That blade swings both ways...
Theistic evolution is an attempt to accommodate both the existence of a Creator-God Who made the universe and the interpretation of scientific evidence that claims the universe is billions of years old.
According to Ted...
It was either Evolution OR Bible Literalism. You can't believe both.
(Which is true because much of NT Theology is based on OT myths)
(Which is true because much of NT Theology is based on OT myths)
When I was young, Garner Ted Armstrong was the smartest pencil in the box on just about everything in both theology AND REAL SCIENCE.
As the years went by, Ted never outgrew his views on anything. He never updated his information and he certainly never understood what paleontologists, geologist and cosmologists really understood back then much less what they do now.
When Ted, and the Church of God, was a child, he thought as a child, he researched as a child, he held on to myths and stories as a child, but when Ted was older, he did the same thing and never was able to put away childish beliefs based on out of date information.
The Evolution of Whales is well understood today
The Church's Theory of the Birds was actually a Theory for the Birds.
Science now informs us that feathers came long before birds and that dinosaurs, which all modern birds are descendants of', were, in many cases feathered and evolved not for flight at all. Flight came later.
Some dinosaur feathers may have been more fab than drab. Take this ostrich-size adult dinosaur called Ornithomimus edmontonicus, which would have been adorned with stringy down — filamentlike feathers up to 2 inches (5 centimeters) long. The sexually mature adult also had markings on its winglike forelimbs that suggest it bore longer feathers that were absent from the juveniles of the species that were also discovered. As such, the researchers think the feathers may have been used for courtship or brooding, much as male peacocks shake their striking feathers to woo females.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160405-dinosaurs-feathers-birds-museum-new-york-science/
….a timeless life skill
47 comments:
Oh noes! I don't want to be bumbuzzled! Better just believe what this guy says so I don't accidentally hear what the other guy says...
Virtually everything Ted said, no intermediate species etc is simply not true. Not then and certainly not now. "True science and the Bible absolutely agree and there is no evidence whatsoever for evolution" GTA. Pure ignorance on his part because of the need to believe no matter the evidence.
I am finding the scientific ideas behind intelligent design (see Stephen Meyer) to be far more believable than evolution. The scientists behind intelligent design do not dispute the Earth's age and history - just that some of the animals sprung up without prior evolutionary fossils.
Believing that land animals evolved into water animals takes too much blind faith for me.
Atheism seems to require believing that in the course of 14 billion years, only Man developed any intelligence, and that matter based life is all there is.
There is also the mystery of what existed before the universe came into being - plus since the physicists talk about space-time - is time as we know it, just a phenomenon of this universe.
And how about this posting we note GTA's lack of understanding or one's absolute agreement with him and leave me as the evil oneš, avoiding the actual content of the post, out of it for a change?š
Like male peacocks do, did GTA shake his "striking feather" to woo females??
Bull Shit.
There is so much to consider when navigating this path: New understanding of the old languages that the original translators did not have. The Bible’s obvious metaphors, allegories, and hyperbole. Words outlining general principles which could be mostly understood by both goat herders and citizens of the modern world. Recognition of the laws of the universe, and the law of biogenesis. Statistical analysis.
Based partialy on these and other factors, I’ve come to the conclusion that theistic evolution is the best explanation for what we see around us. Evolution is not just a one act process. It is composed of multiple parallel evolutions which interact and were dependant upon one another. This implies communication amongst those things which are evolving.
The problem this line of thought creates for the Pharisaic inerrantist is that it renders one size fits all Phariseeism impossible to support. There is no basis upon which to build a religious philosophy such as Armstrongism, one defining an infallible system of legalism which must be observed by all. But then we already knew this by their prophecy failures. Their alleged law keeping did not gift them with any sort of special understanding.
BB
I didn't even bother to read it. I have given up on Dennis. He's just too opinionated. He just picks and chooses what he wants us to hear.
