Immortal4life

I think you just might be starting to catch on and are starting to see what I have been saying. I agree that belief systems are maps. The truth is no human perspective, from the human mind, can be perfect. Yes. All of Humankind, is limited by the human mind's capacity, and the 5 senses. I certainly don't believe that discussing beliefs, debating, or even attempting to pursuade necessarily equals propaganda, other than in the most broadest definition of the word. What you are attempting to call propagating ideas, I would say is promoting ideas. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. You have every right to promote your ideas and oppose anyone else's views you choose. What you consider trying to pursuade, I might also call attempting to be informative, resourceful, interesting, or entertaining. Do you consider this propaganda? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNmsVbdBr2I or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDuVJQ7pDI perhaps this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QfFKAW0qU how about this? maybe this? This? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMdZpn84fV0 I consider these cool things, that I like. I like to know about new events, new products, and yes even new ideas. I also like to get excited about them, and anticipate them. I don't get any benefit, political gain, or money from promoting my ideas and debating my opinions. I get a better understanding of them. I am not promoting a 6000 year old earth, not even close. However, I don't believe in this militant secularism. People can take any perspective they want, that includes spiritual and even religious perspectives. I just don't buy into the idea that if someone is going to vote Republican and believes the earth is 6000 years old, a high school science class will make any difference and make him vote Democrat. I could care less about Politics in Science, because I don't really believe it matters. The implications of having no Purpose, or Meaning in science, Having no consciousness backing it, makes it incomplete. It makes it ultimately lacking and empty. It gives people the impression that existence is just random chance, and accidents. So it is a worldview, and a metaphysical belief system itself. I have absolutely no problem with anyone being taught that there could be intelligence, meaning, or purpose backing existence. Let people's different belief systems battle it out. Oppose each other, protest each other, that's all good. It makes everyone's opinions better and have to withstand each other's criticism in all arenas. Let everyone battle, I don't care. Let a real victor emerge. Let each person decide for themselve what to believe. But don't stack the deck, don't ban your opponents views from being taught, let all be heard. Don't run away like cowards to the courts attempting to not have to battle in all arenas, all areas, and all subjects, even if need be, the propaganda arena. Or maybe you're not catching on at all actually.....

This is getting closer to the truth. Is it correct to say both? Or is it most correct to say neither is correct?

I am not acting as if it is the sole problem of science. However, science is related to the topic we are discussing in this particular instance. So how this problem effects science, is the relevant issue to this conversation. That is your belief.

If indeed you made relevant respones in previous threads, and If indeed I did not reply, it must have been because time is limited, and there were many other responses. Perhaps I felt I answered your questions or concerns while replying to someone else, rendering a response to your replies redundant. I can't say for sure because I don't recall the specific situation. Now...2 points. The first point is, that I am going to present my own ideas in the manner I feel is best. Sometimes you need pre-requisites in order to understand certain issues, and there can be a wide variety of reasons why I am presenting my ideas about things in the manner I am, at this particular time. The second point is, that while I do plan on presenting many theories in the future, as opposed to only refuting theories, and while I have presented some tings already in the past, I am not actually obligated to. Whatever theories I personally believe are correct, do not actually have any relevance to this particular thread or issue.

Scientific theories can become very elaborate and complex. However, their basic foundations must rest on knowledge that is understandable and observable. It only makes sense for humans to invent theories, and to build them into complex ideas, if they are based on logically sound foundations first. The problem comes about, when something is unexplainable with current data and knowledge. This is when the overly elaborate explanations come in. This is where many people throw out common sense, and will believe in things that are not proven, or go against basic knowledge.

When examining claims made by evolutionists, many people who are normally intelligent seem to throw common sense out the window. Why do they do this? Because scientists don't have a real explanation, and people like to pretend that they know how things happened. They just can't say "I don't know"-

You can only really speak for yourself. To you I may not be welcome here, that is all you can really say. I find this to be quite a unique atmosphere, where there is a huge diversity of people with different ideas and beliefs. So I therefore am interested in hearing the opinions and reactions to a wide variety of subjects. Here is more information and research for you.... New cellular evolution theory rejects Darwinian assumptions http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/New-cellular-evolution-theory-rejects-Darwinian-assumptions-7362-1/

This is true. I certainly could not have found all this out if I didn't look at both sides. However, I disagree that I have any requirement to present sides if I disagree with them. This topic will bring all sorts of ideas and people with strong opinions on many sides anyways.

Then it's your lucky day, since on this particular subject I did all the research and compiling for you.

No way can a species' brain triple in size in a few million years.

