http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/320746/Noahs_Flood_the_Beginning_and_the_End

This is not what I had planned but it is a quick beginning to satisfy curiosity. More will be coming over the next few months.

SODAIHO POSTS: #904

Have you ever looked at a public school earth science textbook, SoDaiho?


The word evolution meaning processes that will result in time in a better, higher condition than when started became identified with Darwin who used it to explain the origin of species. Darwin naturalistic evolution says that all life forms on earth are a result of a long development in time by chance, by natural selection and by survival of the fittest. His followers took Darwin's hypothesis and ran with it for a touchdown. They teach as fact the path leading up to man can be traced as from one simple cell to more complex cells to invertebrates evolved into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, some mammals into primates, primitave primates into apes, and a common progenitior of ape and man evolved into human beings.

As I've already mentioned, Darwin drew his "tree of life" that depicts man coming from a simple, primeordial cell that emerged by itself from non-living matter. This tree of life has one stem with all the branches off that.

But that's not what serious biology is telling us about the world of living things. There are many different kinds of life each one having their own separate root of origin. So instead of a single tree of life, it looks more like a forest, each one (phyla) standing and growing next to each other, each separately.

KFC,


GOOD STUFF HERE!   

Not "chance", "change".

"Chance" is the thing we relied on for G-d to create every single species personally.

Darwinism believes the opposite: namely that the system (that G-d created, perhaps) forces certain animals to survive and others to die. POSSIBLE changes are dictated by chance, but the SURVIVING changes are not. The "chance" part is left behind by evolution and "chance" has nothing to do with evolution. (Evolution does not require chance. You could replace the chance mechanism with a forced mechanism and evolution would give you the same relative result.)



Yes, they grow seperately. But yes, they are also one tree of life.

Plants and animals, bacteria and blue algae (or whatever the other early branches are) all derive from the same beginning, as demonstrated by the fact that they ALL use DNA.

It's possible that there are unrelated other trees out there. That's what xenobiology researches into: life bred in a lab from scratch or alien life forms.

But on earth those other trees would have died out anyway, as evolution makes sure that only the fittest survive, and it's unlikely that two independent trees are equally fit for long enough when they start.

As for chance, perhaps I can explain it easily enough:

Think of a sieve and some pebbles. The sieve represents our system, i.e. the world or the environment. The pebbles represent our animals.

Some pebbles are bigger than others, by chance. Perhaps pebbles multiply (in our thought experiment) and create bigger and smaller child pebbles. And every generation has to fall through the sieve to reach the next level.

So while _chance_ dictates the size of each pebble, it would be extremely ignorant to claim that the sieve uses chance to figure out which pebble will fall through. It does not, it uses size.

And if you replace the chance sizing of the pebbles, perhaps with making up the size of each pebble yourself, the result will be the same: small pebbles fall through the sieve, large pebbles do not.

"Chance" has nothing to do with how the system works.

There is no such thing as "scientifically proven". You are confusing science with mathematics.

But evolution has been scientifically TESTED while Creationism is not. That's the difference.

Both could be wrong. Either could be right. But that's not the point. Evolution as a theory is usable, Creationism is not a theory and is not usable. You can use the predictions of the theory of evolution (the fittest will survive) to breed bacteria to produce medicines (Insulin, for example); but you CANNOT use any predictions of Creationism (G-d creates animals personally) to do anything useful.

In fact Creationism doesn't predict anything, it just says what allegedly happened.

Science is not about truth, it's about usable facts.

Science can be used in engineering, religion cannot.

Evolution can be used in engineering, Creationism cannot.

And that is why evolution must be taught in science class, like gravity and the atomic model; and that is why Creationism must not be taught in science class, like the Hindu worldview (Samsara or whatever it is called), or the Smurfs comic books, although they are a lot better than the Smurfs television show.

Incidentally, the theory of gravity has many holes and is a lot worse than the theory of evolution (for example, it does not explain why gasses do not spontaneously concentrate). And we already know that the atomic model theory is completely wrong (electrons are not really particles when we need particles), but it still works better than all earlier theories trying to explan how matter works.

