The So-called "Tree of Life" has been debunked

[Marblehead]

No, in mainstream science journals, by high level scientists in the world's leading universities, and in peer reviewed research.

 

Okay Aaron. Please forgive me for my lack of compassion.

 

 

Immortal4life, that is bullshit and you know it. High level scidntists writing articles for a Christian Fundamentalist movement. Come on!!!!

[Immortal4life]

Debunked only by people who have little or no qualifications for speaking to the issue in the first place.

 

A person who has never understood the theory of evolution and has always accept their religious dogma as the only truth has no right, in my opinion, to speak to the validity of the theory.

 

The theory of evolution is not being debunked except in the eyes of those who wist it to be so but that is only a delusion. The theory has become a fact and to the best of my knowledge no religious dogma has any positive proof that their story of the creation is a demonstrable fact.

 

This is a common piece of misinformation often perpetuated by evolutionists. Sometimes they try to claim that anyone who doubts the theory of evolution, or acknowledges it's weaknesses, is either ignorant of the theory, or has religous motivations. The information cited in this thread alone disproves this notion.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Encephalon]

I think we should put all the "debunking evolutionary theory" threads in a sub-forum or perhaps Immortal4life would start his own forum. This is really tiresome. I, for one, have better things to do than debate with (un)Intelligent Design advocates.

Better yet, maybe he could post on the Kun Lun forum.

I would second that motion. I used to think that his style of aggressive ignorance served no purpose here but keeping him around might be a good idea just to see how far out there he's going to go.

[Marblehead]

Many evolutionists have argued that if you take darwinian evolution completely literally, the natural conclusion is to rule out free will. From a completely materialistic point of view, the actions an individual takes can be attributed to 2 things, genetic programming and societal conditioning. Some people call this theory nature vs. nurture.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuVSIG265b4

 

So I agree with you that when it comes to an understanding of mind and comnsciousness in relation to existence and creation, evolution and modern science itself, are lacking in this respect.

 

Please remember that Darwin was able to speak to only what he and others understood during his time. Many improvements have been made since his time and much more information is now available.

 

Evolution does not negate the human mind and therefore it does not negate free will. Let's not confuse issues here.

[Immortal4life]

Okay Aaron. Please forgive me for my lack of compassion.

 

 

Immortal4life, that is bullshit and you know it. High level scidntists writing articles for a Christian Fundamentalist movement. Come on!!!!

 

The main sources cited in this thread are not Christian or Fundamentalist.

 

When a portion of evolution theory is debunked, that does not mean the scientists doing the debunking were religous, and in this case, it is not connected in any way to Intelligent Design.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

Intelligent Design theory can and does involve evidence, every bit as much as Evolution theory.

 

I herewith challenge you to presest one piece of factual evidence tested using the scientific model that supports ID. Just one is all I am asking for. But it must have been properly tested to prove its validity.

[ralis]

I herewith challenge you to presest one piece of factual evidence tested using the scientific model that supports ID. Just one is all I am asking for. But it must have been properly tested to prove its validity.

 

I have been asking for the same thing and so far nothing!

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

If you don't think issues about the Nature of Life, and Origins of Life, are relevant to your particular spiritual beliefs, I think you are sorely mistaken and short sighted.

 

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues that has been diffcult for all spiritual teachings to resolve, is the spirituality vs. matter issue, or mind vs. matter issue.

 

Different paths have taken different approaches. Some deny matter, and deny material desires. Some say the material world is evil, seperate from the Spiritual realms. Some attempt to use material methods to develop spiritually, while others reject material methods.

 

I believe the issue of the nature and origin of Life, to be fundamental to the spirituality vs. materiality debate.

[Marblehead]

The fact is that it is not only individual species that exist in a state of perfect balance and complexity. The whole round of Nature is in fact one Circle of Life. One interconnected and interdependant cycle. Everything is connected. Everything exists in it's perfect place, in balance and harmony with all else, and is designated to it's proper place within the whole.

 

Complexity and perfect harmony exists at all levels in the universe.

 

I would really love to be able to agree with you on this. From the view of Tao I think that this could actually be a true statement.

 

But, although I am of Tao I am not Tao and therefore I must view things from my own perspective and I really don't think the world is in perfect balance and harmony at this point in time.

[Immortal4life]

I have been asking for the same thing and so far nothing!

 

Maybe you will get what you are asking for at some point....

 

But the fact remains, this particular topic is not actually about Intelligent Design.

[ralis]

I would second that motion. I used to think that his style of aggressive ignorance served no purpose here but keeping him around might be a good idea just to see how far out there he's going to go.