When I want to know what the BEST science is, I always turn to a wackadoodle sad sack serial sexual predator who is known for a video of him prancing around naked, yanking on his penis while trying to get a masseuse to have sex with him.
Yup!
THAT'S the kind of person whose scientific prowess I choose to respect!
When I want to know what the BEST science is, I always turn to a wackadoodle sad sack serial sexual predator who is known for a video of him prancing around naked, yanking on his penis while trying to get a masseuse to have sex with him.
Yup!
THAT'S the kind of person whose scientific prowess I choose to respect!
Dennis, is it possible that God's process of creation could be evolution?
DBP
Another good contribution from Dennis. Appreciate your scholarship and clarity, Dennis.
Not so fast, 10:24. As ACOG members, we all met (unfortunately) people like “enema guy”, who insisted on teaching congregation members about the virtues of taking an enema every day for thirty days to cleanse the colon, or “carrot man” who pureed and ingested about 50 raw carrots per day from his blender, singing the praises of his carrot smoothies as we all gradually watched him turning orange.
This was always part of the ACOG conndrum! How do you be a brother or sister to these people without being firm about their weirdness, and offending them?
Dennis is not weird like some of the tinfoil people of our past, and he definitely reads much more, and much more widely than I had originally suspected. He also does uncover the occasional nugget. I generally read his postings unless they are reruns.
BB
I don't care in particular what another's belief actually are. Beliefs are just that, beliefs. Some based on actual study. Some on emotional needs. And some on fear of stepping outside the box others packaged them in. Of course, everyone believes their beliefs are the right ones or they'd not believe them. That's why Paul's admonition to "all believe the same thing" not because it's true But "so there be no division among you" is insane.
But the responses are fascinating
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
BB 10:20 AM "The Bible’s (Evolution) is obvious metaphors, allegories, and hyperbole." Not one scientifically testable process has ever proven that one species turns into a new species. The High Priests of Evolution are always using the mystical and vague language of "might have", "probably" "possible", "developed" because they can't prove it in the laboratory.
GTA had genius level speaking ability.
Now this is the biggest pile of crap I have read on here yet. It seems that few if any that comment on this site have any real scientific understanding of anything. Blind allegiance to science is just as bad as it is to religion. Maybe one day when Christ returns we will all have better understanding of many things.
Anon 10:57 AM asked:
is it possible that God's process of creation could be evolution?
Yes. It is also possible that Blessed Zeus created intelligent unicorns to perform the various acts of creation, and that species adaptations occur whenever one of these unicorns decides to allow one.
There is as much evidence for one of these as for the other. However, neither one is a proper scientific hypothesis, as neither can be falsified. Religious texts conflict with each other about what did or didn't happen, so the scientist doesn't factor any of those into the evaluation of evidence. So, when we look at the evidence, we clearly see small instances of adaptation, and from these we infer larger instances. It is true that some sacred texts insist that larger adaptations aren't possible, but then again there are sacred texts that say that the rivers came from the tears of the Cosmic Coyote.
The most interesting arguments against evolution aren't the ones from biology, as biology seems to suffer from a "God of the gaps" problem. Creationists deny evolution by pointing to adaptations whose intermediate steps seem non-adaptive, yet must combine to allow a more complex adaptation. The problem is that biologists then demonstrate after further research that these "non-adaptive" steps are reasonable and even probable.
No, the most interesting arguments against truly random evolution are the arguments from probability theory. Intelligently directed adaptations make statistical sense, but this hypothesis cannot be tested scientifically. If there is an intelligence guiding evolutionary adaptation, it is an intelligence that isn't revealing itself accurately in any religion's holy books.
I never thought Garner ted was the smartest pencil in the case. Charismatic yes. Talented engaging speaker yes but not a brainbox.
He was well known to use ghost writers in WCG.
