Yale Scientist abanding Darwin's Evolution

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

I was speaking specifically of the Great Pyramid - as you say, there are many pyramids and they are not all the same. But the Great Pyramid stands out as different and raises many questions. The orthodox view of human development does not answer these questions.
Peace.

As I haven't a clue what ''questions'' your mind wonders about, I'll just share this, and from there on you can check the sources.

https://iop.uva.nl/content/news/2014...-pyramids.html

https://www.livescience.com/52740-be...ere-built.html

Originally Posted by davidsun

Speaking of symbols, I found the following (excerpted from Seth Speaks) fascinating:

At this point many variations in behavior emerge, each the result of individual background, knowledge, and habit. The surroundings in Which the dead find themselves will often vary. Vivid hallucinations may form experience quite as real as any in mortal life. Now, I have told you that thoughts and emotions form physical reality, and they form after-death experience [as well]. This does not mean that the experiences are not valid, any more than it means that physical life is not valid.

Certain images have been used to symbolize such a transition from one existence to another, and many of these are extremely valuable in that they provide a framework with understandable references. The crossing of the River Styx is such a one. The dying expected certain procedures to occur in a more or less orderly fashion. The maps were known beforehand. At death, the consciousness hallucinated the river vividly. Relatives and friends already dead entered into the ritual, which was a profound ceremony also on their parts. The river was as real as any that you know, as treacherous to a traveler alone without proper knowledge. Guides were always at the river to help such travelers across.

It does not do to say that such a river is illusion. The symbol is reality, you see. The way was planned. Now, that particular map is no longer generally in use. The living do not know how to read it. Christianity has believed in a heaven and a hell, a purgatory, and reckoning; and so, at death, to those who so believe in these symbols,another ceremony is enacted, and the guides take on the guises of those beloved figures of Christian saints and heroes.

Then with this as framework, and in terms that they can understand, such individuals are told the true situation. Mass religious movements have for centuries fulfilled that purpose, in giving man some plan to be followed. It little mattered that later the plan was seen as a child's primer, a book of instructions complete with colorful tales, for the main purpose was served and there was little disorientation.

In periods where no such mass ideas are held, there is more disorientation, and when life after death is completely denied, the problem is somewhat magnified. Many, of course, are overjoyed to find themselves still conscious. Others have to learn all over again about certain laws of behavior, for they do not realize the creative potency of their thoughts or emotions. Such an individual may find himself in ten different environments within the flicker of an eyelash, for example, with no idea of the reason behind the situation. He will see no continuity at all, and feel himself flung without rhyme or reason from one experience to another, never realizing that his own thoughts are propelling him quite literally.

I am speaking now of the events immediately following death, for there are other stages. Guides will helpfully become a part of your hallucinations, in order to help you out of them, but they must first of all get your trust.

You should grab a copy of Robin Williams' "Whatever Dreams May Come," a case of beer and a bucket of popcorn. And tissues, don't forget the tissues.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

As I haven't a clue what ''questions'' your mind wonders about, I'll just share this, and from there on you can check the sources.

https://iop.uva.nl/content/news/2014...-pyramids.html

https://www.livescience.com/52740-be...ere-built.html

Modern structural engineers would be hard pressed to build a structure like the Giza pyramids today, and cutting, transporting and positioning all that stone with copper chisels, river rafts, sand sleds, timer cranes and woven rope is not such a credible explanation of how a group of structures like that were erected in 20 years.

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.

The way I see it is it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Whatever is, is, and if in fact there's a God and Darwinian evolution is correct then God must have set the initial conditions to make it so, missing links, gaps in the evolutionary chain and any other inconsistencies.

That is, Darwinian evolution does not negate God, regardless of any scientific opinion.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

Modern structural engineers would be hard pressed to build a structure like the Giza pyramids today, and cutting, transporting and positioning all that stone with copper chisels, river rafts, sand sleds, timer cranes and woven rope is not such a credible explanation of how a group of structures like that were erected in 20 years.

Gem, if you can provide a credible explanation [preferably one that does not rely on magical thinking or imaginary beings] than feel free to share it with us.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The way I see it is it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Whatever is, is, and if in fact there's a God and Darwinian evolution is correct then God must have set the initial conditions to make it so, missing links, gaps in the evolutionary chain and any other inconsistencies.
That is, Darwinian evolution does not negate God, regardless of any scientific opinion.

