Should we do AP

[theAbsolute]

I assume that there are no evolutionists here, since we all experienced something higher than that, something that proves there are higher entities and that we are not only flesh and bones.

But, speaking with some wise Christians, I was judged doing AP. They said that all creatures I met in AP are demons. Even those that showed me love, or looked like someone familiar - was a demon.
I don't have  a way to disprove that, even I don't want to think they are right.

Also, I'm not sure if scripture tells us much about AP.

[Kzaal]

I assume that there are no evolutionists here, since we all experienced something higher than that, something that proves there are higher entities and that we are not only flesh and bones.

But, speaking with some wise Christians, I was judged doing AP. They said that all creatures I met in AP are demons. Even those that showed me love, or looked like someone familiar - was a demon.
I don't have  a way to disprove that, even I don't want to think they are right.

Also, I'm not sure if scripture tells us much about AP.

Everything that is surnatural and is not directly linked with christianity is a demon seen from their point of view.
What happens when they die? They go to the exact same place we(AP'ers), been going all our life. I wouldn't want to see their faces...
What I mean by that is, even if there was such a paradise like they see it, they would never be able to stay there forever because they'd get bored.
Having a little party with Jesus and everything is beautiful. But for how long? When they'll want to do something else they'll leave and that's where the catch is, once you leave, they'll assume they'll want to go back to reality which will just put them in another reincarnation.
There are laws... Universal laws, until you successfully finish what you came here for, that you are spiritually evolved and you understand theses laws you won't have to go back. You'll have better things to do.

The only real paradise is the one you make for yourself. It could be travelling in all the cosmos and being an observer. Or it could be you guarding someone on the right path who was special to you in your afterlife.

There is nothing evil about AP'ing. It only shows you your true self.
Christians deny AP because they are scared of their true identity and the fact that they are "Linked" from this reality and are following a specific religion would make them deny it because it does not follow the bible. Or it does but they've been thought all their life that it didn't.
Just be yourself.

If they are wise christians like you said, they shouldn't judge you by what you're attempting. Wise men only listen.
When you AP, you are directly in contact with your emotions and when you want to know more of "love" you'll be shown what love is. It's not about demons and entities and whatnot, it's about who you are. How you react to the situations you are facing.

I've always felt that AP wasn't about meeting creatures that could exist in space or across the universe but more about knowing yourself.
Knowing yourself, knowing who you really are as much spiritually as when you look yourself in a mirror(and see yourself clearly). That is the real challenge.

They are not ready to be in Paradise, the same way as when Jesus told them the Church was not the building... That it was that place inside their heart.
The real paradise is not the place... it's the thing that drive them to keep going, the thing that will never make them feel bored.
If they can't understand that their Paradise is not a fixed place where all good Christians go to, and that the astral realm they fear so much is actually without physical barriers then, they'll just be stuck there until they want to see more and when they'll actually see more they'll want to go back because they have not prepared for what the astral realm is.

The only way to prepare for the astral realm is to AP, and to know yourself. No sins involved. Only you can judge yourself. (because you know yourself and because you are always honest with yourself) even if you're a mythomaniac.

[Stillwater]

I am an evolutionist.

I never understood why people chose THAT as their battleground. I don't see what there is in modern evolutionary theory that a Christian should take issue with, nor honestly do I see what in the projection experience relates to evolution, and proving or disproving it.

Also, I'm not sure if scripture tells us much about AP.

The Vedic Upanishad scriptures say a good deal about projection. There is also a bit in Jewish Kaballah about projecting via a "Merkabah Vehicle", which I take to mean a belief about projecting with a subtle body.
There are certain Bible passages that are said to relate to projection as well, but you have to use a bit of imagination there. The burning bush, Jacob wrestling the angel, and a few other instances have been interpreted in this context.

I think you need to filter what these folks are saying to you. Don't disregard them, but consider what they are saying carefully. Is it possible that they are merely attributing things which they have no experience with or understanding of to demons? Will they make similar conclusions about any other practices? And if so, what basis do they have for making these claims? Is the reasoning that anything outside of Biblical discussion isn't meant for man? Consider that no scientific discovery over the last 2000 years appears in the Bible explicitly. Wouldn't this make every part of the modern world demonic?

Hope that help!

[theAbsolute]

@Kzaal

Well, we can't know what paradise could look like. Maybe it is what you described.

I totally agree with everything you wrote, and I think that same. But still, I can't prove they aren't right. See my point?