 

I would also like to see where he is going with this. There are many with the same ideology that are trolling forums and using the "wedge technique."

[Marblehead]

It is not true that all Intelligent Design theories have to invoke a God. It has also been argued that evolution theory does not have an adequate explanation of how evolution works.

 

Here is an example of an Intelligent Design theory which does not have to invoke a God as an explanatory mechanism. Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, when faced with how complex DNA and the cell really was, instantly recognized that DNA could not have formed by chance or random processes. He knew some sort of design had to be invovled. He theorized that Life on Earth had been seeded by Extra Terrestrials a very long time ago.

 

Oh No!!! Now aliens from outer space placed everything on earth in exactly the form it is presently in.

 

Now I understand why there have been so many programs on TV recently about flying saucers and aliens.

[Marblehead]

I think we should put all the "debunking evolutionary theory" threads in a sub-forum or perhaps Immortal4life would start his own forum. This is really tiresome. I, for one, have better things to do than debate with (un)Intelligent Design advocates.

Better yet, maybe he could post on the Kun Lun forum.

 

Hehehe. Oh, come on Steve, well, sure, it is not a discussion of Taoism but still, all is Tao so what can I say?

 

But The Immortal One did just make a post that had basis in Taoist Philosophy and I remarked to it.

 

And besides, at the root level this is a discussion that concerns the reality of the Manifest (yo) and the processes within the physical universe.

 

Man follows Earth. The Earth has evolved. Why is there any question as to whether Man has not evolved but was rather placed on Earth in its currently perfect form?

[Marblehead]

This is common piece of misinformation often perpetuated by evolutionists. Sometimes they try to claim that anyone who doubts the theory of evolution, or acknowledges it's weaknesses, is either ignorant of the theory, or has religous motivations. The information cited in this thread alone disproves this notion.

 

I am only following your own example by making unsupported comments. I see no problem there.

 

Yes, I will acknowledge that everything is still not known about the evolution of the universe, of our solar system, of Earth, and of man. There is still much to be learned. But to ignore what has been learned to this point is not acceptable, in my opinion.

[Marblehead]

The main sources cited in this thread are not Christian or Fundamentalist.

 

When a portion of evolution theory is debunked, that does not mean the scientists doing the debunking were religous, and in this case, it is not connected in any way to Intelligent Design.

 

The support for your view on this that I did read or watch did not debunk evolution. They only presented unfounded possible alternatives in a manner that appeared to be knowing. I have seen this kind of writing and talking far too many time to misunderstand it for knowledgeable wisdom.

 

Therefore my statement still stands. It was bullshit.

[Marblehead]

I have been asking for the same thing and so far nothing!

 

Hehehe. I know you have. I'm just trying to help.

[ralis]

Hehehe. I know you have. I'm just trying to help.

 

The more the better! What scares me about his type is the influence gained in setting the public agenda. Whether in politics, "the USA is a Christian Nation" insanity, or even slanting public education in favor of their religious ideology.

Edited May 9, 2011 by ralis

[Marblehead]

If you don't think issues about the Nature of Life, and Origins of Life, are relevant to your particular spiritual beliefs, I think you are sorely mistaken and short sighted.

 

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues that has been diffcult for all spiritual teachings to resolve, is the spirituality vs. matter issue, or mind vs. matter issue.

 

Different paths have taken different approaches. Some deny matter, and deny material desires. Some say the material world is evil, seperate from the Spiritual realms. Some attempt to use material methods to develop spiritually, while others reject material methods.

 

I believe the issue of the nature and origin of Life, to be fundamental to the spirituality vs. materiality debate.

 

Okay. This is a valid point of discussion, I think.

 

This relates to the condition of man's interactions within the state/condition of 'yo', the Manifest, and the state/condition of 'wu', the spiritual.

 

I don't consider this a 'mind vs matter' issue though. I think it is more at how does a person reconcile their religious beliefs with the realities of the universe? It is my understanding tha science deals with the physical world and religion is supposed to deal with the spiritual world. The two should be able to find a why for a person to be able to accept both the facts that science has thus far proven and the figurative teachings of their religion. Please note that I said "figurative teachings".

 

There are many excellent lessons to be learned from reading the Christian Bible. But these made-up stories should not be considered scientific proofs of anything. They are stories attempting to teach lessons.

[Marblehead]

The more the better! What scares me about his type is the influence gained in setting the public agenda. Whether in politics, "the USA is a Christian Nation" insanity, or even slanting public education in favor of their religious ideology.