There are no ''missing links''. Second, although evolution does not disprove the existence of god(s), natural selection [https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...rticle/evo_25] shows us we do not require god(s) to explain life on earth. If the gods exist than they had/have nothing to do with life's journey on earth.

If you believe in a god then why not believe in the Easter Bunny?

Originally Posted by Altair

There are no ''missing links''. Second, although evolution does not disprove the existence of god(s), natural selection [https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...rticle/evo_25] shows us we do not require god(s) to explain life on earth. If the gods exist than they had/have nothing to do with life's journey on earth.

If you believe in a god then why not believe in the Easter Bunny?

Or a flying spaghetti monster, right? LOL!

I no longer believe or disbelieve anything. There's that which I know intellectually and that which I know experientially. Everything is up for grabs and that's a lot!

I'm keen on science, all of it, but especially anything related to astronomy and physics. Though I don't have the math to delve deep down I do have a very solid understanding at the layman's level. That being said I also recognize no theory is truth, just the best model based on scientific assumptions that were formulated and accepted by previous work and where observation aligns with prediction.

Concerning God, that's for each of us to decide Its nature or deny the existence thereof. My recent experience removed all belief I previously held.

If I'm deluded how bad is it to be deluded to the point where suffering has no hold over me, including the ultimate suffering - fear of death?

[Altair]

Hi JustSimpleGuy,

Scientific theories describe our world, based on evidence, observation, and repeatability. One could be an extreme skeptic about all of that and turn to solipsism, but honestly that's the height of human exceptionalism gone wrong. You can say you don't do beliefs yet you do believe, in ''God''. But more importantly in the context here, it also does not quite relate to the topic, as ''spiritual experience'' does not necessitate a belief in any deity or creationism. A lot of people quite possibly experience what people describe on this forum, without interpreting it through a religion, calling it 'God', or claiming it proves afterlife and spirits.

I don't think it's for ''each of us to decide'' when the science is clear on the matter. We can decide to believe or not believe in creation, but we can't claim creationism is real without evidence to support that claim. Also, while you can choose to *believe* in 'God' the lack of such a belief is not about ''denying'' anything. Check on parsimony.

I understand where your last part is coming from, but I would say, as conscious, rational creatures we can separate truth from falsehood, so I'm not all so sure whether being in a place of wilful ignorance just because it feels nice is something we should cherish.

Altair,

To each his own. Trying to intellectualize spirituality is most likely a dead-end.

[EdmundJohnstone]

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, science has the upper hand. Why? Science proves things, spiritual stuff is just wishful thinks for them, but does nothing.We did a lot of technological 'advancement' due to science that probably nobody could have guessed 100 years ago, not to say 1000 years ago, but yeah, unfortunately spiritual stuff is not on the chart of proven things. Nobody ever prove the existence of easter bunny, why? Because it does not exist anywhere else but just in imagination, maybe spirits are the same .

Now people will say, that science can't detect something immaterial. Well, we know we are a buildup of atoms, so we as a buildup of atoms should interact with the spirit? So why can't we detect this bond between our atoms buildup and spirit?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

As I haven't a clue what ''questions'' your mind wonders about, I'll just share this, and from there on you can check the sources.

https://iop.uva.nl/content/news/2014...-pyramids.html

https://www.livescience.com/52740-be...ere-built.html

Thanks for the links. They were quite amusing, especially when you consider that the heaviest known stones in the Great Pyramid are estimated to weigh 50-80 tons. Certainly, the smaller pyramids may have been built using such methods, but the Great Pyramid is on a completely different scale.

At a conservative estimate there are 2.3 million stones in the Great Pyramid weighing on average 2.5 tons each. Supposedly the Great Pyramid took 20 years to build. If they worked around the clock for 20 years then each stone would have been put in place in under 5 minutes. If they only worked in daylight then it would have been one stone every 2.5 minutes, all just using ropes and sleds and timber cranes. For me at least, these "facts" do not make sense. But that is the orthodox view because there was supposedly no other technology available. Any alternative possibilities mean revising our understanding of human history.

Peace