@Stillwater

You are a gap theorist I assume, because evolutionist wouldn't admit there is something such as AP. According to evolution, we are random mutations without anything spiritual.

I don't think they don't have experience with it. Almost every pope, at least in my country, would have a lot experience to share. Not that they practice AP like we do, but in some other way. All in all, AP is happening every night, sometimes we are aware, sometimes not, right? They can't run from it, they are just saying that we should be careful with all that entities.

What basis do they have to claim such things? Good question, but how can I show them they are possibly not right, that's my question.
Bible is not scientific book, it isn't there to teach us lab experiments.

[Rakkso]

What basis do they have to claim such things? Good question, but how can I show them they are possibly not right, that's my question.
Bible is not scientific book, it isn't there to teach us lab experiments.

Your views are clearly adequeate for you yourself, just in the same way as they were for me. So first of All, congratulations for comming up here looking for answers, trying to get the juice that is not there in textbooks and much less in mouths to deaf ears.

In my experience, I have wanted to change the way people view things too, but I found my perception of things wasn't always the absolute or ultimate opinion, and everyone possesed different subjective views based on what they had experienced so far regarding something specific, no matter how good hearted my intentions were.

It all cascaded, after 3 years of trying to understand, and I saw that I was questioning everything, but had not questioned myself first of all. If you really want to understand, you must adopt an open mind setting, so that information can be clearly held without any judgment from you, absolute answers might not come to you inmediatly. Why dont we figure out why we do what we do until much later in time? so I say, give time, and you shall get your answers if you pursue them yourself.

[Stillwater]

You are a gap theorist I assume, because evolutionist wouldn't admit there is something such as AP. According to evolution, we are random mutations without anything spiritual.

I think I see the thought pattern you are using here. I think the problem is that you are extending the theory of evolution past the claims that it actually makes. Standard evolution does indeed posit that humans are the result of cumulative mutations adding up over time. In fact it doesn't say significantly more than that. It makes no claims, positively or negatively, about any spiritual aspect any being or organism may or may not possess. That is a different part of science and philosophy altogether.

Now while it is true that the majority of evolutionists hold the view you describe, it is not true that that view is part of evolutionary theory. It is an entirely different view called "reductive materialism". What reductive materialism states, is that all a human mind is, is in fact a product of the material world, namely the matter of brains; they reduce all concept of mind to material , in otherwords.

So most evolutionists are reductive materialists, but reductive materialism is not part of evolutionary theory. I can see why people associate the two, but they are in fact distinct viewpoints, neither of which really entails the other if you are honest.

Honestly I think Christians actually mean to take issue with reductive materialism, but don't know enough about the mind-body problem (to which it is one of the alternative answers), and many don't have the language terms to know what their actual target is. For what it is worth, the Christian perspective is generally thought of as a "Dualist" alternative solution, and the solution I support is called "Monism of Mind" (in Christian terminology, this would mean that I only posit the existence of soul/mind, and I think that matter is a kind of illusion created by mind).

I don't think they don't have experience with it. Almost every pope, at least in my country, would have a lot experience to share. Not that they practice AP like we do, but in some other way. All in all, AP is happening every night, sometimes we are aware, sometimes not, right? They can't run from it, they are just saying that we should be careful with all that entities

Yes, many Catholic practices are very much like meditative practices, despite the viewpoint being different. Long form rosary prayer being one famous example, that will lead to some interesting experiences if practiced long enough.

[Rakkso]

So most evolutionists are reductive materialists, but reductive materialism is not part of evolutionary theory. I can see why people associate the two, but they are in fact distinct viewpoints, neither of which really entails the other if you are honest.

Most people have no knowledge on philosophy, I do not posses much for an instance. This is interesting, I didn't know that, thank you. let me see If I understood this correctly, "reductive materialism" (raw patterns of matter moving in space) is not behind the magnificent orchestration that has lead life just here on Earth to the point were it locates today as system? (Evolutionary theory)
If so, could be also possible that, it Should state that it lead, at least, to its beggining? And then, Something took the rails to put evolution where it is located now?

Also, hypothetically, If I were to be God, and I want to create a world were life can (according to my God imagination) ride and move through the air, and let them be happy living in abundance all over the world, AS my ultime desire... Shouldn't I send out the info, to create the matter, that would in turn become itself a perfect echosystem for life to grow, so than evolution (my God patterned original idea) can start doing its thing (also my idea since I can add 1 plus 1 to be 2), so that in the end I can have humans (Unfolding idea) that can take raw matter and make metal, and then build things with metal, to build bigger things of metal, until they can make a bycicle capable of riding through the air somhow?? (final idea unfolded after a gazzilion bazzilion of years that to me God where a second, or less. lol)

What I mean to say is, a ball is not just a ball, but its ultimate purpose to be played, to which it was crafted through industry and materials and equipment and etc, which was thought by god, months ago before the ball was finished, and all the process in between is just that, the process in between??. I do not know if I'm making myself clear expressing my idea...

