your lifetime. Neither tradition says death is a requirement. Which makes you wonder why the monks living in solitude aren't floating away, but in all traditions the kingdom is within, so maybe they are in touch with something few of us have experienced...

a reply to: cooperton

I read an article by a guy once that went to spend a few months or so with some monks. They had a vow of silence too which he had to also do. So everyday basically he's work in the garden, eat, meditate, etc. But absolutely no talking at any time. He said it was really difficult at first because we still think in words too. But after about 2 weeks or maybe a month he said he was used to it and even the words in his mind went away as well because he wasn't using them anymore.

That's when he says for the first time in his life he started to experience the world around him without the layer of language as a buffer or interpreter. He said you start seeing the world without the filter of language and words being in the way. When you look at things at that point you actually see it for the first time because the words aren't interpreting what it is when your mind thinks of it. You don't see a "Tree" of words anymore and instead actually see The Tree as it is.

He also said without words it didn't take long for him to learn to communicate without them with the other monks. You develop a language without words using very subtle body language and stuff.

It was an interesting read though for sure and made me want to try it myself but it's just not practical or really possible unless you get away from everything and especially people who will talk. You have to be away from all words, both spoken or written or they will persist in your mind.

I don't understand why people who believe in a God ( an Omnipotent being ) fail to understand whatever it did, is never for you to understand. Or accurately describe those actions.

No matter how hard you try, you would get it wrong.

To be arrogant enough to pretend to " know the truth" is beyond silly. How can you not see that.

Unless you are claiming to be a God too ?

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
I don't understand why people who believe in a God ( an Omnipotent being ) fail to understand whatever it did, is never for you to understand. Or accurately describe those actions.

No matter how hard you try, you would get it wrong.

To be arrogant enough to pretend to " know the truth" is beyond silly. How can you not see that.

Unless you are claiming to be a God too ?

Is that the truth?

a reply to: cooperton

Sure. If you say so, but that wasn't what I was talking about. But then again you knew that and were just trying to hijack my point to proselytize.

a reply to: cooperton

When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?

It might just be that we are seeing its effects right now. Some scientists have argued that there is a 'religion gene'. Well since the churches seem to be emptying out in recent years, maybe some mutation has turned off that gene and it is starting to spread into the population. I'd call that pretty darn beneficial, would you?

Heck maybe we'll even get a couple of new species out of it, since the religious tend to marry their own kind and avoid the atheist altogether.

originally posted by: cooperton
When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?

How about blue eyes, about 10K years ago...

They are eneficial for those who have them... more likely to reproduce ...



BTW, couple interesting mutation in humans: www.xovain.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

What about the countless depictions of Zeus?

This is the crux of the matter. Pun intended. If Zeus were depicted in both the new (America) and old (euro-asia-africa) then I would be looking into what the truth is of Zeus. But it is only described by certain people around the Mediterranean sea... So we would conclude that it is a myth, and only they would understand its meaning completely.

On the other hand, dragons are ubiquitous in cultures across the globe. Cultures separated by oceans are still describing the same large, terrifyingly aggressive serpent-like creatures. This is not a simple myth, but rather, it is something that all these cultures must have observed directly, unless all of these cultures have coincidentally fabricated the same myth of the same large serpent... which probability insists is nearly impossible. Therefore, we must assume that these cultures observe the large serpents that we now cal "dinosaurs", and if they observed these creatures that means they are nowhere near hundreds of millions of years old.

So basically you appeal to popularity to make your decision. Whatever has the most stories is automatically the truth? Sorry but UFO, ET sci fi is world wide, and I'd bet there are more books on the subject, than for most religions. Flying discs and whatnot have been reported throughout history and it dominates our movie and TV industry. That doesn't make it true and doesn't mean the cylons are coming back to get us.

FACT: Every major culture throughout history has art and myths about the beginning. Most of them conflict.

FACT: Humans are creative, they like to be entertained and like to tell a good story. They are also very inquisitive, they like to know the answer for things they cannot possibly know.

FACT: Humans lie, embellish and make things up.

FACT: Scary stories are embraced and have been in many cultures for thousands of years.

