Recent issues of UCG and Hulme flagship mags, GN (May-June) and Vision (Fall 07), feature very different "takes" on that old fundamentalist chestnut, creationism.UCG's resident "expert" on the subject, Mario Seiglie, is armed with a wet tea-towel and on the attack.
Darwin's deceitful theory... The movie [Expelled] gives a balanced overview... an avowed secular humanist and atheist... it's important to understand that the intelligent design theory was not developed by religionists... They continue deceiving the masses...
In the place of science, the old time gap theory is yet again dusted off. The result is something to bring pleasure to any home-schooled ten year old looking for a project to please Mom.
Contrast the approach at Vision, as always trying hard to impress the plebs with its depth and profundity. Here you'll find a complex discussion about the Big Bang and alternate cosmologies, including an interview that (and it pains me to say so) is actually quite interesting - if you're into that kind of thing.
In summary - the GN dishes up something worthy of The Watchtower, and Vision delivers something that wouldn't be out of place in New Scientist. A clear win to the High and Hulmerous One.
But, realistically, the typical COG reader will find the GN junk food more to their taste than Vision's art cuisine. Dumbed down is what brings in the financial sheaves: forget the science and spoon out the pabulum. After all, as far as anyone can tell the Hulmites are as gap-toothed on creationism as their former co-religionists in the not-so United Church of God: they're just a whole lot more subtle about it. And subtlety is usually lost on people who are convinced that Anglos are Israelites.
47 comments:
go
You are absolutely correct, Vision is very deceptive and its writers are really a bunch of hayseeds
It's the search for the how's and why's of our "is-ness" that is more interesting than arriving at never changing final conclusions. It's all amazing. The fact that we are conscious now for a short time is a gift
Somewhere there is THE answer and we'll get there someday. It's not going to be a confirmation of Genesis 1-3, for the universe, animals or man.
Hairless apes exploring with a consciousness spirit that sees it all through five holes in the head and receptors in the skin -- watches the movie of it all in the dark--in the head--on a screen that doesn't exist--in one universe of many..maybe.
Add to this the idea that the world is silent until it enters our heads and that light is also an inside the skull perception and that we roam in a silent and dark universe of waves and photons.....
most excellent.
Would to the Canaanite El of Genesis I had gone to the University of Penn in my youth and gone for paleontology and early man studies where my heart was.
sigh
If I get the gist here right, we are supposed to apply this scientific model to the existence of the universe, using a methodology where the results are reproducible, as it were.
Yet when I attempt to apply this scientific methodology to the creation of matter...
The popular scientific take on this, being super string theory, claims that these "strings" (and where did they come from?) vibrate, and in so doing, brought matter into being. So why isn't this happening on a regular basis? And if these vibrating strings can produce matter, then wouldn't it stand to reason they could also destroy matter?
And is this this scientific methodology truly relevant to, say, historical events in regards to whether they actually occurred or whether they are myths?
Looks like some are trying to pound the square peg into the round hole in regards to much of this issue of creationism versus Science, and the methodology of science.
When science and scientists make contradictory claims that cannot be proven or disproven, is this not, according to the scientific methodology, a case of using unfalsifiable claims as proofs?
They say there have been 4 (5) total extinction events on earth, where all life was reduced back to bacteria, and that in a time frame impossible using their own standards, life blossomed and variated at a staggering rate each time afterwards.
Too many holes with pegs that just don't fit.
Bill Hohmann
The evolution of species including man is a rather stark realization when the wonder of it all is overthrown by the fear there may be no Bible story true enough to save us or at least make us all so very special.
Recent studies of DNA actally extracted from T-Rex colligen show what we suspected. The nearest living relative to dinosaurs are birds and the closest to T-Rex is the chicken.
Sometimes the T-Rex eat you and sometimes u eat the T-Rex. A lot can change in a hundred million years. :)
The Plataypus genome project is showing how reptiles and mammals evolved. The platypus represents the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles.
Evolution of all life is more fascinating than "poof"..and the evening and them morning were the fifth day."
Mythologies die hard or perhaps if understood never to have been meant to take literally, have other meanings for us.
A non-godhaunted worldview will transform...
"A Whale of Tale" to "Excuse Me Moby..Are Those Your Hindlimbs or Are You Just Glad to See Me"
"A Theory for the Birds" to "From Dinosaurs to Birds... Still Tastes Like Chicken."
and...
"Those Amazing Woodpeckers" to "You Should Have Seen My Pecker When I was a Raptor."