[Stillwater]

This is interesting, I didn't know that, thank you. let me see If I understood this correctly, "reductive materialism" (raw patterns of matter moving in space) is not behind the magnificent orchestration that has lead life just here on Earth to the point were it locates today as system? (Evolutionary theory)
If so, could be also possible that, it Should state that it lead, at least, to its beggining? And then, Something took the rails to put evolution where it is located now?

Reductive materialism is probably the closest thing there is to a viewpoint that disallows there being anything like spirit. It is very difficult to have a metaphysical world in this view system. Not only is this view "raw patterns moving in space", but also that there only exists matter, and nothing else. In such materialism, nothing can take the reins, because nothing else exists. In Dualism, spirit could take the reins. In Monism of mind, mind had the reins all along and the matter was a sort of simulation within mind (this is my view).

Evolution, on the other hand, only tells us about the way life developed in stages on earth. It tells us nothing about who or what may have started it, or what spiritual qualities that life might have- thus evolution is compatible with pretty much all the major religions.

[theAbsolute]

Your views are clearly adequeate for you yourself, just in the same way as they were for me. So first of All, congratulations for comming up here looking for answers, trying to get the juice that is not there in textbooks and much less in mouths to deaf ears.

In my experience, I have wanted to change the way people view things too, but I found my perception of things wasn't always the absolute or ultimate opinion, and everyone possesed different subjective views based on what they had experienced so far regarding something specific, no matter how good hearted my intentions were.

It all cascaded, after 3 years of trying to understand, and I saw that I was questioning everything, but had not questioned myself first of all. If you really want to understand, you must adopt an open mind setting, so that information can be clearly held without any judgment from you, absolute answers might not come to you inmediatly. Why dont we figure out why we do what we do until much later in time? so I say, give time, and you shall get your answers if you pursue them yourself.

Definitely what I am doing right now. I got advices from people I think they are more experienced and intelligent than me, so I'm posting it here as I can hear some more opinions. Cheers.

[theAbsolute]

I think I see the thought pattern you are using here. I think the problem is that you are extending the theory of evolution past the claims that it actually makes. Standard evolution does indeed posit that humans are the result of cumulative mutations adding up over time. In fact it doesn't say significantly more than that. It makes no claims, positively or negatively, about any spiritual aspect any being or organism may or may not possess. That is a different part of science and philosophy altogether.

Now while it is true that the majority of evolutionists hold the view you describe, it is not true that that view is part of evolutionary theory. It is an entirely different view called "reductive materialism". What reductive materialism states, is that all a human mind is, is in fact a product of the material world, namely the matter of brains; they reduce all concept of mind to material , in otherwords.

So most evolutionists are reductive materialists, but reductive materialism is not part of evolutionary theory. I can see why people associate the two, but they are in fact distinct viewpoints, neither of which really entails the other if you are honest.

Honestly I think Christians actually mean to take issue with reductive materialism, but don't know enough about the mind-body problem (to which it is one of the alternative answers), and many don't have the language terms to know what their actual target is. For what it is worth, the Christian perspective is generally thought of as a "Dualist" alternative solution, and the solution I support is called "Monism of Mind" (in Christian terminology, this would mean that I only posit the existence of soul/mind, and I think that matter is a kind of illusion created by mind).

Yes, many Catholic practices are very much like meditative practices, despite the viewpoint being different. Long form rosary prayer being one famous example, that will lead to some interesting experiences if practiced long enough.

Oh ok, you were referring to micro-evolution only. Mutations are fact, but something completely not clear to the science. I wouldn't say we can understand our origins using mutations.

Interesting theory about how everything non material is actually a product of material, but I don't think there is something to support that theory. Mind telling me more about your point of view?

[Stillwater]

I also feel that it should be obvious that over the course of billions of years, micro-evolutions add up to macro-evolutions. Lampreys become Giraffes. Jellyfish become Turtles. It isn't fast, but I think the fossil record and genetic records clearly demonstrate the passage of the genetic lineage from single-celled organisms to humans.

I wouldn't say we can understand our origins using mutations.