Lessons from Obi Wan.... "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIMXsacUlDA

I like the ancient alien theories about mankind's origins, however I also believe there are other ways to interpret the data presented on that site....

and- CSC - How Should Schools Teach Evolution? Evolution — No longer inspiring the confidence it once did by William Dembski on October 15th, 2006 Video Clip- interviews, molecular biologists and geneticists explaining why the theory of evolution is impossible http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2098198/i/biochem.mov youtube format- DNA was known for thousands of years- ~-_ Planet Art Network _-~ The modern DNA diagrams of today correspond to the anciet pre-natal and pre-heaven I Ching construct. Pre-natal energy is the energy inherited from your parents, whereas the energy of air, water, food etc. is classified as post-natal energy. 5000 years ago the ancients wrote that the pre-natal energy at the microcosmic level inside the body, was constructed in the formation we now know to be DNA. They wrote that what it actually looked like from that level was that inside the human body at the microcosmic level, was like the universe outside the earth and that the human body was a small universe. DNA and pre-natal/pre-heaven qi are the same thing or closely connected- The I Ching and the Genetic Code I Ching Genetic Code HyperDiamond Physics also- http://www.tomshinsky.com/page801.html and- http://myweb.usf.edu/~pkho/yijing/dnatst.htm

Evolution of Apes into Humans in Africa? Yeah Right! and- Not from Apes- Is There a Purpose in Nature? - Giuseppe Sermonti also-

Burger King has vegetarian burgers I think....

Absolutely I have. I used to love the smell of meat, and loved eating it. But when I swtiched to vegetarianism, after about 3-6 months, something changed. After not eating or being around meat for several months, when it was cooked around me, I all of a sudden noticed I couldn't stand the smell, it smelled bad to me. In my case, what I think it was, was that when you don't eat something and aren't around it, you become much more sensitive to it. Beef now smells to me like what fish used to smell like when I was a meat eater. I can't even stand being around fish now. I used to wonder how people in Korea and places like that eat Octopus, raw fish, and things like that. They are just so used to it, so they don't smell them like Western people would.

This thread started out being not about evolution, but one specific aspect of it, endosymbiosis. As the thread grew, other subjects began being intorduced, and now it has ended up being sort of a science vs. spirituality debate. That's all fine with me, but some people are jumping the gun here and getting ahead of themselves.

It's like a lot of rich people are saying now, America is a democracy where you vote with your dollar. To me, this has already happened. It's not happening, or going to happen, it has happened already. I heard they are finding traces of radiation from Japan, in the milk of cows in Spokane Washington. It just got a lot more real. People may not be able to say "oh, that's too bad for them, but it won't effect me" forever.

Evolution rules out free will. A huge amount of the things you do, if you believe evolution, are genetically programmed into you by evolution. You do what you do because your genes make you. Control of your thoughts and programming becomes simply an illusion or delusion. It also means that consiousness is an offshoot of matter and is completely gone when you die. You may claim I am singleing scientists out, but the video showed 3, and not just any 3, but well known and high ranking evolutionists.

Simply put, if evolution is true, then nihilistic atheism is correct. It means that when you die, your consciousness is gone, non existant, forever. No life or existence after death. If you don't believe me about the effects of believing in evolution ask these high level evolutionists. Now although this example may be from a chirstian point of view more than other religions, it applies to all forms of spirituality-

I plan on discussing many things here, including a wide range of different topics. Some specific and some general. I disagree tht my ideas are antithetical to Taoism.

There would be no real spirituality if evolution were true. You see, it means that believing in spirituality is just some evolved mechanism that human instinct created to feel good. Love is simply Altruism now, an evolved chemical reaction in people because helping others would have strengthened your tribe, and having a strong bond with a mate will insure survival of off-spring. If evolution were true then spirituality is simply an evolved mechanism and Love is just chemicals in your brain making you feel that way. Spirituality is simply a survival instinct now, which had some sort of survival benefit to the tribe. If evolution were true, there would be no such thing as spirituality, because there is then no universal morality, there is no meaning to anything, the whole world is random chance and one big accident, there is no such thing as synchronicity. The fact is if you believe in Evolution you don't believe there is a purpose or intelligent meaning behind anything in nature or the formation of the universe. You cannot believe that events or circumstances have a meaning, or synchronistic purpose.

Which came first, matter or mind? Video- Unlocking the Mysteries of Life http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670# It is pretty clear that information, message, and consciousness predated shape, form, or matter. It is mind that existed first, and divine mind which creates all life and form. Form is simply a manifestation, a projection, of mind.