Sorry but human stories from thousands of years ago are not reliable enough to hold weight. It all boils down to you guessing that the stories are true. The moment you need an assumption to maintain your view, the logic falls off a cliff. A view doesn't become true, just because many folks believe it. You really should be posting in the evidence for creation thread inst ead. There is no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest dinosaurs and humans lived together. Dinosaur fossils are all over the world and easily could have been dug up and subsequently stories were written about these monsters that they didn't understand... and yeah fire breathing? I don't think so.

Tyranosaurus Rex had only two legs... sooo...?

T-rex wasn't a serpent.

When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?

Haven't you asked this exact question before? The ability to digest lactose as adults is a fairly new one. There are also immunities to various diseases and conditions. Then if you go back far enough you have the recent cranial capacity increase from homo heidlebergensis to homo sapien which defined us as a new species.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: cooperton
When was the last seen beneficial genetic mutation seen in the human?

How about blue eyes, about 10K years ago...

They are eneficial for those who have them... more likely to reproduce ...

BTW, couple interesting mutation in humans: www.xovain.com...

Lactose tolerance is another beneficial one.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
They do not dominate the environment they live within. Dolphins as a 'swimming specie' rule this domain (dislike the shark and attack/ram them). No habeas corpus writ or warrant; the 'free to swim at will laws' totally ignored and violated; (forgetting the boat floating human in this drama).

You totally missed the point. Sharks have no need to evolve new distinct features because they thrive in the environment they are in. Just because Dolphins can give them a hard time to protect themselves or others, doesn't mean they are threatening their survival. Dolphins can't survive in half the conditions that sharks can. Humans kill sharks, but they aren't in any danger whatsoever. They are built to swim near the shores, or the middle of the ocean, in warm or cold temperature at almost any depth, and can eat almost any type of meat. They are built like tanks. Dolphins can protect themselves against sharks, but they aren't dominating their environment or taking their food supply. If a disaster struck and the earth went back into "snowball" earth mode with frozen over oceans, Dolphins would very likely go extinct while the sharks keep on keeping on. I can't rule them out because they are very intelligent, but it would be tough.

Larger creatures historically eat themselves out of their own ecosystem by destroying their habitat. I am not sure 'evolve' applies. There are many types of lemurs (a successful foundation specie); I would imagine the unsuccessful ones died off as a natural progression of that specie; say there were 500 experimental subtypes to begin with and the most successful ones (200) thrived; why is this scenario not just as feasible?

Genetic mutations and natural selection apply therefor the term "evolve" applies. Again, you don't have to experience significant morphological changes in order to evolve. Sharks have changed over the years, they have gotten smaller, because if they were still the size of megalodon they would have to eat too much and then would indeed eat themselves out of their ecosystem. But the sharks that did this obviously died because there was competition for food and they were so huge they needed to eat constantly with the extinction of large aquatic dinosaurs and creatures. They were no longer "fit" for the environment so the smaller sharks survived. It's not that complicated.

Also I'm assuming you're talking strictly about white sharks, because they are from the genetic line from which all other sharks split. Saying that sharks haven't evolved is silly when you have 450 different types of sharks now. White sharks are indeed the kings of the ocean.

originally posted by: GetHyped

Lactose tolerance is another beneficial one.

A few people have said this also... This is not a mutation that occurred to benefit the human. ALL BABIES express the lactase gene to digest the mother's milk. Once we go beyond infancy, this gene would commonly be turned off, but we continue to consume lactose into our later years (cow's milk, goat's milk, etc) so in many people the gene remains activated. This is an epigenetic mechanism.

I see so many people confusing "evolution" with epigenetics...

originally posted by: Barcs

It all boils down to you guessing that the stories are true. The moment you need an assumption to maintain your view, the logic falls off a cliff. A view doesn't become true, just because many folks believe it.

