Tuesday, December 20, 2005

darwin vs. god vs. ??????????????

o.k. so a judge just made it law that creationism cannot be taught in school science class. the intelligent design position has been found, by the judge, to be creationism in diguise.evolution_debate;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate
what i don`t understand is why there are only two sides being adressed in this arguement. if one visits www.lloydpye.com for a moment and looks at the list of questions about human dna and the suppositions of evolution from apes, it becomes obvious to those with a mind focused on answers, that niether creationism or evolution explain the human species.
a third hypothesis is needed here, on which is examined at the above website. it is called interventionism and it works like this;
for whatever reason, an advanced species came here from space and genetically engineered us. i don`t know why and don`t feel the need to speculate. what i see from all the data and supposition from the dawinists is that we couldn`t have become what we are from what ever else is here now or was in the past. there are no missing links and no way to show that sophisticated biological devices like the human eye could have evolved.....
lloyd pye does the arguement well at his site, which i linked above, and i highly recommend more that a cursory glance at his work. he is a pioneer and gets little support in the sea of academia and clergy because his evidence doesn`t support thier position.
it`s not evolution or creationism in the bilical sense that made us. it was the hand of a technological mechanism. a mechanism in the hands of a species, not more intellegent than us, but able to bring a superior technology to bear on living tissue.

2 comments:

heidi said...

Mentioning Seth again if I may: his explanation was that no creature has 'evolved' as we formulate that concept, nor did any white-bearded grandpa do the thing in seven days (or seven eons, or however the more sophisticated biblical apologists translate the time frame).

Instead, we constantly spring forth from All That Is, created and never destroyed but not all nor always desirous of earthly experience. Just as a loving thought creates that upon which it centers, the endless loving ... 'thoughts' ... of our boundless source ... comes forth as 'life' expressed in endless various forms, sometimes here, sometimes not-here.

even he found it difficult to describe this matter, due to the necessity of translating it in terms our temporally-structured perception could widen to comprehend. now I see what he meant, on both counts. it was fun for me to give it a go, though. :-)

and thank you once again for creating a space in which i might have that fun. most delighted, and grateful.

dr.alistair said...

"we are constantly springing forth." yep, that about sums it up.
when we can, for a moment at least, widen our perception by energising our consciousness we can see the edges of what higher dimension consciousness can offer. the more we practice striving to attain that state, by whatever means possible, the more we become that consciousness.
smiling, shouting, grinning, loving, jumping up and down and yelling out joy at our existance. looking into the eyes of another and smiling.
looking into the eyes of another and smiling.
looking into the eyes of another and smiling.
and then go about your day.