disproving evolution

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 1:32 pm

All they did to the Bible is make it easier to read(last I checked not many people could reed ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramic), rearrange the books and add verse notations for easier reading.
The dead sea scrolls, when translated into English, are nearly identical to the existing Bible.
Evolution is re-writen almost every week.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:33 pm

And how many books have been omitted from the bible?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:49 pm

Joe, the Roman Catholic church added 15 books called the Apocrypha(l) Books:

.The First Book of Esdras
.The Second Book of Esdras
.Tobit
.Judith
.The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther
.The Wisdom of Solomon
.Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
.Baruch
.A Letter of Jeremiah
.The Song of the Three
.Daniel and Susanna
.Daniel, Bel, and the Snake
.The Prayer of Manasseh
.The First Book of the Maccabees
.The Second Book of the Maccabees

The books are non-canonical and if you read them, it's obvious they are not part of the original Hebrew text.

There have been no books omitted from the scriptures.

B-

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:15 pm

Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Solomon, Sirach, Barush, Bel, Manasseh, Maccabees... I swear, the Bible has awesome names for its "characters."

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:46 pm

the bible and evolution ****ed me... i want my cock to be bigger. the deity that can grow my 3 inches will get my vote. it's not that complicated.

i mean i can re-read the tibetan book of the dead over and over but why does Jenalmpe Pelfeson get my girlfriend? i don't get it God.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:54 pm

God works in mysterios ways.
I know, I failed Engineering college. what a bummer.
but without failing that, I would have never found Graphic design, or D3edit. And I'm happy now

maybe you'll find a better girlfriend Cops

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:01 pm

lol!
i guess the completely racist joke flew over your head santa claus follower.

;-0

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:52 pm

It's ironic that I wasn't the first to post about evolution on here, isn't it? I could have, but {I}(where's the underline function?) do not have the personal skills to "back-up" my claims. Even if I did, I could spend lifetimes of research learning to back it up.

I feal sorry for Meat, considering he was severely out-witted and out-numbered for a complex arguement such as "dis-proving" evolution.

My father has spent decades researching Creationism, especially 1 form of "proving" it(the term has slipped my mind, I will re-post what it is later.) He has a PhD in physics, so he actually CAN back up his claims(but u would literally be reading a BOOK of calculations if he posted them on here.) If anyone is interested in his work, they can see it at www.commonsensescience.org

I don't have the knowledge to definitely believe in either Creationism or Evolutionism, but I base my beliefs off of the Bible, which by the way, has never been dis-proved(it has been claimed to be dis-proved then re-proven though.) Besides, the Bible didn't tell Christians to "prove all arguements against My Word" it said to "Go out into the world, preaching the Gospel, etc" I'm not saying it's not important for Christians to take a stand against evolution though.

Pink Panther · Post by **Pink Panther** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:19 pm

Wow, a thread on evolution on the DBB.

Makes me remember "way back when" when Rican would post those huge pages of copy&pasted pro-evolution articles.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:42 pm

I am crossposting perhaps: I thought I'd start another thread but instead I've plugged this one again. Any opinions about these ideas..?

http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=25&z=5

A clip of this article:

The Origin of Christianity?
In 1970, John Allegro authored the controversial book, The Mushroom and the Cross.The main theme of the book alleges that Judaism and Christianity were based on a secret cult whose god was Amanita muscaria, but was represented in the person of Jesus, the Christ. He believed that the cult was very cryptic in its writings and made interpretations that are often difficult to follow and more difficult to verify since the interpretations were derived from ancient writings that few could read. The cult eventually died out, but Christianity and Judaism remained as religions.

And this:

http://www.globalideasbank.org/SD/SD-152.HTML

and this:

http://www.washedashore.com/rants/xmas/

In this last link, read down a bit.. I like the part about "flying reindeer with red noses" .. HAH !

also quoting the last article:

This Is Not Crazy Speculation, this is not Tradition for Traditions sake. This is Documentable, Historical, Anthropologically Provable Evidence of Surprising and Staggering Implication. A religion that does not give you direct Access to the Divine, A Religion that Expects you to Be Subservient to Their Interpretations, is a Religion that Does NOT have your best interest at heart.. The Understanding of Our Place in the Universe, The Realization of Self, The Direct Communion with the Divine IS the Spiritual Inheritance that We as Humans Have RIGHT to !!!

