The Evolutionist Error

[moses2792796]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge. Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine, to disprove the existence of the latter. This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times, many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance. It is now that I shall use the example of man as promised, those who know of the realm of being would never assume man to be a purely physical being, just as they would never assume reality to exist only as a manifestation without essence. Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine. This is inherent in animals, although this is the key difference between man and animal. Man is capable of an awareness of this, while animals (with a small degree of doubt) are not.

To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself. This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature. The divine consciousness is eternal and unaffected by how it manifests, in this case, evolution. Evolution was not the cause of man, as many evolutionists would have you believe, man preceded evolution.

[bernee51]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

Really? Why is that?

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge.

You mean like philosophy?

Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine,
to disprove the existence of the latter.

What is an example of 'absolute knowledge'? And can you define 'divine'?

This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times,...

I'm a bit slow today. Can you spell out the logical fallacy for me please.

many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

Was ancient society not corrupt?

By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance.

Do we have cosmic significance? What exactly?

Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine.

Tell me what is 'divine' and what is a 'spiritual connection' to it?

To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself.

What is divine consciousness?

This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature.

So man 'existed' is a 'divne realm' before he physically manifested?

BTW - do you have a question for debate or are you just havig a rave?

[moses2792796]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

Really? Why is that?

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge.

You mean like philosophy?

Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine,
to disprove the existence of the latter.

What is an example of 'absolute knowledge'? And can you define 'divine'?

This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times,...

I'm a bit slow today. Can you spell out the logical fallacy for me please.

many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

Was ancient society not corrupt?

By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance.

Do we have cosmic significance? What exactly?

Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine.

Tell me what is 'divine' and what is a 'spiritual connection' to it?

To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself.

What is divine consciousness?

This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature.

So man 'existed' is a 'divne realm' before he physically manifested?

BTW - do you have a question for debate or are you just havig a rave?

I am better equiped to understand the function of man because I am one lol.

I mean philosophy in its original meaning and more importantly, metaphysic, specifically gnosticism.

Absolute knowledge - not subject to physical laws, transcendent, unchanging, the principles upon which the cosmos is formed

Divine - The spritual force transcending physical reality, philosophically speaking - integralism

The logical fallacy is that scientists use knowledge of a more subjective nature to disprove knowledge of a more objective and certain nature.

Ancient society, in some incarnations did not even come close to rivalling the spiritual corruption of the modern Western nations.

Cosmic significance in that we had an assured place in reality, the fact that we exist proves that the possibility for us to manifest was always a reality.

If you have ever been touched by the divine you will know, if not then start looking at the world differently. Forget materialistic desires for a time and appreciate the beauty in the natural world as a whole.

Divine conciousness - awareness of the divinity of existence

See Cosmic significance for explanantion.

I was simply pointing out that although evolution did happen (probably) there was some issues with its relation to religion that needed clearing up.

[Undertow]

For the purpose of this investigation let us use man as an example of the evolutionist error, for obvious reasons I am better equipped to understand his function than that of other creatures.

The theory of evolution, while not perhaps incorrect in that it occurred in the realm of becoming, has two major flaws. (1) It is rendered largely insignificant in light of the fact that it tends to cause people to overlook knowledge far more important than the theory itself, which has no significance outside the sphere of natural science, which many will know is subordinate to higher forms of knowledge. (2) Evolutionists use this knowledge, which, unlike absolute knowledge, originates in a sphere with no connection to the divine, to disprove the existence of the latter. This is clearly a logical fallacy but is not an uncommon occurrence in modern times, many people will recognise this blatant materialism as a variation on what is virtually an everyday happening in our corrupted modern society.

(3) By making the assumption that we are in fact derivations of the same basic beginnings (which to this day remains an assumption) evolutionists assume that man, and indeed every creature has no cosmic significance. It is now that I shall use the example of man as promised, those who know of the realm of being would never assume man to be a purely physical being, just as they would never assume reality to exist only as a manifestation without essence. Most people can come to the conclusion that man can in fact, come to a state where he has a spiritual connection to the divine. This is inherent in animals, although this is the key difference between man and animal. Man is capable of an awareness of this, while animals (with a small degree of doubt) are not.

(4) To suggest that this Divine consciousness, as we may be tempted to call it, could have developed through purely physical means is preposterous, as it has no form in itself. This essentially leads to the conclusion that man existed before himself (which should have been a certainty anyway) and that evolution was simply a means of him manifesting just like any other creature. The divine consciousness is eternal and unaffected by how it manifests, in this case, evolution. Evolution was not the cause of man, as many evolutionists would have you believe, man preceded evolution.

(1) What knowledge people chose to overlook as a result of learning of evolution isn't a judge on how flawed evolution is.

(2) I don't, I don't appreciate the stereotype and I agree, using evolution to disprove a supernatural concept is a very, very, wrong way of looking at things. It disproves a literal, matter-of-fact reading of genesis, not god. I'm not so sure of the connection with the further rhetoric here. A "corrupted modern materialistic society" is irrelevant if you're purpose is to point flaws in evolution.

(3) No, no, no. Evolution says nothing of value. It says how. Any value you assign to life is up to you and irrelevant as a judge of the flaw of evolution.

(4) In your opinion. Man thinks he has a spiritual connection to the divine. You speculate that animals do (lord knows how you would know this). This does not necessitate the divine nor that all people see things this way. None of these metaphysical and philosophical musings have bearing as judge on the flaw of evolution. Your original assertion of flaw is based on philosophical ideas and can all to easily be misinterpreted. The theory of evolution is like any other science; it deals not with philosophical or metaphysical ideas. To claim flaw based on them is insinuating that evolution considers these things where it does not. Your proposed flaws are thus unwarranted on the basis of your erroneous opinion that evolution must somehow consider philosophical or metaphysical issues.

