Thoughts on evolution

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

Originally Posted by Bishadi

So the adam and eve story suggests the original sin was choice?

No ... a particular choice, not the exercise of choice as such.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

When the seal or actual understanding is that the day of choice was the day man became aware of existence. He became aware of choice (the apple) and thereby began his self awareness (the fig leaf) and thereby isolated 'himself' from nature (left the garden)...

No, that's not it, as man was making choices before the Fall, and God delighted in the choices he made — see Genesis 2:19.

Choice was not the problem. The fruit is not the point, the Word of God is the point. The choice was whether or not to obey God. Man was making choices before the Fall, so choice is not its cause.

As the Will of God determines the Unity of all in the Real, the True and the Good, that particular choice led to the realisation of privation, by separation from the Real, the True, the Good, etc., from the Unity of All in All ... and ontologically from the source of life itself. Separation from life is, eventually, death ... extinction ... just as he had been warned.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

So the truth is that apple day, was one of the greatest in evolution.

No.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

If that be the case then why are we all here, with choice, making babies and all still alive?

Because God is merciful.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

In a sense but choice was not available prior as in the garden mankind was like the beast, strictly instinctive (one with nature and existence)

Then he wouldn't have been able to make a choice, would he — not a free choice for which he himself was responsible? He can't do what he can't do. Man cannot be held responsible for something he cannot be responsible for. Sin is not making mistakes. Sin by definition the self-determined and self-willed decision to disobey.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

They had no 'words' prior to consciousness. Words are what convey experiences.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious. You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

if that be the case why is it that not until the 20th century was the adam and eve story still misunderstood.

Your assumption again. It was understood. The fact that science and theology is catching up with the detail does not mean the principle was misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

The seven seals are the conveyable representation of the parables in biblical teachings.

Umm ...

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Thomas,

rather enjoy your posts sometime but please telling me NO without having any foundation except scripture is foolish.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious. You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

How do you know they spoke? Because of scriptures which were created by men?

That's an old book that old timers need to keep faith but it is ignorant to think answers of truth will come from a single sect of knowledge.

Knowledge evolves? True or false!

All words are created by men/women? True or false

So either you find these two true or it seems maybe another old timer retaining foolish ignorance is standing tall with pride.

Meaning; I do not give a hoot whether you believe me or what I represent.

You tell me NO without definition or observance to the 'possibilities' simply because it contradicts what you comprehend as true and the bible.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious.

Which is speculative

You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

and thank God (existence) itself for there being at least more material contributions to knowledge than one freaking book!

In other words; who cares to be accepted. I think any man who retains a belief just to be accepted is a selfish idiot.

Each and every complacent representation that harms the development of our future; the children, shall be put on the stand in judgment. Like it or not!

As to forgive a liar that continues to fib is not good!

So does knowledge evolve?

Are words created by man/women?

Then don't contend knowledge with scripture.

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air; knowledge has evolved!

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air;

Are you sure?

Sorry, had to ask... Off topic, maybe better for the Alternative board...

I must say, this kind of statement leads me to question if you understand the elements...

As for the other points- valid if you are speaking in general about evolution, but Thomas is operating from a scriptural basis because this is the Christianity board, so their scripture is seen as the baseline of validity (naturally). Challenging him on his demands for scriptural evidence is not applicable since you're on his turf, so to speak.

From what I gather of Thomas' point of view, tradition within the church is also seen as a valid nexus of knowledge, so just because the scriptures don't say something specific does not mean he will not have an idea of how they should be interpreted, given the tradition.

Thomas, please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Are you sure?.

Yes!

Meaning that each old definition is now with less phenomenon and with more comprehensible decriptions.

So to suggest the word 'fire' someone may think 'matches'... in which the phenomenon is now reproducible and can be defined for the most part.

To suggest 'water' well another might think H2O.....

Earth.... maybe... iron or carbon

Air .... oxygen,.............etc.....

What this is presenting is knowledge has evolved well beyond the philosophies of gnostic teachings. In which rather than state I believe life transcends, well now definitions can be used to define what that means.

So as knowledge and us as a species has evolved in time, then in the 21st century we may build from the knowledge of the old teachers but be certain the definition of now are far greater in definable terminology than ever before.

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Then don't contend knowledge with scripture.

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air; knowledge has evolved!

Over and over and over again. It's been developed and lost so many times. But fire, water, earth and air, remain more or less constant (oh sure we now know about plasma, but then it's always been there too. Ironically, so has scripture.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

But we already know "how" mass exists, as well as "matter". What we do not understand fully is "energy". Nor do we understand fully the "entropy prinicple" which we seem to struggle against daily. And unless our "knowledge" breaks that glass ceiling concerning these things, we are going to have to start over again pretty soon.

Playing with fire, but not knowing why it exists, is like learning by trial and error. Sooner or later one will get burnt, and may not be able to recover from that burn...