Dear Sodaiho,

It's true, there are many who have a hard time understanding there is but one God. To bring the world out of polytheism, God revealed Himself, His Oneness, first to the Hebrew people..and then through, in and by Christ...to the whole world.

To help us understand Him better, He gave us His revealed Word in the Sacred Scriptures, so we do in fact have the language for it.

The passage in Genesis, 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth; and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul" isn't really difficult to understand.

Almighty God gives us a glimpse of how He gave life to the first man. Same deal with us today...God breathes life and forms a living soul when the egg is fertilized by the sperm. We are wonderfully made...We can understand the biology behind it, but will never understand fully the spritual side of our nature. Life in the soul is a supernatural mystery.

You say we get in trouble by making the metaphor real. I say, not in this case....God is real, His Word in Genesis is real, life is real and God through Genesis tells us how He gives us life.

"Mr. Seraf? Mr. Seraf? Where are you? You are never here when I need you!"

"I am here my lord. Speak."

"Mr. Seraf? How did the campaign go? Do these idiots finally believe that I am One?"

"Well, we deployed the prophet, saved them from the Pharao's army, gave them to eat..."

"Did you give them the law?"

"Sir, You did that Yourself, don't You remember?"

"Right, yes. Sorry. And did it help?"

"Well, they have stopped murdering each other and this one guy stopped coveting his neighbour's wife and moved on towards two tents down the path."

"We will have to clarify that point."

"Either way, the message about being One came through. They believe it, but some of them are still not sure."

"Good. Continue helping them and punish them when they lose faith. If in a thousand years they finally get it with the being One, you can explain about the Trinity."

"My lord, I think at that point they might have had enough."

Sure everything has DNA and the role of DNA in cells is identical. The point is that animals have their own specific DNA, plants have their own specific DNA, algae has it's own specific DNA and no living system can be thought of as ancestral with respect to a different living system.

Molecular biology has shown that each organism's DNA for reproduction and inheritance replicates differently and specifically for that organism. For this reason, there is not the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the indredibly diverse cells on earth and that's why it's virtually impossible for there to have ever been an evolution process as Darwin depicted in his "tree of life", that is, from one simple cell to more complex cells to invertebrates evolved into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, some mammals into primates, primitave primates into apes, and a common progenitior of ape and man evolved into human beings.

Lula posts:

Evolution has come to be one of the most confusing words. Evolution as you may seem to think of it has become perverted in Darwin's Godless Evolution Theory that I am descrbing here.

When I say "by chance", I mean without God anywhere in the process.

By excluding God from Creation, "chance" is evolution's god...and this atheistic dogma today is taught as true in many schools throughout the world.



I have no idea what you mean by this.

According to Genesis, all it took for God to create everything, including all the single species was for Him to speak..1:24, 26, 29, says, "And He said: ....and such and such was created.

Lula, Yes.  Unfortunately, due to a severe stream of anti-intellectualism and suspiciousness of education here in the US, among other factors, our textbooks are dumbed down incredibly. We teach to the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, I have read both the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man.  And have a pretty good understanding of historical notions of evolution, as well as its distortion with the advent of what have come to be known as "Social Darwinists".  The notion of survival of the fittest is greatly exaggerated in terms of Darwin.  He was much more interested in the diversity within and between species, their variability, and rates of growth, as well as key interdependence issues, how beings within and across species cooperated for survival and speaks often of these (in terms of Man) in Descent. If you were to do a word search of Descent, for example, you would see very few references to "the fittest", "aggression" and the like.  More common phrases would be "mutual aid", "love" and "cooperation".

 

Actually, I believe "chance" has little to do with natural selection.  You are correct in assuming many branches on that tree.  I would say trillions of branches over millions of years.

If you haven't already, I would urge you to read these works.

Link

 

 

Please don't use words that mean something as if they meant something else.

"Chance" does not mean "G-d is not involved". If I drop a pen, I can assure you that it will fall towards the earth (and the theory of gravity predicts that it will). But it would be folly to argue that it is "by chance" that it does so.