I think we can clearly show the passage of mankind out of single celled creatures. Again, I think you are connecting evolution to mind-body philosophy, from which it is entirely separate. The part of the human that evolution doesn't describe is our minds, but then evolution isn't making metaphysical claims, it is making claims about physical organisms.

Interesting theory about how everything non material is actually a product of material, but I don't think there is something to support that theory.

Not only is it an interesting theory, it is the dominant model between all of the natural and physical sciences for the last 200 years. It is accepted as uncontested fact by more or less the entire scientific community today.

Mind telling me more about your point of view?

Sure 

I will preface by saying that I think the primary problem of modern philosophy is the mind-body problem that we have been dancing around in this discussion. In fact, Modern philosophy began around 1641 when Descartes recognized this problem and helped make it the focus of philosophy from then on. The problem is roughly:

How is it that we have this thing called a physical body, that has mass, volume, and physical properties, and that we have this other thing called a mind, that has none of these things, and seems to exist in non-material space? Why does the body seem to have power over the mind, and vice versa? How are they even related? How can something nonmaterial interact with something material?

There are many solutions to this problem, but there are three main ones, and then variations of those three, and then odd special case solutions that are rarely held.

As noted, the solution that modern science espouses is Materialism. Materialism states that we in fact don't have a non-physical mind, but rather some peculiar effect of physical brains, that only appears to be non-physical in nature. This is the most obvious solution, and the easiest one to support; clearly, anything that happens to the brain has a profound effect on the mind. It very much appears that the mind is merely an effect conjured by a functioning brain. Nonetheless, I think this is the wrong answer. David Chalmers' "hard problem of consciousness" illustrates why I feel materialism is inadequate, if you would like to read up on that. Basically, it states that the mind is ontologically distinct from physical matter. It is composed of "first person experiences". There is absolutely nothing in the physical world that even resembles an experience. It is not entirely clear how a brain can get matter to produce experiences when it bears absolutely no resemblence to them. In fact, I think it is impossible to show this, without the use of exotic solutions, such as protopsychism,  which posits that physical matter is actually conscious on some level, and the brain is simply manipulating the consciousness matter already possesses. I find this very strange, honestly.

Now the solution that Christianity supports is substance dualism- namely that we have a mind and a body. I reject this solution too, because it is nonsensical to me. It doesn't make sense that we would have a material and immaterial element, and that these would be entirely separate, and yet somehow still interact. How does a physical object have an effect on an immaterial thing that doesn't exist in spacetime? And if the physical could effect the non-physical, wouldn't that just mean the non-physical thing was in fact physical, and that would in turn bring us back to materialism? For this reason, I cannot support dualism.

The final answer, which is held by few people today, but you will find many on this site supporting, is Monism of mind. That view states that we in fact have only a mind, and that mind is nonphysical. Any appearance of having a body or living in a physical world is in fact just an idea, and not a physical system. I think the more you consider this view, the more enticing it becomes. Consider that we have no way of actually experiencing a physical object such as an apple, except by ideas and sensations. These sensations are the only sense we even have of the apple. Why does the apple need to exist at all? I would say the apple does not exist, at least not as anything but as an idea (I understand the semantic problem with "real" and "exists", but that is a language issue, and let's set that aside for ease of understanding here.)

Considered from another direction, Monism of mind is the only one of the three solutions that isn't burdened by an unsolveable problem. Materialism is burdened with explaining how we have a mind which in no way resembles any physical properties. Dualism is burdened with explaining how physical and non-physical could interact, without the non-physical being rendered physical by the very fact of their interaction, and thus defaulting back to materialism. Monism has no such burden. Because all we have of a physical world are our ideas of it, there is no need for these ideas and sensations to be anything beyond that.

Now since I am a monist of mind, rather than a materialist as most modern evolutionists, why do I support evolution? Well I think that is simple. The appearance of the physical system (I guess you can think of it as a physical simulation) is governed by rules and laws which are both observeable and predictable. It is extremely mechanical in that sense. And if we want to know about its history, we can simply extrapolate those laws in reverse, and there is a mountain of evidence that supports this practice. To be clear, I think evolution explains to humans the history of the physical simulation we are currently experiencing. Explaining the nature of minds, or the simulation itself is another matter, unrelated to merely extrapolating history.

[theAbsolute]

Well, had a long research on this topic and I don't believe in millions of years at all. Also, I don't think that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. Those are only assumptions, and a wrong ones.

I would have million questions now. May I?