DPB. To me and the general scientific consensus would be no. The concept of God is of faith and religion not testable, verifiable or reproducible. Evolution even understood does not need magic or faith to explain it. Most think Theory" means idea, opinion or a could be. In science a theory is far from that. Theory topay is what a hypothesis is in science. A Hypothesis is the idea that may or may not lead to a scientific theory which is a fact unless proven false.
And if so makes God also a story teller, trickster and tale weaver in the BIble knowing the story is not true . Gospel Jesus and Apostles believed the OT stories to be literally true and based doctrine in that mistaken view if reality
1259
A genius speaker mistaken is still mistaken.
Some people are becoming unhinged. They think the world is crawling with Nazis everywhere who must be stamped out at all costs, and the truth be damned. They still seem to be in the HWA cult mindset.
Dennis is not interested in an objective analysis. He seems to be on a crusade to bash God and the bible. He has blind faith in whatever the current theories are. No doubts about the evolutionary chain from the big bang (a theory which needs a lot of faith) until now ever seem to enter his mind. That's why I've given up reading his biased crapola.
The hard materialist cannot explain where consciousness comes from. So, their worldview is basically dead in the water.
3:08 PM wrote:
The hard materialist cannot explain where consciousness comes from. So, their worldview is basically dead in the water.
The "hard materialist" observes that mind is what brain does. Science can observe brain activity that coincides with mental activity, but has never yet observed mental activity existing prior to or after the brain is active in a body.
It is true that some firsthand reports suggest that a young child's consciousness may have existed previously in another body, but these reports have never been resolved to science's satisfaction. Much more common, however, is the firsthand report that a body's consciousness began around the time of birth, with no experience of the universe's previous 13 trillion years of existence.
Thanks for responding, February 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM and Dennis at 2:15 PM
And as for "February 7, 2019 at 3:08 PM" statement:
"The hard materialist cannot explain where consciousness comes from."
So true, let alone why it would be needed in the first place.
DBP
Human consciousness or any other topic in life not yet understood does not translate into..."therefore God."
That's similar to the goofy yet true to some's reasoning processes, "I don't understand.....Therefore Aliens!" poster making the rounds. The gaps that God is the God of the Gaps in are getting smaller and smaller and like the Cheshire Cat, gods in time fade as the gaps are filled with understanding.
304, No one says you have to read my crapola. I'd encourage you to post some of your own? Or just hang out and there will be more Armstrong, Pack, Flurry, Malm and Thiel crapola to carp about soon enough. It's that not reading thing that gets a lot of folk stuck in time with no updates in their thinking or beliefs. But alas, that is the COG way as witnessed every week in their sermons and month in their literature.
Not so fast, Anon 3:08. Read this book before you decide for sure that the hard materialist cannot explain where consciousness comes from:
From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (W. W. Norton & Company – February 2017) (ISBN 978-0-393-24207-2)
Even if parts of it are not convincing to you, it still explains a hell of a lot more than "god did it," which is equivalent to saying it came about by magic.
Dennis: 3:04 PM does not read your posts, but post his/her comments to what he/her does not read.
Hope he/she does not drive the same way.
Dennis is like Satan and his demons. He knows full well that God is real and that the Bible is His inspire word.
His privileged life as a Herb minister has resulted in his failing to build sufficient character to qualify for the kingdom. Can anyone imagine a Herb minister having the character to work at a supermarket check out. I can't. They would faint from the effort.
The comfortable, privileged life of bossing around members, and giving canned sermons has its downside.
Anon 12:26 AM, Dennis is using the intelligence that God gave him. A god who hides behind clouds and allows contradictory "divine" revelations, never making its existence plain and unambiguous, has no business condemning one of its creations for doubting its existence.
Somewhere in the Middle East, there is a message board on which posters tell each other that Allah's existence is obvious, and that the fools who worship a polytheistic three-god deity will lose out in the afterlife, having abandoned the monotheism God so plainly requires. Those Allah-worshippers are as confident of their god as you are of yours, having evaluated the same evidence, except that they recognize YOU as being like Satan and his demons, trying to trick the innocent into worshipping God's own Mahdi/Messiah, the flesh-and-blood human Jesus, as if he were part of a polytheistic Godhead.