I know.



It has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. That's why Creationists use the word so often. They know that if they can argue against "chance", their audience, who are generally uninformed about evolution, will believe them.

I have never met a Creationist who actually understood evolution well enough to know that it has nothing to do with chance.

Natural selection works like a sieve. It is the environment applied to life forms like a sieve applied to pebbles. The fittest survive like the smallest pebbles will pass through the sieve. And which animal survives or which pebble can pass through is not determined by chance.

Arguing against evolution based on the idea that "random chance", "macro-evolution", and "origin of life" have anything to do with Darwinian theory is like arguing against Christianity based on the idea that "devil worship", "the prophet Muhammed", and "most Hindu gods" are Christian.

The part I find interesting is that those who oppose Christianity know this, but that those who oppose evolution never bother to learn even that much about the subject they oppose.

"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

Experience KFC. It's not a matter of trust, but a matter of experience. And by the way not all children disobey their parents in this matter, some actually have previous experience from earlier incarnations.

Lula: God did not create man as a human nor as spirit either, nor did the "LORD GOD" create man as a human, but as a living SOUL. The "LORD GOD" created man as SPIRIT, which is the meaning of "slime" of the earth. It wasn't until after the "fall" in the garden that the "LORD GOD" covered them with garments of SKIN, and they became "HUMAN". or PHYSICAL BEINGS.

It was not GOD that forbid man and woman anything. Genesis Chapter 2 verse 29

"And GOD said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and ALL TREES that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:"

The "LORD GOD" forbid man to eat of the tree of knowledge (THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE BEING CREATED BY THE LORD GOD) after he trapped the attention of man in a body of spirit (slime), and forbid him to eat:

Genesis chapter 2 verse 15 -17

"And the LORD GOD took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him, saying: of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowlege of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

GOD and the LORD GOD are not one and the same. GOD is THE I AM, the CREATOR, the LORD GOD IS OF GOD, BUT NOT GOD. The reason for both stories of creation in the bible. One is NOT simply a RETELLING OF THE OTHER.

Sodaiho is correct when he says that man is GOD incarnate. GOD created everything, and since there was NOTHING before GOD, everything that GOD created came from GOD and is GOD, and that includes MAN.

Genesis speaks of "the Death". I have seen it here correctly defined by the one who said there are two "deaths", that of the physical body, and that of the "spirit". Christians believe that they will die and God will judge their souls and if they are found acceptable God will give them entry into heaven. That is so, but not the way you think.

You will all die the second death as long as you have self importance. Only Sodaiho is close enough to perhaps have a chance to escape it. But he is only close. He cares what people think of him, and that dear Sodaiho, is self importance also. Of all of you he has less a sense of self importance. Self importance is not to be confused with self. Self importance is not self, but it is of self.

We all die the second death, because of our attachments to things of the self. That is what true self importance is. Having a "big ego" is not self importance but is of it. Just as self importance is not self but of it.

The second death is simply no longer having a sense of self. We will exist because God is never destroyed, but we won't know that we exist, we will have no sense of self, so we won't be aware. The hebrew faith call it I believe Sheol. Neither heavan nor hell, but a sleep. It is not like sleep as we think, but a dreamless sleep since we are no longer aware.

The loss of self awareness is why few of us recall our past lives, and yet we have distant memories of them, that which many call the shared knowledge, or the Jungian theory, I believe it is sometimes called. The less self important we are during our entire lifetime the more able we will be to recall past lives and experiences. Children being less self important than adults will be more capable of reaching those recollections. That is why Jesus said what he did about being as a "child". Self importance developes over our entire lifetime, just as personal power does. Children due to their lack of time on earth naturally have less of it, they also have less personal power. Their lives are literally in the hands of others. They have to depend on these others for everything, food, clothing, shelter, even their lives. Hence the parable of the "Lilies of the Field", that Jesus speaks of. Children are closer to God in that aspect. It is their parents and society in general that gives them self importance. It starts at birth and coninues through one's lifetime. As self importance grows so does personal power. The wealthy have more personal power because they are more self important. But it is an earthly personal power. There is another, the spiritual personal power. The closeness to God that Jesus had. That is why he said to put up one's treasure in the heavenly, and not the earthly.