For what's it worth, (nothing I know:) I see an intelligence and a conscious presence in the
universe(s) and that every modern human has a small part of that same one conscious thing in them to experience the world with, for some reason. However, the story of this consciousness is not confined to the mythologies of the Biblical creation stories.
My DNA says "I" came out of Africa about 70'000 years ago (all modern humans did) and ended up here on AW after an amazing trip through time.
That is sooooo cool!
If I was a paleo anthropologist, I'd spend my free time walking the margins of melting glaciers looking for that well preserved, but not us, Neanderthal I know is there somewhere.
Mario Seiglie's, UCG resident evolution debunker, uses the same tired "how could this be" template that all creationists use.
He can't understand that which is seen and how evolution could be but totally understands Satan's rebellion, how it all happened, who said what to who in the spirit world around the throne of God and all things unseen.
Reminds me of being asked if I knew why sheep poop was round but cowpies were, well...pies? I said "not really" He said, "then if you don't understand shi.., don't try to tell me you totally understand the mind of God."
Most Bible readers would claim to know nothing of quantum physics, but all things about God and how it all came to be and why. uh huh...
"Yet when I attempt to apply this scientific methodology to the creation of matter..."
You get the same results as you would if you actually tried to provide evidence that an invisible supernatural being created everything instantaneously by his magical powers.
If you think it(the theories you listed) improbable because it cannot be repeated, I can only assume that you find the biblical account equally improbable, too. Am I right, Bill? It would only be logical, if you apply the standard to scientific theory, you would also apply it to the biblical account. Otherwise it would be an intellectually dishonest double standard, not to mention hypocritical, coming from a man of science as yourself.
The Apostate Paul
It’s interesting isn’t it? Anyone that believes in creation by God is obviously short of a few marbles, as science has the answers.
Big Bang has been, and still is the required view of the creation of a universe without a God....
But hold on a minute – ‘Big Bang’ breaks a lot of fundamental scientific laws as we understand them. Either big bang has loads of flaws, or a number of basic scientific principles are badly flawed – probably a combination of both.
Samuel Langley has got on to this. Big bang is actually a sneaky way to introduce God back into the subject, and he remarks
“This is one of the reasons why there is so much unfortunate interaction between religion and cosmology. Today’s cosmology totally opens the door for a supernatural cause such as God.”
This is unthinkable of course.
A real atheist can’t go along with something like that. ID has been branded ‘unscientific’ for years – looks like ‘big bang’ needs to be branded unscientific too.
What’s a poor boy supposed to believe?
"ID has been branded ‘unscientific’ for years..."
Because it is. It's a not-so cleverly disguised version of "God made everything with his magic powers."
"...looks like ‘big bang’ needs to be branded unscientific too."
Why? I'll tell you why. Because it conflicts with a religious text called the Bible, that's why.
"What’s a poor boy supposed to believe?"
You can "believe" what you wish, just as all people who "believe" in various deities do- I mean, that's all there is to do is "believe" because you certainly do not have any proof to back your claims of supernatural beings.
The Apostate Paul
"It’s interesting isn’t it? Anyone that believes in creation by God is obviously short of a few marbles..."
Not necessarily insane, but definitely deluded. It's the whole imaginary being thing, not just that an imaginary being created everthing. You see, you are working from an unprovable assumption- that there is such as thing as a supernatural god, much less that he/she created everything with his or her magic powers. If you could prove the first, then the second isn't hard to accept at all.
"...as science has the answers."
Many answers, but not all, by far. But this is no reason to slide back into the mindset of our ancestors- if Ogg doesn't understand that glowing orb in the sky, then well, it must be a supernatural deity or the work of a supernatural deity. This is exactly why the Genesis account, and all other supernatural explanations for reality, exist.
"Big Bang has been, and still is the required view of the creation of a universe without a God...."
Required?? You've been watching Expelled. It's a conspiracy. That's right folks, it a "requirement" to believe in the Big Bang if you don't happen to believe in Zeus. Well, I don't believe in Zeus, er, Jehovah, and I don't accept the Big Bang theory- never having studied it.
"But hold on a minute – ‘Big Bang’ breaks a lot of fundamental scientific laws as we understand them."
But stop the press! Another glib Kreationist pronouncement! Science is flawed! Gasp! Therefore, science is all wrong!
The Apostate Paul
Aspirin plus Prayer
http://cectic.com/138.html
The Good News and other rags of the COG world really advocate the following:
Turn on (the tv)
Tune in (to our church pseudo propaganda)
Drop out (of society)
So we have the word of Timothy Leary to apply to Armstrong and his henchmen who are advocates of psychedelic religious research and practice.