Just Google: "Jesus and Amanita Muscaria", there's lots more to read up on, .. theologists and ethnobotanist amongst us will enjoy.. ( HA !).

I once read John Allegro's book, ... very dry read, especially the linguistic theory... I have not tried amanita muscaria, in any of it's "forms". In Vancouver BC we have 4 or 5 species of native psilocybe mushrooms that grow in the fall before the frost. And of course here in BC we're also famous for our cannabis ..!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:36 pm

There's a good reason why nobody takes that theory seriously. Anyone care to take a guess? (Hint: it's about as coherent as El Ka Bong and Meat put together. There's no sense in taking any of the three seriously.)

random link, found in about 30 seconds of googling. I do not vouch for its non-suckness.

edit: P.S. any time I see an argument that makes the assertion "this is not crazy speculation"... that's probably a sign that the person who made it was speculating like crazy.

edit #2: great quote from the above link:
"There is a time to acknowledge one's mistakes, innumerable as they often are, and there is a time to concede one's point when formidable arguments are marshalled against one, but there is also time to smile when a specious theory is so bold and so extravagant as to defy rational argument. Such a theory is the one Mr Allegro [author of El Ka Bong's goofy book] puts before us."

edit #3: chapter 9 of the aforementioned link is absolutely hilarious. It's the sort of thinking that you should be doing, Mr. Ka Bong. Put a little bit of intelligent thought into your research -- don't just believe a theory because you want to (which is quite clearly what you've done.) It's quite an enlightening read... and it makes you look pretty silly.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:53 am

one comment:

Darwins box doesn't exist. Thus crumbling the thoery of evolution.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:38 am

Box? What box? You mean Darwin's Black Box?

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:09 pm

Even if Evolution was proved wrong, it would not change people's minds about Christianity.

If a persistent non-believer saw a miracle happen in front of their eyes, they would most likely still not believe in God.

The Bible is God's book of hundreds of miracles. Need more proof?

My point: dis-"proving" evolution will not "convert" anyone to Christianity.

Another thing I want to highlight, although a bit off topic, is that Christians do not wish to convert people to Christianity because we want the entire world to conform to our religion, but because we care about the eternal destiny of others, and the Bible does tell Christians to go and tell others about Christ's saving grace, etc.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:33 pm

Sorry Drakona. Yes, "Darwin's black box" or the cell nucleius.

And how it "works" as described by Darwin.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:24 pm

Yeah. I actually just finished reading that book yesterday, oddly enough.

Behe's argument that irreducible complexity is a block to direct evolution is a good one, but beware if you think that'll kill evolutionary theory. There are a few ways around it. The most popular one seems to be indirect evolution (where the function you're selecting for changes over time, as opposed to staying fixed). Behe laughs the idea off as a vapor theory, in the book, and he's right, it is. But evolutionists have begun to really take it seriously in response to his stuff, so arguments need to be made.

Compared to direct evolution, indirect evolution makes a lot less in the way of fixed, concrete claims--which is really saying something. So even if irreducible complexity doesn't make the theory of evolution completely crumble, it's a victory from an anti-evolutionary standpoint--it forces a shift that makes evolution appear just a little more nebulous--more like myth and less like science. Then again, indirect evolution *is* a new evolutionary mechanism--or at least one that evolutionists hadn't given much serious thought to before. And Behe's argument does eliminate a mechanism that doesn't work in a particular case. That's all progress from an evolutionary standpoint. So both sides are benefitting from the battle. I have more research to do on it, but from what I can tell so far, nobody's won yet.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:50 am

I don't think that it will "kill" Evolution. There will always be people that will insist that it's good science. Evolution doesn't really make sense. If evo is the genetic enbetterment (?) thru constant death and survival, how does that stack against the Law of Energy Conservation? In any system, energy is lost and the system degrades. Life is a system. I find it a bit statistically unlikely that this process of "survival of the fittest" would produce genetic improvement and higher complexity. And statically, the possiblity of life coming to what it is thru the theory of evolution and from the big bang is beyond what is considered impossble. 1x10-40,000/1.