Wikipedia is a junk encyclopedia. The authors don't even give their names. They don't take responsibility for what they write. That is totally un-scholarly.
Second, it is "policed" by certain self-appointed powerful lobby groups.
Further, when there are a pile of different people editing the same article, the only thing you end up with is conventional opinion, a.k.a. mob rule. Again, that's not the proper way to do anything scholarly. If you just want to know that the conventional mainstream opinion is you can probably get it on wikipedia. But if you stop there, that is conformist thinking, not real scholarship. All conventional encyclopedias suffer from this problem.
It's okay for pure math or other purely technical stuff which is completely non-political.
But on social, historical, or political issues, it contains a lot of garbage.
Anonymous said...
"Dennis is like Satan and his demons. He knows full well that God is real and that the Bible is His inspire word.
His privileged life as a Herb minister has resulted in his failing to build sufficient character to qualify for the kingdom. Can anyone imagine a Herb minister having the character to work at a supermarket check out. I can't. They would faint from the effort.
The comfortable, privileged life of bossing around members, and giving canned sermons has its downside."
Aside from your amazing ability to know others intimately even better than they know themselves and the concept of projection... I practice the reality of never taking anything personally as outlined in the Four Agreements which is a far more practical and real existence especially with my own once sincere yet mistaken notions about religion and True Churches. I would say that "What eats you...eats you" and you're not doing your body, mind and soulishness any good either.
The Second Agreement--Ruiz
"Whatever happens around you, don’t take it personally… Nothing other people do is because of you. It is because of themselves. All people live in their own dream, in their own mind; they are in a completely different world from the one we live in. When we take something personally, we make the assumption that they know what is in our world, and we try to impose our world on their world.
Even when a situation seems so personal, even if others insult you directly, it has nothing to do with you. What they say, what they do, and the opinions they give are according to the agreements they have in their own minds…Taking things personally makes you easy prey for these predators, the black magicians. They can hook you easily with one little opinion and feed you whatever poison they want, and because you take it personally, you eat it up…."
But if you do not take it personally, you are immune in the middle of hell. Immunity in the middle of hell is the gift of this agreement.
"...Dennis is using the intelligence that God gave him..."
I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe God used evolution as a part of his collection of creative processes. Theistic evolution, I believe, puts evolution in its place relative to the Universe. Atheists tend to refer to evolution as the Big Answer to everything because they lack comprehensive answers otherwise. Theistic evolution recognizes that natural selection operates in a limited biological field and does not answer any of the big questions.
A case in point: Dennis has a mind capable of advanced sentient thinking. There is no explanation within the bounds of natural selection for this mind. Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest. Within that context Dennis should have the mind of a bright chimpanzee and he should be swinging from trees naked. If this sounds like a glib but insubstantial theistic argument, one of the leading atheistic philosophers in the United States recently published a book explaining why evolution could not account for the human mind. He suggested that the theoreticians go back to the drawing board.
Atheistic notions about how things got here range from the convoluted ideas of Daniel Dennett to the cautious ideas of Dawkins who eschews calling himself an atheist but claims the chair of an agnostic. (When someone supports atheism, I wonder what they know that Dawkins does not.) My favorite is Hawking who said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Huh? Right.
And regarding Anon 5:54, the fact that some people misunderstand the role of the Bible and others have a fanatical dedication to some pagan religion proves what? Certainly nothing in regard to Christianity.
Dennis wrote:
...if you do not take it personally, you are immune in the middle of hell. Immunity in the middle of hell is the gift of this agreement.