**********************************
Armstrongist argue that psychedelics pseudo religion practiced with the right doctrines, and with the guidance of Armstrong trained professionals, could alter behavior in unprecedented and beneficial ways as to the cause.
Many of Armstrong's research participants reported profound mystical and spiritual experiences, which they claim permanently altered their lives in a very positive manner. According to Herbert's autobiography, they taught stolen doctrinal ideas to 300 Armstrong professors, graduate students, writers and wanna be philosophers, and 75% of them reported the experience as being like a revelation to them and one of the most educational experiences of their lives.
In the Pasadena experiment, they administered psilocybin to church associates, and after being guided through the trips by Armstrong and his henchmen, 36 associates allegedly turned their backs on atheism or other religions.
The normal recidivism rate of associates is about 80%, but of the subjects involved in the project, about 80% did not return to other religions, i.e. a 20% recidivism rate.
Armstrong's activities interested a sibling who helped Herbert and his associates acquire the use of a rambling mansion on an estate in the town of Pasadena, California, where they continued their experiments on false doctrines. Armstrong later wrote: "We saw ourselves as anthropologists from the twenty-first century inhabiting a time module set somewhere in the dark ages. On this cult colony, we were attempting to create a new form of paganism we called religion (for the purpose of tax write offs.)
Later, the Pasadena estate was described as "the headquarters of Gods Church for the better part of several decades, a period filled with endless parties, epiphanies and breakdowns, emotional dramas of all sizes.
Source
Re my comment that
"...looks like ‘big bang’ needs to be branded unscientific too."
“The Apostate Paul” said
"Why? I'll tell you why. Because it conflicts with a religious text called the Bible, that's why".
Paul, did you actually read the article under discussion? Vision were interviewing atheist Eric J Lerner (who wrote the book ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’).
It’s this atheist that I was quoting. He said:-
“The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.”
It’s the words of one of your ‘fellow travellers’ that I was quoting. He is saying that Big Bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. Hence my comment "...looks like ‘big bang’ needs to be branded unscientific too."
Your comment of “Because it conflicts with a religious text called the Bible" is exactly the opposite of what Eric Lerner was saying.
Hear the song....and applied it to your favorite cult leader, HWA!
"Legend of a Mind"
"Hence my comment "...looks like ‘big bang’ needs to be branded unscientific too.""
Yet you said:
"But hold on a minute – ‘Big Bang’ breaks a lot of fundamental scientific laws as we understand them. Either big bang has loads of flaws, or a number of basic scientific principles are badly flawed – probably a combination of both."
Which was prefaced by:
"It’s interesting isn’t it? Anyone that believes in creation by God is obviously short of a few marbles, as science has the answers."
Which is what I was alluding to in a general sense,- the Big Bang, Evolution, Reality, ect,- all opposition by religionists comes down to "Cause the Bible said so, and if it aint along with the Bible, then I aint' gonna believe it."
The Apostate Paul
Paul, I don’t think you have actually grasped the very simple point that I was making, so I will try spelling it out.
1. The Big Bang idea is accepted by the majority of scientists as the most likely origin of the universe.
2. Atheist and scientist Eric J Lerner disagrees, and believes in a form of infinite universe. There is a minority scientific support for this view
3. He further complains that the big bang idea actually is “essentially a creationist philosophy”, but adherence to it is essential for any scientists that want funding and peer support.
4. ID is considered ‘unscientific’, in that it allows for a creator.
5. If ‘big bang’ also is ‘essentially a creationist philosophy’, then my point is that ‘big bang’ would also be considered unscientific.
Point 5 was my entire point, based on the preceding four points, most of which was brought out in Eric Lerner’s interview.
That was all I was suggesting - my entire point. No need to deride ‘Armstrongism’, Creationism, people believing in magic’, belief or non-belief in the Bible etc etc. That’s got zero to do with it.
Just one simple point, based on the logic of Eric Lerner’s interview. (Who I pointed out was an atheist simply to get across the fact that he would not be trying to put across a creationist view).
Questeruk:
Yup, exactly. I'm not sure why Hulme is promoting Lerner's views, other than "the enemy of my enemy (Big Bang) is my friend."
Looks like this blog has become the refuge of a disgruntled nest of atheistic vipers.
"Paul, I don’t think you have actually grasped the very simple point that I was making, so I will try spelling it out."
What can I say, Q? I got my marching orders from Big Science. I have to stick the program. I'll call HQ and see if I can get some guidance.
The Apostate Paul
Hah --- looks like the author of Cectic is reading AW:
Look!
Oh and one other thought:
Trichotomy
Unfortunately in science it is more like here is my theory, now let me view every fact that I find as a support of it and let me bend them to fit.