[Quahom1]

Speaking of fire...is that not a model of evolutionary life? Ingredients are gathered to one point, something starts a reaction, fire begins, it grows, consumes, reproduces, gets old, and dies...it also has its purpose and does it well. It can survive anywhere (even under water or in the vaccuum of space). It isn't heat, but rather the animation of something heat contributes to. It isn't fuel or oxygen, but rather the result of the consumption of both. It isn't a chemical reaction, but rather the result of one. It waxes and wanes. It works around obstacles. It destroys and it creates.

It can reshape an entire world, or die off for lack of the ability to adapt to its environement.

What do you think?

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Yes!

I love the self-confidence here, but may I gently suggest that your arguments depend on your definition of the elements and your understanding of them, which seems very rudimentary and bound to materiality. I expect that if I am wrong about this interpretation, you will expand on your ideas to show such.

Read the old philsophies- both Western and Eastern. The elements are not simply physical entities waiting for scientific inquiry. As above, so below. The elements "make up" our world in a different way than you are describing.

Meaning that each old definition is now with less phenomenon and with more comprehensible decriptions.

Defining things limits us and limits the object of our definition.

Phenomenology can be a more direct mode of inquiry.

Rather than define, experience. Work with in a mutual dance. Shape our world. Commune and congregate.

So to suggest the word 'fire' someone may think 'matches'... in which the phenomenon is now reproducible and can be defined for the most part.

This is what shows a limited perception of the elements. Fire is not matches, a bonfire, the sun. Fire is the spirits that move and breathe behind the matter. Fire is the wisdom inherent in and beyond the physicality of what we see with our physical eyes.

What this is presenting is knowledge has evolved well beyond the philosophies of gnostic teachings. In which rather than state I believe life transcends, well now definitions can be used to define what that means.

First, I am not gnostic. The elements are common to most cultures throughout time, with a very rich literature from a variety of religious and shamanic traditions. And I would posit that our Western conceptualization of the elements is, if anything, degraded and de-evolved from its prior state, culminating in most people thinking about the elements not at all.

As for transcendence-- I choose to experience it rather than define it. Why waste time defining the ineffable if I can embrace it and actually transcend?

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

Yeah, science tries to figure out the "how" of things and religion is about the "why." Why are we here? To know God and to love God.

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

Whoa, brother! Might I recall the origin of this thread – that a current scientific model of evolution (phylitic monogenism) in no way contradicts the Scriptural model, as told in Genesis?

You brought other views to the model – you are welcome to do so — in so doing you introduce data of an entirely different model, which without reference I can only assume is of your own provenance, and offer it as a commentary on the Scriptural model.

When I point out an incompatability, a contradiction, suddenly:
a) To argue a model from the model itself is foolish;
b) The model is speculative at best (without any argument as to why your interpretation is not itself speculation)

What follows is seems to me no more than a sour grapes response because I had the nerve to point out an error:

I do not give a hoot whether you believe me or what I represent.

You tell me NO without definition or observance to the 'possibilities' simply because it contradicts what you comprehend as true and the bible.

No, I said no to your interpretation of Scripture because it is false with regard to what Scripture says — I did not say you are obliged to accept Scripture as true, or that I reject all other possibilities, merely that you misrepresented or misinterpreted what Scripture actually says.

and thank God (existence) itself for there being at least more material contributions to knowledge than one freaking book!

That was never a point of discussion, if you want to compare, then please reference the comparison you're making.

In other words; who cares to be accepted. I think any man who retains a belief just to be accepted is a selfish idiot.

That's me, I presume?

Each and every complacent representation that harms the development of our future; the children, shall be put on the stand in judgment. Like it or not!

Ditto?

As to forgive a liar that continues to fib is not good!

Sounds like a bad attack of sour grapes to me.

Thomas

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Whoa, brother! Might I recall the origin of this thread – that a current scientific model of evolution (phylitic monogenism) in no way contradicts the Scriptural model, as told in Genesis?

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two. You completely misunderstand the "mitochondrial Eve" if you think there was ever only one woman. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother's side only, the "Eve" is everybody's mother's mother's mother's... mother, but is not everybody's mother's father's mother's father's mother, not the only woman to leave any descendants, just the only one who now has descendants in an unbroken female chain. There was also a "Y-chromosome Adam", but he lived tens of thousands of years later than the "mitochondrial Eve", since the two phenomena have nothing to do with each other: that "Adam" is not the only man from his time to leave descendants, just the only man to leave descendants in an unbroken male line. Most of our DNA comes neither from the "Adam" nor from the "Eve".

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two. You completely misunderstand the "mitochondrial Eve" if you think there was ever only one woman. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother's side only, the "Eve" is everybody's mother's mother's mother's... mother, but is not everybody's mother's father's mother's father's mother, not the only woman to leave any descendants, just the only one who now has descendants in an unbroken female chain. There was also a "Y-chromosome Adam", but he lived tens of thousands of years later than the "mitochondrial Eve", since the two phenomena have nothing to do with each other: that "Adam" is not the only man from his time to leave descendants, just the only man to leave descendants in an unbroken male line. Most of our DNA comes neither from the "Adam" nor from the "Eve".