[Volgerle]

Darwinian Evolution is actually pretty disproven nowadays among open-minded thinkers. Too many logical gaps and no ... humans can not at all be proven to have developed from any single cell organism. It's just a wild assumption.

The necessary and impending (althouhg it might take us still some decades to get there) does not exclude the more broader term "Evolution" which also incorporates the spiritual and 'universal' aspect.

I'd like to quote A. Risi who summarises this idea under his term 'involution':

Every worldview has to be based on the assumption of an original and absolute source. According to Darwinism, its source is matter in its abstract "original" form as energy. In creationism, its source is a creator who is only revealed by one individual denominationally defined doctrine.

From the involutionary perspective, the source is the "all-including consciousness" which encompasses all that is relative. All "relative" (all that has been created) is "consciousness" after all, i. e. individual Being, since the "absolute" (God)—in a literal meaning—is also individual: "indivisible and undivided." Hence, God as absolute individuality is both transcendent and immanently omnipresent, and is not divided into past and future. So consciousness in its essence is not subject to space and time. This holds valid for God's consciousness as well as for our own consciousness!

And this is how "Creation" occurs:

Original matter and cosmos emerge from the absolute, eternal background of God's and all spiritual beings' individuality (in cycles), through an "interdimensional evolution" (involution) from the higher, less dense levels of matter down to the dimension where matter is most dense. While the everlasting is always present in the background (immanently and transcendentally), time and space (universe) come into existence through a divine creation and therein firstly the highest, less dense dimensional world. This highest plane, "heaven," includes all other parallel worlds which then—as time passes by, or rather, in the course of space and time—will evolve from one another through "involution."  Most mystery traditions distinguish seven levels of dimension.

The explanatory model of involution is based on the assumption of absoluteness of individuality (not absoluteness of matter) and accepts that the cosmos is multidimensional: consciousness and life as original principle are absolute and eternal realities. The different levels of life (dimensions) and creatures come into existence as a "reflection" based on the characteristic "models" of the next higher dimensions, i. e. the "original image" of the absolute consciousness.

In simpler terms: "God created man in His own image."

Source: http://science-of-involution.org/en/Involution.html

[Stillwater]

I don't believe in millions of years at all.

I don't think we are going to agree about very much if we don't agree on this. Every indication is that the earth is several billion years old.

Also, I don't think that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution.

If you drop a bucket of sand on the floor every hour for 3 billion years, you will have a mountain won't you? At the very least, you will have a very large volume of sand. Why wouldn't mutations add up over time?

Those are only assumptions, and a wrong ones.

Where do you take issue with them? What is the alternative, which evidence supports? There is an overwhelming body of evidence that depicts the entire story of the development of life, that we can describe in excruciating detail. I can pull up hundreds of examples that show very close relationships between all of the plants and animals in the tree of life. And the effect is cumulative. You can show that members in the middle of the tree have features that all members following them possess, and that no members prior to them possess. This is on the biomolecular level and the macrostructural level as well. It boggles my mind that all of the life on earth would have very clear and traceable patterns of development between them, and yet not be descendants of one another. If it failed to be true, it would mean that lierally every single organism, including man, was engineered by some being to trick us.

I would have million questions now. May I? Smiley

Sure, Absolutely

[Stillwater]

humans can not at all be proven to have developed from any single cell organism. It's just a wild assumption.

If humans are not descended from single celled organisms, then where did the multicellular organisms we came from develop? And why are the simplest multicelluar organisms incredibly related to their single-celled predesesors?

Suppose you came to a construction site, full of bricks, wood, power tools, and workers, and in the middle of the site, was a partially built building, which the workers were currently visibly working on.

Now suppose there were two people there watching. One person told you that the workers built the building, and that it took them 2 months so far. The other person told you that the building spotaneously came into existence, and the workers and the job site around it were just confusing the matter. Furthermore, this person didn't witness it actually happen, but they knew it to be the case anyhow.

Which of these two people would you be more likely to believe?

Evolution is exactly like that. We can see the bricks and wood. We can see the power tools. We can see the workers. We can see it happening now as we speak, just as the workers were building the building.

The person who said the building sprang into existence has a lot of stuff to explain away, and the other person has a pretty easy time making their argument. Saying evolution didn't happen is about the same situation- it isn't as easy as simply saying it is an assumption, you also have to explain away the evidence which would fill an entire library. That is a tall order.