This is the special evil of YHVH, who promises to keep your senses fully acute while you burn (I'll leave it to the theologians to debate between eternal punishment and eternal punishing as the fate of the wicked). Scripture makes it clear that the Lake of Fire is not full of dispassionate, reasonable people who forgive YHVH for his jealous rage against those who use the mind he gave them. You are there to suffer, and you will suffer on YHVH's terms. Love Daddy or he will burn you.
And too...Over the years I have found it a better and more human a conversation to genuinely feel and say "I'm sorry you feel that way. How can I help?" Not something some few can receive however. It would involve a shift in thinking in some they simply won't make. Dome also identify with their experience and pain do deeply to remove it would leave them confused as to just who they were. You know...I am my story vs I have a story
And too...Over the years I have found it a better and more human a conversation to genuinely feel and say "I'm sorry you feel that way. How can I help?" Not something some few can receive however. It would involve a shift in thinking in some they simply won't make. Dome also identify with their experience and pain do deeply to remove it would leave them confused as to just who they were. You know...I am my story vs I have a story
Dennis
Your "don't take it personally" argument is nonsense. It's not what exists in the real world. It's similar to the popular "no one can make you inferior without your consent," from FDRs wife as I recall. Obviously she was never put down. That line of reason trivializes abuse and spreads the blame to the victim. The victim statements given by victims of crime in court, is another proof of your fallacious belief. That armchair philosopher Dennis is right, and millions of victims are wrong when it comes to basic human reactions, is ridiculous.
It's interesting how scientists never claim some animal behavior is "wrong" because it doesn't conform to some preconceived notions. Yet it's rampant when it comes to human behavior. As you pointed out in your recent evolution article, look at the evidence like a little child, rather than blindly believing the "big people" in ones life.
Not surprisingly, this 'I'm right, and millions of others are wrong,' is rampant among Herbs Fuhrer ministers.
Dennis - all true COGers are filled with love for everyone since Jesus told us that these are the top 2 commandments.
The people attempting to insult you are obviously not Christians.
Even the leaders in the COGs - or at least the sane ones - tell people not to hat the sinner. So even if a true COGer thinks you are a sinner, they still love you, like Jesus commanded.
So who are all these anti God people trying to insult you? Not Christians, that is for sure.
From Bacteria to Bach and Back, sounds like an interesting read, so I'll give it a go.
One of my favorite books is Gregory Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind". I believe he demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that DNA does not account for the countless examples of mimicry where plants imitate butterflies and bugs that look like sticks. And then there is the 96%+ efficiency of energy conversion in photosynthesis. There just weren't enough years evolutionary to account for all of this. So, is there another mechanism besides DNA that controls our evolution? Yes, I believe it is consciousness. How we choose to act in our given environment affects our evolutionary outcome more than what is already written in our DNA. There could be no limit to what we can do as we begin to harness this great new emerging power in the universe called consciousness.
DBP
915 I'm sorry you feel that way. How can I help? :)
9:15 you make more my thoughts not your thoughts and declarations of how it all is more dogmatically than any minister I ever encountered
TLA
Your definition of love is narrow and Protestant-ish. It is out of love that God will throw sinners into the lake of fire if they don't repent.
I suggest you spend more time studying your bible, and less time watching Kenneth Copeland ministries.
February 8, 2019 at 12:38 PM - I spend time every day studying my Bible and additional time on commentaries.
I think my definition of love is broad and includes the narrow-minded like the ultra religious who could not be bothered to help the wounded traveler, and those who think themselves to be righteous.
I am not familiar with Kenneth Copeland ministries like you are - could you explain who they are and your interest in them so us Bible believers can gain some of your knowledge.
Don't take it personally requires a very zen comportment. It sounds like a Buddhist principle.
BB
Who says the ACOGs don't believe in Science? Of course, their scientist of choice is Dr. Mengele, and his disciples who will emerge during their long anticipated tribulation. Bob Dylan called Mengele "Dr. Filth" in his epic song "Desolation Row".
BB
Keep on posting Dennis, I read your posts.
Kevin McMillen
Post a Comment