Once again this is an argument all about God conducted through cosmological devices.
We have the presumption:
Creationism = Christianity
And
Evolution = Atheism
So a nice line can be drawn in the sand and the battle may roar.
But some may also be Christian and acknowledge the mechanisms of evolution. This alters the battle plan for those who really simply and emotionally want to deny the existence of God.
Atheist frequently try to wrap themselves in the scientific flag in order to cover up all of the sheer bitter emotionalism.
With regard to this supposed alignment with science, have a look at "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski.
Now I sit back and wait for some atheist on this blog to make an unscientific, emotional, ad homoneim attack on me. Its like fishing.
-- Neo
This topic is a continued mystery to me. For many years, as an agnostic, I was pretty firmly dialed into evolution. With all of the science and logic behind that still being present in my cranium, and now as a believer again, it becomes difficult not to entertain the concept of "theistic evolution".
There are problems with this, though. Jesus and the apostles seemingly both believed in, and validated, the first man "Adam" in the New Testament. Would they do this with an allegory? Or was this simply a case of addressing the Jews and Jewish Christians based on the prevalent beliefs of the Jews, as did Jesus on another occasion in His conversation with the Samaritan woman? I mean, gentiles were even referred to as "dogs" in that particular exchange.
I just find it difficult to believe that everything was always here, but that it continuously morphs into different forms of matter or energy. Seems like at one point in eternity, something would need to have been created. And, if there was at one time "nothing", what is all that we see made from? Did God use parts of Himself as the raw materials? Is everything physical that we see around us, including ourselves, made from elements of God?
And, what about radioactive materials, and their half-life? Can evolution, or natural processes actually explain them? It seems as if they would need to have had a starting point. Did such materials come from a disintegrated sun?
Too many questions. I think there's always going to be an element of mystery, regardless of one's persuasion.
BB
Hairless Hominid DD said...
❝ It's the search for the how's and why's of our "is-ness" that is more interesting than arriving at never changing final conclusions. It's all amazing. The fact that we are conscious now for a short time is a gift
Somewhere there is THE answer and we'll get there someday. It's not going to be a confirmation of Genesis 1-3, for the universe, animals or man.
Hairless apes exploring with a consciousness spirit that sees it all through five holes in the head and receptors in the skin -- watches the movie of it all in the dark--in the head--on a screen that doesn't exist--in one universe of many..maybe.
Add to this the idea that the world is silent until it enters our heads and that light is also an inside the skull perception and that we roam in a silent and dark universe of waves and photons.....❞
I sense a kindred soul out there....what an incredible thrill ride this holodeck entertainment is! I just wished they'd left the safety switches on.
Gavin Rubbish,
You got the captions for your cartoon all mixed up!
Immoral people who hated God and wanted to behave badly made up the theory of evolution. Ever since then, they have been looking in vain for facts to support it. All the best "evidence" for the theory has always turned out to be deliberate frauds.
❝Neotherm wrote:
We have the presumption:
Creationism = Christianity
And
Evolution = Atheism
So a nice line can be drawn in the sand and the battle may roar.
But some may also be Christian and acknowledge the mechanisms of evolution. This alters the battle plan for those who really simply and emotionally want to deny the existence of God.❝
It also alters the battle field for those who equate evolution with atheism as well. There's lots of Christians who have no problem whatever with an evolutionary process in life.
Its hard to let go of the magic-wand god. We want our miracles now not in a million years.
"Immoral people who hated God and wanted to behave badly made up the theory of evolution. Ever since then, they have been looking in vain for facts to support it. All the best "evidence" for the theory has always turned out to be deliberate frauds."
argh...ignorance reigns
I've heard the Big Bang explained scientifically in terms of Genesis. Centuries ago Hebrew scholars realized they would have to wait for Science to catch up to what they knew from the already ancient text.
There's no conflict, except with creationists who endeavor to confine God's creative techniques to their own criteria. Translations cannot tell the whole story.
It's a nasty business, this futile effort -- in the name of faith, no less -- to contain God within pre-conceived, pseudo-religious limitations.
you people dont know what your talking about. I am king!!
B. $chnippert
Bamboo Bends,
"Add to this the idea that the world is silent until it enters our heads and that light is also an inside the skull perception and that we roam in a silent and dark universe of waves and photons.....❞"
Tonight NPR's The Infinite Mind series discussed recent brain scan research proves the adult brain can rewire it's neural networks between synapses. The quality of brain neuroplasticity allows for adaptation to accomplish rewiring if needed; or the mind can consciously retrain neurons to perform or solve for some desired new functions or programs.