Also, I read the other day, that "neadrethal man" is nothing more than a person that lived to be 400+ years old. The skull continues to grwo as you age. the bones thicken thru the cheeks and forehead. The jaw also morphs a bit.

Drak, I have yet to read the book. I heard taht prof on an interview. It was really facination.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:56 am

It is very true that some people will always believe in evolution. And in the same vein, what Jesus Freak said--that some people wouldn't believe in God if they saw a miracle with their own eyes--is also true.

Consider what happened with the big bang. For a long time, it had been supposed that the universe was simply infinite in time, and self-existing; Christians and Jews were the screwballs that thought it had begun when God created it. Then the scientific theory changed, and the evidence mounted; ultimately everyone had to acknowledge the universe did, indeed, have a beginning. You'd think this would be a decisive triumph for the theists among us--a beginning strongly suggests a Beginner. But it wasn't so; scientists began to talk about the universe as a bubble in a larger super-universe, or refer to particles, or even the universe itself, as simply popping into existence without reason or cause.

The moral of the story is that you can believe whatever you like, in the face of any and all evidence that comes your way. You can take the big bang as corroborating evidence for a creating God, or you can believe a story about super-universes, or you can just throw up your hands and call it irrelevant. All of those are fine. While your observations of the world are fixed, the story you spin to explain them is up to you. That's why care and humility are key in trying to learn--if you sit with stubborn skeptecism waiting for truth to conquer you, you'll likely be disappointed.

That's true twice over when it comes to origins, if you ask me. The world we study is so anceint and alien, the evidence so slim, and the time scales so great, that there's ample room to believe just about anything you want to. Care and humility are key.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Drakona:
The world we study is so anceint and alien, the evidence so slim, and the time scales so great, that there's ample room to believe just about anything you want to. Care and humility are key. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

whoa... nicely said.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:53 am

from a strictly open minded, non religious point of view - its people like barry who make me open minded, and people like cuda who make me dislike christians.

edit: copsy, copsy, copsy... like he would get a joke about a particular race of people have bigger dicks than another.

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:30 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by kurupt:
from a strictly open minded, non religious point of view - its people like barry who make me open minded, and people like cuda who make me dislike christians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurupt, what you have to remember is Christians like Cuda are still human beings and aren't perfect. They aren't "sinless," but they should sin LESS.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:52 pm

i know jf, i'm not expecting anyone to be perfect. i just have this thing, a pet peeve if you will... ignorant, stubborn, closed minded, persistent people piss me off. (i.e. the average christian)

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:37 pm

Don't be so open-minded that your brains leak out. I've seen it before and it's not a pretty sight.

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:42 pm

My god, this topic is still going?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:01 pm

kur, every side has its Ricans and its Cudas and its El Ka Bongs who (at least in debate) don't listen or understand what they argue against.

I'd say most vocal-in-debate Christians don't understand what they argue against -- but then, most people from every other worldview are the same way. Most atheists don't understand Christianity very well when they're argue against it. Most of the Wiccans I know hardly even understand their own position in debate (it's like arguing with vapor.) And most people from every worldview hold very strongly to their worldview and refuse to consider others seriously.

It just so happens that you're more likely to run into the arrogant-ignorant-stubborn side of people who are Christians than people who are not (and I'm more likely to run into the arrogant-ignorant-stubborn side of people who are atheists.) But don't think people coming from other worldviews are any less arrogant-ignorant-stubborn when confronted with foreign worldviews. This makes it seem like the "average" person from the foreign worldview is a moron -- because, chances are, on the subject you're discussing with them, they're completely ignorant. Truly open and thoughtful people are rare, regardless of the worldview they're coming from.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by kurupt:
 from a strictly open minded, non religious point of view - its people like barry who make me open minded, and people like cuda who make me dislike christians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

K ,the only difference I see between me and Cuda(doctrinal differences aside)would be delivery. I'm pretty stubborn when it comes to my belief system as well.
I'll generally listen to what other people believe for two reasons:
1. because I'm interested in the person and what drives them.
2. Respect. I can't expect you to listen to me if I won't listen to you.