Leauki, check your Noah article for a comment by my rabbi friend.

Be well.

Lula posts:


Leauki posts:


God created us for eternal life with Him and He gave us the path to everlasting life.

The Mosaic Law in not the law which gives holiness to souls, since before the Law, Abraham, father of the Hebrews, was sancitified by his living, practicing faith in Jesus Christ.

Hebraic Judaism was the forerunner the prefiguration of the religion of the Messias. In the passage from the old to the new, the priests were commissioned to carry forward the the whole world the justice of the Mosaic Law which was placed at first withiin the keeping of the Aaronic priesthood, but at the coming of the Christ, the law of love, of Christian charity, was added to the law of justice. The supernatural religion of Christ was to be extended and expanded to the ultimate confines of the earth, it was to be universal.

Christ revealed the Blessed Trinity and with right reason one can view the Trinity. We know that God is ONe becasue right reasoning demands a Creator who is one, a First Cause, to account for the existence of Creation. We know that God is three in ONe becasue Sacred Scripture (the written word of God) and Traditon (the voice of the Chruch) definitely reveal it to us. Christian monotheism is so far from being a denial of the unity of God that with the Lawgiver, Catholics can repeat the solemn words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is One", and with Christ's teaching and with St.John Gospel, understand "there are Three who give testimony in Heaven: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are these Three are One.

For the one who has faith, hope and charity, there is no such thing as having enough of Christ.

The important self evident thing to be brought to the attention of Jews is that the predictions of their great prophets were made and written down and in their keeping before they were fulfilled. They were evidences that God spoke through them. The primary import of them is that they foretell the coming of the Messias.

As a people, the Jews suffer as a penalty for the resistence to God's Revelation. today, Jews have the recorded facts to reckon with--in prefigures, in prophecy and in historic incident.

The Messias came and the Messianic age began with His coming. Not only do we believe He came in fulfillment of the Sacred Scriptures, but we believe also that the Messias will come again as foretold in Zacharais 12:10.

Lula!  Your theology is getting stranger and stranger!  Are you a monotheist or a polytheist?  Jesus was not "in Abraham", for goodness sake.  Jesus wasn't born for another couple of thousand years!  If you say Jesus was with God in heaven, then God is two, not one.

Boy, this says a lot.  I actually agree, but I am sure not as you understand your words.  We have eternal life, each of us, already. We are part of the vast material that comprises this eternal universe. We know that msatter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, only exchanged. The path is the Way. It is laid out by the Torah itself, a path to holiness; it is laid out in many other religions.  The Buddha taught the very same Greatr way.  Even Master Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen Buddhism in the 13th century taught that practice was actually "practice realization".  In other words, the moment we practice as buddhas we are buddhas.

 

Love has been a part of Judaism from day one, Lula.  Christ did nothing but expound on an existing precept. Charity is a pillar of Judaic faith and practice. Apparently you do not know enough about the parent of your faith to speak intelligently about it. I wish, Lula, that people who so easily espouse their views of a faith actually gotto know that faith before opening their mouths. 

Your last sentance was not Jesus' idea, I am certain.  Jesus was a Jew concerned about the spirituality of Jews.  It was only later that the Church decided to try toi build itself on the backs of pagans.

 

The trinity is polytheism, plain and simple, if you don't take the time and develop the practice of looking deeply.  You cannot talk about Jesus as God, a person, and God as what (?) , and God's spirit, as if they are three things, three entities, without falling into polytheism.  Yet, when we take the view that God comprises the universe and all that is in it is a manifestation of Him. that's pure monotheism: one God, period. Then He manifest in everything, Jesus, spirit, you, me, and yes, KFC, my teacup.