"A decade after The Infinite Mind first looked at the "neuroplasticity" of the brain (it's ability to rewire itself), we revisit the subject, and look at the bold, new breakthroughs in our understanding and practical uses of this science.
Host Dr. Fred Goodwin speaks with Dr. Norman Doidge, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst at Columbia University and the University of Toronto, and author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph From the Frontiers of Brain Science," who chronicles how "people rewire their brains with their thoughts, to cure previously incurable obsessions and traumas."
Plus a look at neuroplasticity and meditation. We hear from Sharon Begley, science writer for Newsweek magazine and co-author with of "The Mind and The Brain: Neuroplasticity and The Power of Mental Force." She is also author of "Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves." She is joined by Dr. Brent Bauer, director of the Mayo Clinic's Complementary and Integrative Medicine Program.
And we'll hear about brain gyms and mind exercises from Dr. Larry McCleary, a neurosurgeon and author of "The Brain Trust Program: A Scientifically Based Three-Part Plan to Improve Memory, Elevate Mood, Enhance Attention, Alleviate Migraine and Menopausal Symptoms, and Boost Mental Energy." He joins us with "news you can use" about building connections in your brain, fighting off dementia, and ending up smarter than most in your old age.
www.theinfinitemind.com
Imaging
The Apostate Paul said
“What can I say, Q? I got my marching orders from Big Science. I have to stick the program. I'll call HQ and see if I can get some guidance.”
It’s good to see that you have retained the understanding of the workings of hierarchy!!
Douglas,
Your remarks remind me of the comment we use for the mythters we used to know:
"As useless as tits on a bull."
Imaging gave us hope noting:
"The quality of brain neuroplasticity allows for adaptation to accomplish rewiring if needed; or the mind can consciously retrain neurons to perform or solve for some desired new functions or programs."
And that should be the ultimate goal of us here on AW. To share, to define, take look and rewire so we aren't stuck in the old program of this WCG experience.
It does an individual no good to rehash, restate or keep the old wiring in place with simply revisting the old story, any old story, over and over. It has to lead to a rewire. Otherwise, one will be repeating the same things on here ten years from now with no personal progress out of it.
At the risk of being scorned, observing the pain body and giving it no energy or time is the only way to rewire.
The entire experience of the COG's is in our heads..It is not real now to most here. It is a thought form, and experience and a memory. The pain body might be real, but the experience is over.
It's all just a story. It's your story, my story, they are the same, they are different. But the story is not you and it's not me. That story could have been told so many ways with so many twists and turns that didn't come up to make it a different story.
How can one know if they are rewiring from their WCG experience or merely spinning on?
A few observations that it is occuring.
1. No longer having to be right
2. No longer needing to retell the story
3. Acceptance that we're all here to learn
4. An attitude of nothing is for nothing.
5. Spending less time in the mental past.
6. Losing the need to convince others.
7. Return of authenticity and personal integity
8. Knowing that sometimes in life there is nothing left to do but have a good laugh.
9. Staying present in the moment we now do have.
10. Letting defensiveness go
11. Knowing what is....is
12. Knowing Personal experience is the only teacher..the rest is hearsay
13. Loving people you find it easy to hate.
14. Putting yourself first for a change and esteeming yourself the same as anyone else. (Paul was wrong to say we should esteem others "better" than oneself. We are all the same small part of the one same bigger thing.
15. Giving in to unconditional love, even if we hate it.
Rewire on!
dd
tao of pooh said....
Imaging gave us hope noting:
1. No longer [caring about right or wrong.]
2. blah,
3. blah,
3. blah....
Rewire on!
dd
Full of Pooh,
With all that rewiring, be careful you don't short circuit and fry your mind and sear your conscience.
With all that rewiring, be careful you don't short circuit and fry your mind and sear your conscience.
Any more than usual.
evil ution!
"Unfortunately in science it is more like here is my theory, now let me view every fact that I find as a support of it and let me bend them to fit."
Good thing you're not a scientist then. You wouldn't make a very effective one.
"It's a nasty business, this futile effort -- in the name of faith, no less -- to contain God within pre-conceived, pseudo-religious limitations."
Now that is a sentence worthy of reading again!
Oops.
No I am not intentionally playing both sides. I swear I wasn't trolling. :-P
Hi Gavin,
This is Mario Seiglie. I just want to ask you something, "Is sarcasm a godly trait? Where does this source of action come from? You must have been deeply hurt some moment in your life, but do you have to take it out on all of us. Some of us are simply trying to contribute as we can.
Post a Comment