Realize that this is the point of this whole thread; there is no direct evidence that say, for example, a fish can accumulate genetic mutations and eventually, after many generations, transition into an amphibian. There is no proof for this sort of "evolution", we can only assume that such genetic adaptations/mutations can conglomerate to the point of a beneficial phenotypic alteration that renders the organism more suitable for its environment. We can only extrapolate this to be a possibility, so you're right, it all boils down to you guessing that the stories are true. Evolution is not true just because many folks believe it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

I read an article by a guy once that went to spend a few months or so with some monks. They had a vow of silence too which he had to also do. So everyday basically he's work in the garden, eat, meditate, etc. But absolutely no talking at any time. He said it was really difficult at first because we still think in words too. But after about 2 weeks or maybe a month he said he was used to it and even the words in his mind went away as well because he wasn't using them anymore.

That's when he says for the first time in his life he started to experience the world around him without the layer of language as a buffer or interpreter. He said you start seeing the world without the filter of language and words being in the way. When you look at things at that point you actually see it for the first time because the words aren't interpreting what it is when your mind thinks of it. You don't see a "Tree" of words anymore and instead actually see The Tree as it is.

He also said without words it didn't take long for him to learn to communicate without them with the other monks. You develop a language without words using very subtle body language and stuff.

It was an interesting read though for sure and made me want to try it myself but it's just not practical or really possible unless you get away from everything and especially people who will talk. You have to be away from all words, both spoken or written or they will persist in your mind.

That sounds amazing, I'll have to find a way to try something like that.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
I don't understand why people who believe in a God ( an Omnipotent being ) fail to understand whatever it did, is never for you to understand.

So you know for a fact that if there were a hypothetical God, that you don't believe in, that it would be incomprehensible? What if the human form was made in the semblance of God's Image?

a reply to: cooperton

So you know for a fact that if there were a hypothetical God, that you don't believe in, that it would be incomprehensible? What if the human form was made in the semblance of God's Image?

that concept strikes me as...arrogant. one, it would assume that we are in the upper echelon of lifeforms. there is no evidence to support this assumption. two, we dont have any reliable images of any deity with which to compare our psychology or physiology. and three, the very rules by which this particular deity is purported to operate lie in direct contrast to the rules that bind our biology and enable it to function. we are mortal, we are finite, we are ignorant, and we are physical. we are subject to the laws of this reality and must work with them if we are to achieve anything. if anything, i would say that we are made in the opposite of any divine icon. but perhaps our resentment of these very qualities is what inspires us to revere such an unlimited entity as what you yourself worship. if so, i suggest that reverence is rooted in entirely the wrong motivations.

such is my opinion.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

I read an article by a guy once that went to spend a few months or so with some monks. They had a vow of silence too which he had to also do. So everyday basically he's work in the garden, eat, meditate, etc. But absolutely no talking at any time. He said it was really difficult at first because we still think in words too. But after about 2 weeks or maybe a month he said he was used to it and even the words in his mind went away as well because he wasn't using them anymore.

He also said without words it didn't take long for him to learn to communicate without them with the other monks. You develop a language without words using very subtle body language and stuff.

That vow is for westerners or very young children in training. It is otherwise common for lamas to telepath. They don't have to speak to each other (which is why opening the third eye is so important for their understanding/communication not only each other but with the astral beings that are their guides). You can imagine the shenanigans the Chinese faced when negotiating with the Tibetan Monks. Some were able to read others (of a totally different discipline) minds. This is how the Dali Lama was able to escape to India (they knew the ultimate intent of the primary Chinese negotiator by the ability to read his mind). In symbolism Fire and death was the result of this reading, exit stage right.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

So you know for a fact that if there were a hypothetical God, that you don't believe in, that it would be incomprehensible? What if the human form was made in the semblance of God's Image?

that concept strikes me as...arrogant. one, it would assume that we are in the upper echelon of lifeforms. there is no evidence to support this assumption.

Maybe. But, as I type on my computer I realize the complexity of it, and the fact that you are somewhere across the globe and I can instantly share ideas with you. We are the epidome of life as WE know it... Is there potential for life, which we are unaware of, to be more complex and intelligent than us? Surely, and that exact entity is what I think would be God.

two, we dont have any reliable images of any deity with which to compare our psychology or physiology.

to put it simply for now, I am currrently under the impression that God is Light. Our physical, 3rd dimensional being was crafted as an image of this 4th (5th+?) dimensional entity. Just like the shadow is an image of our body, our body is an image of upper echelon (light). Plato called this realm the "world of forms", Jesus called it "The Kingdom of Heaven", etc..

we are mortal, we are finite, we are ignorant, and we are physical. we are subject to the laws of this reality and must work with them if we are to achieve anything.