 

Says you and, perhaps Christianity.  Jews do not necessarily look sat it this way.  Messianic thought was not about eternal salvation anbd bnever was.  It was about getting right with God so that we would prosper and be happy. The prophets pointed fingers as we moved away from the Torah, urged us to return to the Way God gave us in His Torah.  The messiah has legand, it has hope, but ultimately, it is the People who are the messiah, partners with God.

 

And Christian's don't suffer?  Everyone suffers Lula, its part of being alive and attached to things. The messiah did not come as evidenced by the facts: continued war, contnued suffering, a continued diaspora. Jesus was a false messiah.  Believe what you want. I am happy for you.

 

Be well.

Oh boy, that's complicated!

And here am I just believing in G-d and Jewish law and living the religion when I could have been summarising it in great words and complicated theology.

First, I didn't say that Jesus was "in Abraham". I said that Abraham was sanctified by his living faith in Christ Jesus.

Lula posts:

Jesus said that He is God when He said, "I and the Father are One."
Therefore, I believe that Jesus Christ is God and that according to the Gospels, God is the Incarnate Christ, God made man.



Lula posts:

My thesis is that God revealed His Oneness through, in, and by Christ.



According to St.Paul's infallibly inspired words of the New Testament, it is Christ who is the seed of Abraham, and thus whoever is incorporated in HIm, inherits the promise God mad eto Abraham and becomes a member of God's covenant people. "To abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not: and to his seeds as of many. But as of one: and to thy seed, which is Christ."

It is only the community of the baptized into Christ that comprises the covenant people descended from Abraham.

Why would anyone reveal his oneness through impersonating somebody else?

I can concede that you are right here, even tho this is just symantics.

Since you are being so specific about my choice of words, you should also be careful in your choice of words as well. You said:



How do you TEST evolution? As far as I know all tests have failed (i.e. put a bunch of molecules in a test tube and life does not spontaneously form). Is "put" an ok word for me to use here or should I use "place" instead?



This is an opinion mixed with a fact. Creationism is a model (or theory, or hypothesis, etc) that is used by some scientists to make predictions about the world. Yes, evolution is also a theory used to make predictions about the world. Who says that creation science is not useable? That is your opinion. Mine is the opposite. I don't see any use for evolutionary theory, but I see a whole lot of good in creation theory.




Since we are being so strict on our use of terms, tell me Leauki how evolution has been used to breed bacteria to produce insulin. Last I knew it was a hormone. Doctors found out that if you don't have it, bad things happen. That's not evolution. If anything that's devolution. Which is a prediction made by the biblical creation theory: things were created perfect but this world system is breaking down over time until the return of Christ, at which time he will restore all things.

You are making the most basic mistake here. What does evolution predict? Last I knew, evolution was a theory used to explain how life arose from common ancestry. That is not a prediction of anything, but "it just says what allegedly happened" (or is happening but we can't quite demonstrate that). Now this theory is used to make predictions about the world, but the theory itself does NOT make any predictions. Moreover, we can't find any "evidence" that is so concrete that nobody could possibly believe otherwise. Creation science also makes certain SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS that can also be used to make predictions about the world.



Are facts not true? Again symantics are being used here in your argument. You're getting pretty good Leauki at the symantics game. Hope you don't mind but I gotta call you on this.



This is very poor on your part. So now you have equated evolution with science and creationism with religion. Why? Becuase you are already biased towards one over the other. It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who won't admit their biases.



Gravity can be tested. I can drop a hammer from the top of a building and it will fall.. always fall. Evolution is very elusive. You can't just put some atoms in a test tube and generate life. They are not equal.

lULA POSTS:



lEAUKI POSTS:

Evolution, or Darwinism, is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which, new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors...This (false) idea of CHANGE to something vastly different (e.g. reptiles to birds, or apelike creatures to man) is the understanding that is commonly held across society and entered into science textbooks as "fact".

According to Darwin's theory, Evolution, that is change over time that produces new genes, new traits not possessed by ones's ancestors, takes place naturally, first they said by survival of the fittest, then by natural selection, but how have evolution theorists shown, or demonstrated or given evidence of this? The answer is they haven't.