My goal is the same as any other Christian, to show you what I believe is true and answer any questions you may have, assuming I have the answer. My biggest problem is that I'm not a very good witness but I'm an excellent hypocrite. Somehow, when it comes to speaking about the Bible and its teachings I get very careful with my wording and my actions. When we're in chat or discussing matters other than the Bible, I'm loose lipped and careless and It shouldn't be that way.. People tend to to listen to a persons character more then the words they speak.

I hope that made sense and thanks for the compliment.

B-

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:28 pm

ok, to be specific as to what exactly i meant:

i've talked with barry about it before, and as a result i have read the bible a little. my interest has waned and waxed a little due to various things, but i have started it nontheless. had it been cuda who asked me about what i believe rather than barry, i would have never accepted the bible when he offered to send me one.

not saying cuda's way is wrong, just that it isn't for me.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:03 am

The evolving thread that would never die .. ! it must have been a really shiny rock you tossed into the pond there, MeatHead !

So I attempt to insert more thread- mutating, incoherent and inane points about my experiences with GOD....and try to connect them with "evolution" ..

Spirituality could be described as: "The Understanding of Our Place in the Universe, The Realization of Self, The Direct Communion with the Divine ... ( see above, )"

Who of us has even peered through a port-hole at god, or in any way experienced GOD ..? It seems like a lot of us ! That's the only reason I get so excited and add my blasphemy, cross-post and all ! My experience of GOD is the only reason I tried to read the bible... and other blasphemous texts !

Like Dracona said: Any dogma, dictate, concoction, legend, myth, science, book, religion, CD-ROM, or Santaclaus-had-a-red-nosed-reindeer tale to explore this point about spirituality is Good ! I like them all .. ! They all must work, sometime, somewhere for some-one.
Does any one here besides me read or ascribe to the models presented by read Carl Jung ? .. That's my kinda Dogma... ! Lothar; how long could you chew on Jung, I wonder....?

Darwin, The Hubble Space Telescope, The fossil records, Einstein, the A-bomb, Radio, The Human Geneone Project.. ! YOu Name it !... Everything that's appeared in our conscious, Human-experience and existence since the Industrial Revolution suggests that literal interpretaion of Genesis is, well, .. . . . ! ? .. Why Bother ..?

If one can literally interpret Genesis, what did they forget about the current century we're living in to find this argument worth keeping alive, even on the DBB .. .??! ( I'm asking myself too, I guess... !) ... It must be just to get a rise out of us... !

And I've apologized already, right ? for cross-posting and all..? !

Kill y'all at Califest !

P.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:44 am

K, I might not be the most eloquent person with words, and on this board I tend to be MUCH more straight forward than I am in real life, ask the ppl that know me ( Duper, Jupy, and a few others ) I guess in my old age I'm just sick of ppl calling me an idiot and closed minded for what I believe, heard it tooooo many times. I will take a stand for what I believe in, and I will not dance around a subject, if I feel your wrong I will try to point it out, could I say things a little less forward? probably, but I will say them none the less. contrary to what alot of you think there is Black and White, Good and Evil in this world and I tend to think in those terms. if someone has wronged me I will tell them, if I have wronged them I will say I'm sorry, dont let my lack of speach stop you from finding the truth. keep reading the word

Sincerly CUDA the Anti Rican

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:28 am

Like Dracona said: Any dogma, dictate, concoction, legend, myth, science, book, religion, CD-ROM, or Santaclaus-had-a-red-nosed-reindeer tale to explore this point about spirituality is Good !

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I did not say that, and I certainly don't believe that. Spiritual issues ought to be studied with an eye to learning truth. My statement about origins applies here as well--the spiritual realm is alien and the evidence regaurding its nature is slim. But that doesn't mean there's no evidence or that intelligent, rational conclusions can't be made--it only means you have to be careful and responsible with the evidence you have, and that if you're waiting for proof to overtake you, you'll be waiting a long time. But "exploring spirituality" by any means available is like studying origins by meditating to find out where you feel like you came from. That's shaky and irresponsible, and I have no stomach for it.

[Edit: Gah, mispellings. It's early.]