All true when referencing the body... The "I am" conscious to our being is the light. Our pineal gland has photoreceptors.... I liken this gland to a control panel for consciousness (light) to have control of the body (John 1:1-4).

if anything, i would say that we are made in the opposite of any divine icon.

It often seems that way, but love altruism and knowledge, at least in my circumstance, helps me get closer to that true essence.

but perhaps our resentment of these very qualities is what inspires us to revere such an unlimited entity as what you yourself worship.

I think a better word for worship would be love or reverence... This video is a good parable of what I think the problem is with many "christians" of this day, and the vital aspect that so many of us miss in our attempts of Becoming:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Barcs
Dolphins 'don't give sharks a hard time'. They HATE them; and as far as racial dominance as a "Swim-Swim specie" Dolphins are at the top of the *smart ladder/food chain*. Sharks lack compassion is all (or the ability to evolve) which I am certain some whale specie are aware of as well ('Oh look here comes the chomping garbage disposal, get out of its way' as cannot distinguish a seal from a surfboard), the dummies cannot see but can 'smell/sense' blood in the water from great distances. This is a specie they wish WOULD have evolved; for them just a nuisance character. Can you imagine a similar specie with the same relationship WE would have to deal with as another land based perfectly evolved creature (what would that look like)? I know the answer. Mako is tasty; a poor mans Swordfish.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
That vow is for westerners or very young children in training.

I don't know where you're getting that. It's hardly something restricted to westerners, children or trainees. It's a long held tradition and practice with very clear intentions. By removing language and words from the mind it has the result of focusing attention internally and making your other senses more sensitive. It also focuses the mind in the Now rather than the past or future.

It's along the same lines as meditation in that it quiets the mind from all the distractions and sets the mind free from the shackles of language, concepts and ideas so it can focus on what is real and true without interpretation.

It can last anywhere from days to one's entire life if they choose.

It is also a way to remove the lies people tell from the truths that they live. When you don't speak you don't lie. So anyone who spends time with or around you learns who you are by watching they way you live and act. You cannot lie about that. How you act and live IS who you are. It's not what you say or what you tell people or the stories you tell about yourself. Those are all false to some degree. But what you do and how you live IS truly who you are.

originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: That vow is for westerners or very young children in training.

mOjOm: I don't know where you're getting that. It's hardly something restricted to westerners, children or trainees. It's a long held tradition and practice with very clear intentions. By removing language and words from the mind it has the result of focusing attention internally and making your other senses more sensitive. It also focuses the mind in the Now rather than the past or future.

So no argument here except you were speaking of another's experience that is now represented as something different.

mOjOm: It's along the same lines as meditation in that it quiets the mind from all the distractions and sets the mind free from the shackles of language, concepts and ideas so it can focus on what is real and true without interpretation.
It can last anywhere from days to one's entire life if they choose.

Not just along the same lines of meditation, it is the same thing experiencing NOW. You realize this is very difficult if you do NOT live in a monastic society because half of your waking life is spent in meditation doing nothing but either time traveling or in deep introspection/communing with God. There is a thought exists; primitive man never needed language because IT was telepathic and something changed in its DNA that required speech (in order for the human to begin to lie to each other). This was not necessarily a good thing.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Not just along the same lines of meditation, it is the same thing experiencing NOW. You realize this is very difficult if you do NOT live in a monastic society because half of your waking life is spent in meditation doing nothing but either time traveling or in deep introspection/communing with God. There is a thought exists; primitive man never needed language because IT was telepathic and something changed in its DNA that required speech (in order for the human to begin to lie to each other). This was not necessarily a good thing.

For sure. In fact I'd say it's almost impossible. You would basically have to be either away from other people or only with others who are also silent. Because having to listen to words your mind would have no choice but to interpret the meaning of those words and would never be able to stop thinking in words either. Your internal dialog would persist.

Well, based on the Lost Book of Enki, humans were created from genetic experimentation by Lord Enki.