[bernee51]

I am better equiped to understand the function of man because I am one lol.

Yourt 'understanding' though is a mental construct.

Absolute knowledge - not subject to physical laws, transcendent, unchanging, the principles upon which the cosmos is formed

An example being?

Divine - The spiritual force transcending physical reality, philosophically speaking - integralism

Doesi it exist without the physical?

The logical fallacy is that scientists use knowledge of a more subjective nature to disprove knowledge of a more objective and certain nature.

An example?

Besides I thought it was the other way around. Science strives for objectivity

Ancient society, in some incarnations did not even come close to rivalling the spiritual corruption of the modern Western nations.

What is 'spiritual corruptness'?

...the fact that we exist proves that the possibility for us to manifest was always a reality.

And?

Divine conciousness - awareness of the divinity of existence

And this awareness manifests where? In the mind?

Why is existence 'divine'?

[Conniebell]

My first post on DC&R! Enjoyed reading the presentations. It seems there are only a few very dedicated people but I could be wrong.(usually am) I would ask this to the evolutionists: does it make sense that lightning could change mud into trillions of different life forms - both males and females that are required for reproduction? I would ask this to the religious: does it make sense that an eternal spirit being could give birth to a non-spirit child in the "image and likeness" of the parents? “And the lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7) How can we be in God's image and likeness if we are from mud? "And God made man in His own image, male and female made he them. And He blessed them” (Gen1:27-28) Is God both male and female? Was He also made from mud? Are we not given only two alternatives - both of which make no sense? Could there be a third alternative - one unwelcomed by humanity for personal reasons? Offered in the love we are, Conniebell

[Cathar1950]

My first post on DC&R! Enjoyed reading the presentations. It seems there are only a few very dedicated people but I could be wrong.(usually am) I would ask this to the evolutionists: does it make sense that lightning could change mud into trillions of different life forms - both males and females that are required for reproduction? I would ask this to the religious: does it make sense that an eternal spirit being could give birth to a non-spirit child in the "image and likeness" of the parents? “And the lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7) How can we be in God's image and likeness if we are from mud? "And God made man in His own image, male and female made he them. And He blessed them” (Gen1:27-28) Is God both male and female? Was He also made from mud? Are we not given only two alternatives - both of which make no sense? Could there be a third alternative - one unwelcomed by humanity for personal reasons? Offered in the love we are, Conniebell

Actually you had three accounts two from Genesis and one a poor understanding of evolution.
In Genesis one account says he created then out of mud(most likely borrowed from Sumer via Babylon or Assyria or even the Ugarit) and the other later Priestly version where he creates them in his image both man and woman.
And now you have your first response.

[Goat]

My first post on DC&R! Enjoyed reading the presentations. It seems there are only a few very dedicated people but I could be wrong.(usually am) I would ask this to the evolutionists: does it make sense that lightning could change mud into trillions of different life forms - both males and females that are required for reproduction? I would ask this to the religious: does it make sense that an eternal spirit being could give birth to a non-spirit child in the "image and likeness" of the parents? “And the lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7) How can we be in God's image and likeness if we are from mud? "And God made man in His own image, male and female made he them. And He blessed them” (Gen1:27-28) Is God both male and female? Was He also made from mud? Are we not given only two alternatives - both of which make no sense? Could there be a third alternative - one unwelcomed by humanity for personal reasons? Offered in the love we are, Conniebell

You have to understand Hebrew, and the fact there are basically two creation myths woven together. When 'god created man out of dirt' (bad translation), it is a pun. Adam (man kind) and 'adamah' (red clay) are related linquistically. ALso the term for 'blood' (edom) is related to both those terms. The term 'created' is more along the lines of 'formed' .. as a potter forms clay. As a pun, it would flow along the way 'God formed mankind out of flesh and blood'. It is all a clever word play that did not translate away from the Hebrew very well.

As for God creating mankind in his own image.. that is spiritually, not physically.. (one interpretation at least)

[Assent]

Let me see if I have this right.

You first suggest that evolution, though theoretically correct, causes some people to refuse to see past the physical. You then state that these same people will cause this to mean that there is nothing past the physical.

However, you then say that the physical is not the be-all, end-all of existence and thus that evolution, which is about the physical, cannot be applied beyond its own boundaries.

Now where my confusion arises is from the logic behind the next statement. Surely the "divine consciousness" does not need mankind to exist to be itself? You state that animals are an example of a connection to the divine, yet you say that the divine cannot exist without man? And therefore that humanity must precede itself? If you had said instead, "the Divine cannot have evolved, therefore it existed before evolution" I could at least understand your argument, but as it stands I have a hard time following.

My argument is only as true as you will it to be.
Because of the limits of language, we are all wrong.
This signature is as much for my benefit as for yours.

[Assent]

Let me see if I have this right.

You first suggest that evolution, though theoretically correct, causes some people to refuse to see past the physical. You then state that these same people will cause this to mean that there is nothing past the physical.

However, you then say that the physical is not the be-all, end-all of existence and thus that evolution, which is about the physical, cannot be applied beyond its own boundaries.

Now where my confusion arises is from the logic behind the next statement. Surely the "divine consciousness" does not need mankind to exist to be itself? You state that animals are an example of a connection to the divine, yet you say that the divine cannot exist without man? And therefore that humanity must precede itself? If you had said instead, "the Divine cannot have evolved, therefore it existed before evolution" I could at least understand your argument, but as it stands I have a hard time following.