And this is how "Creation" occurs:

Original matter and cosmos emerge from the absolute, eternal background of God's and all spiritual beings' individuality (in cycles), through an "interdimensional evolution" (involution) from the higher, less dense levels of matter down to the dimension where matter is most dense. While the everlasting is always present in the background (immanently and transcendentally), time and space (universe) come into existence through a divine creation and therein firstly the highest, less dense dimensional world. This highest plane, "heaven," includes all other parallel worlds which then—as time passes by, or rather, in the course of space and time—will evolve from one another through "involution."  Most mystery traditions distinguish seven levels of dimension.

That is all well and good, but logically if this was the explanation for all the plants and animals on earth, then they wouldn't be closely related. Each one would be separate from the others in its structure. At the very least, they wouldn't have the clear and concise appearance of a common sequential biological history. Why would such a thing be invented, when it would be not only a lie, but a deliberate attempt to purposefully hide the truth?

[theAbsolute]

But that is something you just learned in school. There are no scientific experiments that could verify those assumptions. Actually, it's impossible to make empirical tests of such kind.
All the greatest scientists were creationists: Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Pascal...All modern science  indicates that evolution is a fairy tale, and not much more of that.

To respond to your question where all the organisms came from; that's easy. We were created. God created us.

[Stillwater]

There are no scientific experiments that could verify those assumptions.

Why would it be impossible? Several experiments are currently ongoing depicting macroevolution today.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

There is an experiment that has tracked a single colony of E. Coli Bacteria and its descendents over 27 years, and 50,000 generations+. Some of the descendents are already so different that they are essentially a new species. They eat totally different food from the original bacteria they descended from, and can now metabolize citrate, whereas E. Coli is famous for not being able to do that. The descendents are already more different from one another than dogs and cats. And that is after only 27 years, with most of the change happening in the earliest years, as the bacteria evolved to suit their fitness to new environments.

All the greatest scientists were creationists: Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Pascal

It is worth noting that you picked scientists exclusively from a certain time period and geographic locus. You of course left out Archimedes, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and Democritus.

Also of note, being that you list Einstein, he is quoted saying that "Religion without science is blind".

We were created. God created us.

You are making an error that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. They are not. If God created man, then evolution from simpler organisms is clearly the way it was done.

But that is something you just learned in school.

And how is that different from saying, "But that is just something you learned in Bible school"? And as far as I can see, there is no place in the Bible where it is declared that the diversity of life was not created via evolution. Can you show me some Bible verses that state this?

All modern science  indicates that evolution is a fairy tale, and not much more of that.

I am puzzled by this. Earlier you state that science cannot provide experiments depicting evolution (which it in fact has, as referenced above), but now you are stating that there is in fact experimental evidence that evolution has not happened. Can you provide me with those studies? If all of modern science is saying this, surely there must be a few?

[theAbsolute]

Why would it be impossible? Several experiments are currently ongoing depicting macroevolution today.

We can't observe macro-evolution and we only assume it could happen. Everything else is propaganda and lies. If you just believe someone who dresses up as scientists, that's your problem. You shouldn't believe authorities. Believe in facts.

Bacterias are still bacterias. People eat different food as well. We are meant to eat vegetables, but we eat meat. But we are still humans.

You are making an error that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. They are not. If God created man, then evolution from simpler organisms is clearly the way it was done.

That just doesn't make sense, and Earth is clearly not millions of years old.

And how is that different from saying, "But that is just something you learned in Bible school"? And as far as I can see, there is no place in the Bible where it is declared that the diversity of life was not created via evolution. Can you show me some Bible verses that state this?

I have no idea what Bible school is.
Very first page, very first verse. It says that God created everything - space, matter, time, living things and everything. It also says that Earth is young and not millions years old. Do you think that evolution is possible in several thousands of years? If so, that's different.

I am puzzled by this. Earlier you state that science cannot provide experiments depicting evolution (which it in fact has, as referenced above), but now you are stating that there is in fact experimental evidence that evolution has not happened. Can you provide me with those studies? If all of modern science is saying this, surely there must be a few?

Again, Earth is clearly young, so evolution is not possible. You twisted my words a bit.

[Stillwater]

Everything else is propaganda and lies. If you just believe someone who dresses up as scientists, that's your problem.

So a study can be done in multiple locations, for over 27 years, in the present time today, but you know for a fact it is a lie. Why is anything you need to be false a lie?

It clearly implies the question, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the right one? The Bible doesn't tell us how to read it.

That just doesn't make sense, and Earth is clearly not millions of years old.