What is/are the ever-elusive mechanism at work here to explain or show Evolution "change" from one species into a different one? These new traits are deemed to come about by random chance processes and not by use and disuse.

Leauki, you are a true blue believer in evolution, and so here are some questions.

How does one account for the fact that air-breathing creatures basically inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants alternate between both, depending on darkness or daylight. What process of evolution could "know" this and bring it about?

If evolution is about survival of the fittest, and natural selection, then explain the balance in nature. What processes can account for the truly amazing interdependence wonders of nature as seen in the behavior of bees, ants and butterflies. How did symbiotic relationships between certain plants and creatures get started, when they depend upon each other for survival?

From where and how did the first protein originate, to facilitate the DNA code structure in each species? Proteins depend on DNA for their formation, and DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.

What can be said for the fundamental nature of matter and energy? Since matter itslef is comprised of atoms and subatomic particles, did these in fact evolve from something else? What accounts for the amazing complexity and incredible smallness of the world of atoms?

What constitutes the universe...is it infinite or does it have an end...and how do you account for the phenomenon of time?

I would say that the answers to all these questions can only point to God, to the existence of an unseen Designer.

That's nonsense. There is no "belief" in evolution. I "believe" in evolution like I "believe" in gravity.




If I tell you, will you shut up about it or come back with the same question in a week or so pretending, with your "Christian" honesty, that you were never told and don't know?

You wrote some pretty vile stuff about the Talmud, a text you admitted you never read and would never read, plus I know you know absolutely nothing about evolution yet feel obligated to question it. So this time I want to make sure before we get into it.

Will you or will you not reset your memory like you usually do if I tell you? Will it stick? Will we talk about this next week with you REMEMBERING that you know the answer and NOT pretending that no scientist ever figured it out?

I know little of physics so I cannot tell you the answer. What I can tell you is that that question has nothing to do with evolution.

I really recommend you read a biology book (a real one). You are so full of Creationist propaganda, it's sickening.

If those Creationist Web sites at least had the decency to explain what evolution is before claiming that it is wrong. But they don't. That alone shows to the careful observer that what the Creationists claim is nonsense.

If Creationism were the truth, NO LIES about evolution would be necessary to convince people; and Creationists could freely tell people that evolution is not about "chance", that Darwinism does not include "macro-evolution", and that evolution does not attempt to explain how life started on earth.

Lula posts:

Lula posts:





Yes this last sentence was the Risen Christ's mandate:

"And Jesus came to them (His Apostles) and said to them: 18 "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations (that would include the Jewish people) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all (not some or only what we feel like observing) that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Yes, Jesus was a Jew very concerned about the salvation of all Jews. He sent out His disciples and very many Jews believed and were converted and baptized...and Jews are still converting today. They are "the remnant" that is mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

The New Testament certifies that Christ built His Church upon Himself as the chief Cornerstone and not upon the backs of pagans, but upon the blood of martyrs, a good many of whom were Jewish converts.

Verse 18 has the Risen Christ, the Master, addressing with them with majesty proper to God. Omnipotence, an attribute belonging exclusively to God belongs to Christ. He is confirming the faith of His worshippers and He is also telling them that the authority which he is going to give them to equip them to carry out their mission to the whole world, derives from his own divine authority.

The authority of the Chruch which is given for the salvation of mankind, comes directly from CHrist, and that this authority in the sphere of faith and morals is above any other authority on earth. The Apostles present on this occasion and after them, their lawful successors are given the charge of teaching all nations what Jesus taught by work and word, namely, ....THAT HE IS THE PATH THAT LEADS TO GOD.

lULA POSTS:




Christ is the path to everlasting life.

Sodaiho posts:


Yes, we do have eternal life already...where we spend it is up to us. Yes we are part of the material of the universe, and while I believe we are eternal, the universe as well as time itself has an end and will come to that end when Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

You say the "the path is the Way" and I'm telling you that Christ told us that He is the Way, Truth and Life. So, since Christ's path is the Way, Buddha can't have taught the same.