Yale Scientist abanding Darwin's Evolution

Originally Posted by iamthat

I agree that science has provided many material benefits, but in terms of the bigger questions of life and death then I would not look to a scientist for his or her opinion.

Peace

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein


Einstein had an IQ of 160 and many of the great scientists were religious/Spiritual, as many are today, and I can't help but wonder how many Spiritual people embrace science. For all you know there may be a raft of scientific people who are more Spiritual than you are. Carl Jung, the psychologist, had studied Eastern religions and sometimes mentioned them in his works. His model of the self, the ego and the contents of the ego is a translation of Sanskrit Ankhara. Talking of which.... A scientist called Nassim Harramein has come up with a scientific theory that explains the relationship with God, and it makes far more sense than anything I've seen on these boards. There are a few on these boards, I've noticed. Dismissiveness doesn't make wisdom, it only makes more ignorance.

I wouldn't ask a Spiritual person because they have a propensity for providing opinions as contradictory Universal Truths without having first formulated a question that genuinely seeks wisdom. Like the so-called "bigger questions". I'd go to Douglas Adams and the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. You should read it because it explains all about the answer to Life, the Universe, Everything. You see, for some matter is emergent of consciousness while those that think consciousness is emergent of matter - those that read books and pack their noggins with knowledge - have it backwards. Tolle also agrees, he calls it "object consciousness." "Bigger" is relative to one's own egoic agenda.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Most people parrot others. That may suggest that humans may have evolved both from apes and parrots ... maybe with some higher intelligence involvement. Was that a successful endeavor? The jury's still out on that ... :)

This brings the thought; How do humans obtain information?

If it be mostly by what is passed on, then what is being passed on?

Lol, perhaps an endeavor gone haywire. Yes the jury seems still out.

It ain't over yet.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Looks like some modern scientists may support intelligent design, not Darwin's evolution.



I'm no scientist, but I think basically too many missing links exist to justify evolution. New versions of species just appear a lot, and don't evolve from something else. Sudden major changes in species appear which seems to point to an "intelligent inventor(s)" creating.

Greetings.

I own a DVD...I have had it for about 10 years now and I get it out and dust it off every now and then. It is called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" by Illustra Media.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlo...ystery_of_Life

It seeks to prove "Intelligent Design" through an observable phenomenon known as "irreducible complexity":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Then, of course, we have Richard Dawkins debunking the theory of irreducible complexity:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql5PmOGtM34&t=9s

However, the tail of the bacterial flagellum is still a pretty remarkable thing...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y4aTt_ODOKY

In any case, you have scientists in both camps regarding intelligent design, a lot of refuting arguments to and fro on the matter...which leads me to understand that nobody really knows...nobody can be sure about anything.

Still it is Darwin's Theory of Evolution which is taught in schools as the "textbook model" however, the key word here is THEORY.

Science is full of "theories" which have been accepted as fact...it is pretty much what science IS.

Evolutionists have "theories" and Creationists have "beliefs"...much of a muchness, if you ask me.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein


Einstein had an IQ of 160 and many of the great scientists were religious/Spiritual, as many are today, and I can't help but wonder how many Spiritual people embrace science. For all you know there may be a raft of scientific people who are more Spiritual than you are. Carl Jung, the psychologist, had studied Eastern religions and sometimes mentioned them in his works. His model of the self, the ego and the contents of the ego is a translation of Sanskrit Ankhara. Talking of which.... A scientist called Nassim Harramein has come up with a scientific theory that explains the relationship with God, and it makes far more sense than anything I've seen on these boards. There are a few on these boards, I've noticed.

I try...I really do try my friend...but nobody WANTS to know! They believe that if they close their eyes, it will all just go away...but oh wait...maybe it DOES.

Nassim Haramein is brilliant by the way.

[Moonglow]

Just checked out Nassim Haramein and watched a discussion wth him.

He seems very down to Earth, yet brilliant.

Thanks Greenslade and Shivani Devi for bringing him to my attention.

Will check out more when given time.

Side note: I think many scientists don't bring in religious/spiritual beliefs into being part of or influencing thier research because doing so may impact the funding received for thier research. Making it seem more religious based, then academic perhaps.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Just checked out Nassim Haramein and watched a discussion wth him.

He seems very down to Earth, yet brilliant.

Thanks Greenslade and Shivani Devi for bringing him to my attention.

Will check out more when given time.

Side note: I think many scientists don't bring in religious/spiritual beliefs into being part of or influencing thier research because doing so may impact the funding received for thier research. Making it seem more religious based, then academic perhaps.