There is clearly evidence for the history of a long earth history. How is it that there are fossils of creatures buried in rock for hundreds of yards down, and not only that, but the deeper down you go, the further back the creatures date to? How is it that the shape of Africa and the Americas lines up perfectly, showing that they were once one continent? If the earth was to be 5000 years old, at what point did those continents move apart, and how fast did it happen? There are dozens of facts like this.

What scientific facts out in the physical world clearly tell you the earth is very young?

I have no idea what Bible school is.

Sunday School.

Very first page, very first verse. It says that God created everything - space, matter, time, living things and everything.

Most people read Genesis as metaphors, but there are those who believe in 7 literal days of creation- so you must believe then that the Bible is meant to be read literally. 

Let us go to Leviticus:

Leviticus11:4-7

Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

The Bible clearly tells us that pigs and rabbits should not be eaten ever. Do you believe and follow this?

Leviticus 19:19

Observe my statutes. You are not to let your cattle breed with a different species. You are not to sow your fields with two different kinds of seeds. You are not to wear clothing made from two different kinds of material.

The Bible tells us that we should not have two kinds of seeds sown in one field. Do you investigate your food to ensure this is so?

Do you examine the clothing you are about to wear to ensure that you are not wearing two kinds of fabric at once?

Leviticus 19:27

Do not trim off the hair on your temples or trim your beards.

I am assuming you have a big beard, right?

If you are ignoring any of these laws of Leviticus, why are you doing that?

[theAbsolute]

No, I know it's propaganda because they say it's science but it's just a religion, nothing scientific in it.

You are completely right, I believe Bible should be read literally.

Fossils proves that there are fossils. How do you know how old are they?

Sunday and Bible schools are pretty much western terms, we have ordinary schools where you have to study hard.

Meat damages our health, of course we shouldn't eat it. Two seeds on one land? Ask any country man, and he will tell you the same. One seed each year, every year different seed! Golden rule if you won't to grow up some culture.

I do trim my hear and beard, but maybe we're wrong doing that. How do you know? Samson has his strength in his hair. Just a myth? Maybe it was based on a real story. We are certainly degrading, not evolving. People used to be smarter, so I would listen to such advices.

[Stillwater]

Meat damages our health, of course we shouldn't eat it.

Well, at least we will agree on one point here.

For me... I simply think it is unnecessary, so why cause the harm?

Dead dog's white teeth 

[Rakkso]

Ok I dont know where to start lol

First of all, Lampreys are not for the Feint of heart.

Well, had a long research on this topic and I don't believe in millions of years at all. Also, I don't think that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. Those are only assumptions, and a wrong ones.

Hi, you say you want evidence, since you look like the kind of person who believes everything the Tv says, I can start by pointing you to watch the First episode of the Discovery Network Series "Cosmos" a remade of the old series by Carl Seagan.
Not only it is interesting to watch, it even describes and quotes directly from the andals of modern science saying the the Universe so far is 13.something Billion years old. And earth is a lot less but it is still Millions, another silly example you might have heard or not, ever since we grow up Tv and Child books tell about how the Dinosaurs were extinguished some 64million years ago. thats millions, again. If you studied Universal History or whatever in Highschool, I know they taught you about the Paleolitic and Mesolitic Ages, and/or Cave paintings, (thats all over regular books too, but not in the Bible). Again just a tiny little microscopical glimpse, of the history the Bible does not speak of in its 2000years of confusing people and minds due to misinterpretation.

Only in Exodus God commands Moses to take the promised lands, and he taked them by the sword and blood and fire, not a pretty sight and much less why would God want us to imitate such Barbaric behaviours...?

To respond to your question where all the organisms came from; that's easy. We were created. God created us.

Yes, in this you are right.

We can't observe macro-evolution and we only assume it could happen. Everything else is propaganda and lies. If you just believe someone who dresses up as scientists, that's your problem. You shouldn't believe authorities. Believe in facts.

Bacterias are still bacterias. People eat different food as well. We are meant to eat vegetables, but we eat meat. But we are still humans.

I apologize if Im mistaken in this, but where do you consider Macro-evolution starts happening?? If something as macrocosmical as you and me, then scientist have been mengling with mouse, chimpaces, dogs, and many other animals in laboratories looking for a perfect specimen, you see a common example in the breeding of similar kinds of dogs. (Imagine what they do to hopeless humans in secret labs lol) If you refer to Macro-evolution as in planetary, celestial corpus, then, the Guys in NASA have plenty of big toys and hardscience astrophysicists hard-wired in High Mathematics, and just by observing one nebulae, then another cumulus somewhere else, then a spiral galxy here, and another with spirals comming together there, and bassicaly all kinds of shapes are already carefully catalogued and classified by them, they can predict which shape will turn in what shape just with the mathematics of celestial bodyes which they are able to calculate and their vast resoursfulness... (I'm out of breath here)

That just doesn't make sense, and Earth is clearly not millions of years old.