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:12 pm

By "literal interpretation of Genesis" I assume you mean "literal naive six-year-old-who-only-reads-English-and-uses-King-James interpretation of Genesis". There's a lot more you can do with the literal Hebrew (which, I believe, is explained in one of my links above)... I won't bother taking this much farther, except to say that you clearly haven't given it adequate thought in either language

Now, your post sort of begs the question, what do you mean by "experiencing God"? If we all claim to have "experienced God", then perhaps Jung was right and we're all just tapping into the collective consciousness of humanity -- we've all shared a collective experience, and given it the name 'God', right? You've seen God, and I've seen God, so we just both tapped into the collective unconscious of the race, right?

Let me just venture a guess, here -- that, while most of us claim to have experienced God in some way or other, most of us would not describe our experiences even remotely as the same thing, or the being we experienced as even remotely the same being, once we got beyond the superficial. That is, on the surface, it would appear Jung was correct -- everyone across every culture seems to share this same experience, and therefore, we're tapping into some sort of collective unconsciousness. But when you dig deeper, I think it falls apart -- people give a common name 'God' to a large class of experiences that really don't have all that much in common, and really don't appear to be evidence of a collective unconsciousness. This is what I've found most disappointing about Jung's work -- he has all these archetypes and symbols and theories connecting them, and it seems his archetype for a "mother" applies well to Eve and Mary, and his archetype for a "shadow" applies to Satan, and so forth. But then, when you really analyze the things his archetypes are applied to, they don't match up -- they're just superficial, and don't come close to explaining the depth and complexity of the situation.

With respect to my own experience of God, I would bring up yet another point -- what I describe as my experience of God is something I have yet to find coming from anyone outside of Christianity, but I've found it to be near universal among strong Christians (that is, if there is a collective unconsciousness, it appears there's a specific collective unconsciousness for strong Christians that nobody else shares, and furthermore, that people become a part of it the moment they become Christians.) Now, you might seek to explain this away as an artifact of language -- that, essentially, I'm interpreting other Christians' experiences as matching mine because they talk about sanctification and the Holy Spirit and pentecost and generally use similar language to describe their experiences (and, similarly, I'm interpreting non-Christians' experiences as different because they use different language.) But many of the people I consider strong Christians, whose experiences strongly parallel mine, came out of Wiccan or Athiestic or other backgrounds and use entirely different language to describe their experiences. So I'm fairly confident that what I'm detecting are common themes, rather than common language.

One particular common theme I've found when Christians describe their experience of God (even among those who have very, very little Bible training or study) is that in prayer, they interact with a personality that is distinct from them -- a personality who displays kindness in particular ways, and who displays firmness in particular ways, and who sometimes reveals information that the person praying couldn't possibly know, and so forth. Furthermore, this personality very closely matches up with the personality God is described as having in the Bible (but, again, even Christians with very limited Bible training describe this personality very accurately.) So there is a particular universality among strong Christians as to what "experiencing God" means. I've also found that, in listening to people who are not Christians (or even those who call themselves Christians but only in a cultural way -- who, therefore, would know the vocabulary inside and out) describing their own experiences, there are always significant variations from this universal experience. I have a feeling Jung, or El Ka Bong, would have a hard time explaining this in a coherent way that held up to scrutiny.

El Ka Bong, can you explain to me what you mean by "experiencing God", in a careful and straightforward manner? I'd be interested to see if what you describe is similar to my own description in any non-superficial ways.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:51 pm

.. A "collective consciousness" ... er that was the Collective Unconscious that Jung worked to explain. You cannot "go there"... it's a place where one is not "conscious".

I agree ! Christians sure do form a "collective consciousness", and as I intimated eariler about Ron K Siegel's theories, it often takes a radical change in consicousness to bring about the Evolution of mammalian species ( not Bacteria of course..?). We're discussing Evolution vs Genesis here, right ..?

I will leave the definition of "experiencing God" wide open ,, call it what you want, what you know. I have my notion, my model, all based on my experiences ... just like all you Christians, Muslims, pagans, and particle physisists...

Try to Google "DMT and God", ... that's "Di Methyl Tryptamine", ... see what you can dredge up that sounds remotely Jungian .. !?