No it doesn't Bob. Science conclude every time that to start something there has to be a beginning, and mass beginnings have never happened, therefore, there must have been a small beginning, that took on and took off. You can't have it both ways...

[Thomas]

Hi Bob —

Originally Posted by bob x

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two.

I know, that's why I said phylitic monogenism, not monogenism per se. Origin from a group.

Thomas

[Bishadi]

Over and over and over again. It's been developed and lost so many times. But fire, water, earth and air, remain more or less constant (oh sure we now know about plasma, but then it's always been there too. Ironically, so has scripture.

But what is fire?

But we already know "how" mass exists, as well as "matter". What we do not understand fully is "energy".

Energy is light upon mass. Try the change to your comprehension.

Nor do we understand fully the "entropy prinicple" which we seem to struggle against daily.

As life abuses entropy; we can take from the environment to continue. A direct opposition to entropy. Or simply Planck was incorrect to retain entropy is his constant.

And unless our "knowledge" breaks that glass ceiling concerning these things, we are going to have to start over again pretty soon.

That is what I have trying to share; it’s already been done!

Playing with fire, but not knowing why it exists, is like learning by trial and error. Sooner or later one will get burnt, and may not be able to recover from that burn..

So you see; light is the energy or fire! And to complete the work against the wishes of society has created an out case but who cares; the children are the reason; forget being accepted.

Speaking of fire...is that not a model of evolutionary life? Ingredients are gathered to one point, something starts a reaction, fire begins, it grows, consumes, reproduces, gets old, and dies...it also has its purpose and does it well.

So that form of reasoning you just shared is not bad at all, just that you abused entropy; good thinking; now see the errors of current physics.

It can survive anywhere (even under water or in the vaccuum of space). It isn't heat, but rather the animation of something heat contributes to.

Heat is simply em upon mass with momentum. Or rather when mass reaches a threshold momentum can exist.

It isn't fuel or oxygen, but rather the result of the consumption of both.

Them 2 are simply what we see as reactive; causing change to the 2 but all interactions do the same but we only see what is familiar as well optical in observations.

What do you think?

Energy is light (em) upon mass.

What I should be asking is 'now' define ‘heat’?


Fire?

Use the idea of light as energy upon mass and try.

[Bishadi]

Defining things limits us and limits the object of our definition.

And what do religions do? Suggest we ‘cannot’ know……. So which is more limiting: one that pursues truths and often has to get squashed but dusts itself off and continues or the other that simply suggest ‘we cannot understand’?

One has people killing themselves over beliefs, the other is seeking for the benefit of mankind (the inert intent).

Phenomenology can be a more direct mode of inquiry.

or simply “For Edmund Husserl, phenomenology is "the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view."[1] Phenomenology takes the intuitive experience of phenomena (what presents itself to us in phenomenological reflexion) as its starting point and tries to extract from it the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience [/quote] Sounds like science to me!

But then again

Rather than define, experience.

What does life mean? Or rather; how can one experience reality in knowing without definitions?

Fire is the spirits that move and breathe behind the matter

A pretty picture a 6 year old might like. But did you read the sentence; when the word ‘fire’ is suggested……… not many will have the definition you use! You missed the point!

Only with truth can equality reign! Meaning for each to comprehend each phenomenon as it truly is without ever returning to a belief or faith of what it is, then each can be equally aware and equally in truth!

As for transcendence-- I choose to experience it rather than define it. Why waste time defining the ineffable if I can embrace it and actually transcend?

Why not just say; I care nothing for others and our tomorrow as long as I can stay high now! You preach as a drug addict would! (religiously faithful)

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

And you think you know ‘why’ as if to talk to the total of existence (god) itself based on the teachings of one sect of faith? How rude! Yet to comprehend ‘how’ life exists and how each choice offers the ever lasting life, then ‘why’ simply reveals itself; to continue. See anything in nature to realize such a simple item.

Problem is people want grandeur that faith places into the context of life.

We are in ‘heaven’ as it is when mass has the ability to experience choice! We are in that period to choose ever-lasting life.

Thomas ………..in so doing you introduce data of an entirely different model,

exactly! What is being shared is the basis of the truth. Not opinion, nor of a self prescribed idea but of observing each branch of knowledge.

In all the branches, each point to ‘light’ as the basis of life? Yes or No!

without reference

Sorry, but 'light' is referenced throughout all history!

Then to comprehend how ‘light’ upon mass is in fact the energy of all motion, then in fact all branches of knowledge can be perfected, scientifically, mathematically, religiously and philosophically; the final revealing!

Light is energy.

Light is life!

The revealing begins within ‘light’!

Who would have thought you would be exposed to the truth before your preacher (guru) did?

The math combining the trinity of mass, energy and time; the total; is that long sought ‘name of God!’

Not for sale!