Again, just look about Dinos and that would be a tiny glimpse.

Again, Earth is clearly young, so evolution is not possible. You twisted my words a bit.

The Universe is 13.82 Billion years old, here let me make it easier for you. Google "Age of the Universe"
https://www.google.com/search?q=age+of+the+universe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_is_13_82_billion_years.html
I think some remote system can sneeze something and in thousands of lightyears that sneeze will be many places else.

No, I know it's propaganda because they say it's science but it's just a religion, nothing scientific in it.

You are completely right, I believe Bible should be read literally.

Fossils proves that there are fossils. How do you know how old are they?

Sunday and Bible schools are pretty much western terms, we have ordinary schools where you have to study hard.

Meat damages our health, of course we shouldn't eat it. Two seeds on one land? Ask any country man, and he will tell you the same. One seed each year, every year different seed! Golden rule if you won't to grow up some culture.

I do trim my hear and beard, but maybe we're wrong doing that. How do you know? Samson has his strength in his hair. Just a myth? Maybe it was based on a real story. We are certainly degrading, not evolving. People used to be smarter, so I would listen to such advices.

We do not know, we tend to repeat what we are told by the Tv and news.
See its easier to cope with that, than getting home and doing your own research about some topic... the mayority of us are lazy, myself sometimes included.
I found people here to be pretty smart though.

I know nothing about farming, can I have different crops one besides the other in spaces of a month for example? I'm looking forward to the best diet you can get, smells like a vegan one to me, I do not know yet.

I just think the Universe is too big for and single book to have everything pertaining it and its races. It would be very selfish of me to consider myself, or other humans, the fanciest, most accomplished form of life in the Universe.  

[theAbsolute]

You accuse me that I'm the one who believes in everything that TV shows, and you post some classics. Yes, I can read Wikipedia, yes, I went to school, yes, I know what official theory is.
But that doesn't mean it is correct.

You can't prove that any fossil is millions years old. All dating methods include assumption that earth is millions years old, already. They are false. They are  not accurate. Evolution is just a religion.
Especially knowing that God created everything, I don't see a point of trusting blindly in evolution.

Micro-evolution is variations within a single kind. One offspring can never give a birth to another offspring. We never observed macro-evolution and there are no indications for it.
You can post any official example you can google, but trust me, I read them all already.
Opposite to that, we have many historical records of dinosaurs living together with people.

You're the one trusting media.

[CFTraveler]

There is no scientist that would trust blindly.  It's just not in the lingo.
The theory they've come up with is based on evidence and experimentation, not reading any book someone wrote long ago.
These arguments make absolutely no sense to me.  Maybe I'm too late to the party.

[LightBeam]

Stop arguing everyone. Extraterrestrials created life on earth and have been altering genetically each major specie, until the current homo sapiens. LOL. Well, I said this in a form of a joke, but it could be. Look at us, we are creating cloned species, create new ones, genetically alter human embryos, etc. Does that mean we are gods? Perhaps in a sense of creation on a certain level. How we came to be as physical creatures is not important. Whatever created our physical forms and for what purpose is also not important. It is important that our spirits and all consciousness were created from the ultimate love and light energy, which I call God, and all other lower dimension expressions with physical vehicles are for experience. God is also expressing itself in everything, including the lower, slow physical like dimensions. Creation of different physical and  non physical universes may be done my mass consciousness, waiting to enter with the necessary vehicles for experience purposes. It is important that we EXPERIENCE, and by doing that we expand our spirits, knowledge and wisdom. The number of physical like universes is endless, as the life forms inhabiting them. We enter so may characters throughout our journey. We are looking at things on a physical like level. It is important to realize our existence as spirits, then the earth affairs and mysteries become insignificant. I do watch the science channel a lot though and documentaries about the universe. I think all that is fascinating. I dont know if the scientists are right about the evolution. But I also dont believe that someone came down from the sky, waved a magic wand and Adam and Eve popped out of thin air. The Bible is just a book written by people who interpreted God in their own way and wrote what was wrong and what was write according to their own views back then. We no longer ask the women to wear dark clothes and sit on the back of the church and not speak, do we? LOL. We no longer stone our sons to death, if they go against the will of their parents. These are just a few examples of how outdated the Bible is.