 

Yep. I hold firmly to the ideal of separation of Church and State, State including our educational system.

 

But I do think it is a good idea to have at the high schoold level a program devoted to "Religions Of The World". Afterall, religion is a very important part of the life of many people.

[Encephalon]

Hehehe. Oh, come on Steve, well, sure, it is not a discussion of Taoism but still, all is Tao so what can I say?

 

But The Immortal One did just make a post that had basis in Taoist Philosophy and I remarked to it.

 

And besides, at the root level this is a discussion that concerns the reality of the Manifest (yo) and the processes within the physical universe.

 

Man follows Earth. The Earth has evolved. Why is there any question as to whether Man has not evolved but was rather placed on Earth in its currently perfect form?

 

His presence and his agenda offend me deeply because they are antithetical to the spirit of Taoism. From the first day he landed he's been busy foisting a division between TTB members, dividing our community into two falsely polarized camps; theists, "believers" and creationists in one camp who aren't up to speed on modern science but have a taste for superstition and metaphysics, and atheists who champion evolution under the banner of secular humanism. The end result is an annhilation of the middle ground where enlightened agnosticism and fluidity of thought find sure footing. This also happens to be where a good bit of Taoist and Buddhist thought find sanctuary, where ambiguity and unknowing are accepted, even welcomed, in lieu of "fairy tales and illogical explanations" as Deng Ming-Dao puts it. On either rigid extreme, theism or atheism, all the wonder, mystery, ambiguity, and nuance cease to figure. Divide and conquer - this has been the agenda of American religious conservatives for decades, people too imaginatively impoverished to be courageous in the face of unknowing.

 

Their music sucks too.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Blasto

[Encephalon]

Yep. I hold firmly to the ideal of separation of Church and State, State including our educational system.

 

But I do think it is a good idea to have at the high schoold level a program devoted to "Religions Of The World". Afterall, religion is a very important part of the life of many people.

 

Absolutely. I get the honor and priviledge to homeschool my new daughter (ever read "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"? Scary stuff!)

The World's Religions by Huston Smith is going to be a standard, just like it is in colleges throughout the land. I have at least 30 titles that I'll be using jsut for this subject alone. "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas is near the top of the list too.

 

Tai Po

Edited May 9, 2011 by Blasto

[Marblehead]

Absolutely. I get the honor and priviledge to homeschool my new daughter (ever read "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"? Scary stuff!)

The World's Religions by Huston Smith is going to be a standard, just like it is in colleges throughout the land. I have at least 30 titles that I'll be using jsut for this subject alone. "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas is near the top of the list too.

 

Tai Po

 

Yeah, home-schooling is a great challenge. My best friend's wife is home-schooling her grandson.

 

No, I have never read "Dumbing Us Down" but I have heard comments about it and have had discussions concerning the concept. And I agree, it is scary stuff.

 

And yes, I think our youth should have at least a basic understanding of the religions of the world before leaving high school.

 

My wishes for the best at home-schooling your daughter. It will be a challenge for both of you.

[effilang]

http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html

[Immortal4life]

The support for your view on this that I did read or watch did not debunk evolution. They only presented unfounded possible alternatives in a manner that appeared to be knowing. I have seen this kind of writing and talking far too many time to misunderstand it for knowledgeable wisdom.

 

Therefore my statement still stands. It was bullshit.

 

If you are going to make claims and accusations like these, you will have to give specific examples.

[Immortal4life]

His presence and his agenda offend me deeply because they are antithetical to the spirit of Taoism.

 

LOL!

 

From the first day he landed he's been busy foisting a division between TTB members, dividing our community into two falsely polarized camps; theists, "believers" and creationists in one camp who aren't up to speed on modern science but have a taste for superstition and metaphysics, and atheists who champion evolution under the banner of secular humanism. The end result is an annhilation of the middle ground where enlightened agnosticism and fluidity of thought find sure footing. This also happens to be where a good bit of Taoist and Buddhist thought find sanctuary, where ambiguity and unknowing are accepted, even welcomed, in lieu of "fairy tales and illogical explanations" as Deng Ming-Dao puts it. On either rigid extreme, theism or atheism, all the wonder, mystery, ambiguity, and nuance cease to figure. Divide and conquer - this has been the agenda of American religious conservatives for decades, people too imaginatively impoverished to be courageous in the face of unknowing.

 

Their music sucks too.

 

You have a strange view of things....

 

You also are very extreme, and very black and white yourself, yet project your own extremism on others....