Argh , ... Will This thread will ever die ..!?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:49 am

Bong, he asked you to describe what YOUR experience was......don't dink around the question.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:00 am

Marsupials refute evolution
Most marsupials have the pouch opening facing forward, i.e., towards the head. Some marsupials will spend most of their time in water have the pouch facing backwards so that water will not flow into the pouch. Clearly a backwards facing pouch cannot evolve because when, during the course of gradual modification, it is in the intermediate position the young would fall out.

It will not do to claim that the change was made in a single step. A marsupial cannot make the move to an aquatic lifestyle until the orientation of the pouch is changed. Conversely the orientation of the pouch cannot be changed unless the move to an aquatic lifestyle has been made.

Ergo, marsupials with backward facing pouches cannot have evolved from marsupials with forward facing pouches and vice versa. Ergo they must be of separate kinds. Ergo evolution has been falsified.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:33 am

Apologies, I meant to say "collective unconsciousness" all through my post -- I must've let some "un"'s slip. If our experience of God is all due to either drugs (heh) or the collective unconsciousness of the race, it's very hard to explain why there would be a particularly universal experience for a particular segment of the population (which is not genetically or otherwise closely knit) that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone outside that segment of the population.

And, like Tyr said, don't dink around the question. Can you describe your experiences?

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:25 pm

...In this thread about Evolution and Genesis, I will not attempt to answer "what is my/our experience of God"... That'll be another thread perhaps. The experience of god is beyond words, good luck at getting it all "explained" in text..!

But if you'd like a taste of how my answer may sound: just Google "DMT and God",... browse the hits and see what you think.

For eg: http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/finding.html

DMT is not a drug it's a neurotransmitter we all secrete form the pineal gland. Everyone will have some sort of "experience of God" if their pineal gland get's overactive... everyone, be they adult or a child. DMT is metabolized really quickly as it is an endogenous neurotransmitter.

I have the bias of taking a scientific aproach to explaining the ineffable experience of god. I need a psychological model (Jung), I need a biophysiological model, ... I need all the models I can get ahold of to try to explain what the heck happened when I experience GOD. This has happened to me on more than one occasion, sometimes a "natural" pineal gland secretion will do it , for example when I was 11 years old and my father died, I felt "haunted" by God for weeks. And of course through my experiments with psilocybe mushrooms, some LSD, and the other "sacraments" I have chosen, I have had similarly "spiritual" experiences.

Ok, back on topic: ... Suncho... !? Marsupials returning to the water may have swam backwards at first ..? But way to bring this thread back on track. Suncho, are you living in Australia now..? And the book of Genesis, in light of all the knowledge we have today, is an allegory not to be interpreted literally. Where did Meathead go anyways..? Meathead: you created the mother of all threads.. ! Is it time to let this one go now ..? Maybe start another one..?

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:18 pm

The fact that we can argue the possible existence of God and an afterlife proves Creation. Why would we need such an ability if there is no God? By all Evolutionary claims, you only get something if you need it. But Evolution says there is no God, and we don't need that ability, so why do we have it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:26 pm

Suncho brings up an interesting evolutionary example. To expand we can look at fish and see their scales are pointed (or overlapped) towards the back so the fish flows more efficiently through the water. Birds feathers are also another in line example.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:38 pm

Ka Bong, I like how you say you won't answer, but then you answer anyway, just not in your own words. Suffice it to say, what you describe there (as little detail as there is) is very much NOT like what I described in my post. I'd say it's a safe bet that we're describing two very different phenomena, and that therefore, your DMT explanation fails miserably

Also, I again ask, why can't Genesis be interpreted literally in the original Hebrew?

Suncho, why would you assume it evolved from backwards to forwards through an "open on both ends" intermediate state? What if, instead, it rotated around 180 degrees, so that in the middle, it was sideways? Or, what if both evolved from just an extra layer of skin?

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:56 pm

My Dad wrote a book on Genesis and a couple others on Creation. If anyone would like a copy, you could buy it from him(or he may give it to you for free.) You can contact him at lucas001@netzero.net and tell my Dad that his youngest son referred his book to some Descent3 players.