You are very welcome.

You also raise a very interesting and valid point regarding financial motives and sponsorship.

Personally?

If anybody asked me if I personally believe in Intelligent Design, my answer would be "yes" but NOT for any of the reasons mentioned.

My evidence for doing so, is based purely on mathematics and repeating patterns of fractal vectors relating to the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean... everything from nautilus shells, to pine cones to the arrangement of kernels in a sunflower, to romanesco broccoli to the spiral arms of galaxies to the complex eye of a fly.. My instincts tell me that something that knows what it is doing is behind all that.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

You are very welcome.

You also raise a very interesting and valid point regarding financial motives and sponsorship.

Personally?

If anybody asked me if I personally believe in Intelligent Design, my answer would be "yes" but NOT for any of the reasons mentioned.

My evidence for doing so, is based purely on mathematics and repeating patterns of fractal vectors relating to the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean... everything from nautilus shells, to pine cones to the arrangement of kernels in a sunflower, to romanesco broccoli to the spiral arms of galaxies to the complex eye of a fly.. My instincts tell me that something that knows what it is doing is behind all that.

Hi Shivani Devi,

Looked up Golden Means to get an idea of what is being referred to.

Interesting, but my mind doesn't seem to fully follow in mathematical ways.
Nothing towards you, just an observation of myself.

But, can agree that looking at patterns can give an indication that whatever is behind creating all this knows what it is doing.

I notice it through observing the interactions with in nature. How each seems to support each and there is a connection with each organism and element.

How this place (Earth) just so happens to be in the perfect spot for life to develop here that gives support for us/humans to be here.

How the solar system itself moves in cooperation with each part to keep the Earth in this place.

Condensing this and simplifying it, but the point is it is a wonder. Boggles the mind. But, I think some like the chase, so some things are hidden from us until ready to know it and keep things interesting.

Well sharing some of my take on it.

Thank you ( learned something new)

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

I'm no scientist, but I think basically too many missing links exist to justify evolution. New versions of species just appear a lot, and don't evolve from something else. Sudden major changes in species appear which seems to point to an "intelligent inventor(s)" creating.

Parallel argument from a footnote in my treatise:

Speaking of said (plural!) ‘designers’, arguments between traditional Christian-Theology indoctrinated Creationists and traditional Material-Science indoctrinated Darwinians are unresolvable because said ‘doctrines’ derive from incompatible sets of premises (each set being deficient in its own way at that!). As propositionally presented and hopefully convincingly pleaded in relation to Jesus’ Father↔Son paradigm in the preceding chapter, the process of Creation is a multiplistically determined phenom wherein every part dynamically affects The Whole. Every aspect of – i.e. every ‘element’, ‘column’, ‘row’ and ‘plane’ in – the Matrix (i.e. the Matriarch) of Life is a functional Love-and-Joy program-code ‘executive’ in its own right! And, although particular co‑motional co‑incidences may indeed be random (in the sense of not being determined in advance) and so reasonably regarded as being more or less ‘accidental’, the fact is that purely numbers-based ‘natural selection’ deductions deriving from mathematical calculations (that this or that feature of Life had or has a greater probability of contextually ‘surviving’ and ‘propagating’) fall far short of accounting for the obviously intelligent (to say the very least!) beauty and whimsy that are gobsmackingly evident in the ‘designs’ of a great many lifeforms, this even in ‘lightless’ and (so) ‘sightless’ contexts!

Mind you, this is not to say that lifeforms don’t also have many features that are obviously utilitarian, which features therefore may well have been probabilistically ‘selected for’ in the ‘scheme’ of species survival and propagation. But, especially if you are one who is presently so orthodoxly Darwinian that you only see and make sense of things using that particular ideational ‘lens’, I suggest you do an internet search for and then watch videos pertaining to butterflies, unusual flowers, unusual insects, sea slugs, sea bunnies, unusual animals, etc. The shapes and colors of the creatures visible therein will make it strikingly clear to you that simple ‘survival’ and ‘propagation’ value based selection from among a bunch of randomly generated possibilities could not have been the cause of the clearly artistically composed patterns displayed therein.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I wouldn't ask a Spiritual person because they have a propensity for providing opinions as contradictory Universal Truths without having first formulated a question that genuinely seeks wisdom.

Talk about a propensity to negatively stereotype 'Spiritual' folks (that is, whoever he decides to hang that label on)! It strikes me that's a button he never gets tired of pushing (for some 'reason' which presently escapes me, undoubtedly!).

[BigJohn]

Does that mean that the only person whose opinions count is...........