Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Darwin's Fatal Admission

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


NOTHING suggests intelligence is a prerequisite for the existence of life...unless you wanna call physical forces intelligent, which would be silly. Either way, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or its validity.

We can however prove that the literal interpretation of many creation myths like Genesis are complete and utter nonsense...and that's a FACT.




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 

Props to you, OP, for walking into a hail of bullets. Not very smart, perhaps, but certainly very brave.

I won't repeat what your opponents have been telling you (you've already heard it several times), but you should know by now that you were mistaken about this book.

Instead of scolding, I'm just going to say this: if you understood the theory of evolution you would no longer disbelieve it.

I'm going to comment on just one short quote from Darwin's Fatal Admission:


That one man could audaciously claim against the lead of all amazing minds of history... that nothingness... could be the reason all things exist – was the height of intellectual-egotistic hubris.

Darwin did not claim that 'nothing is the reason all things exist'. I have read The Origin of Species from cover to cover. Nowhere in it will you find such a claim, nor will you find anything like it. Darwin's claim was simply that the diversity of life can be explained by a process of evolution from a common ancestor. He called the process natural selection.

The claim was not made 'against the lead of all the amazing minds of history'. The theory of evolution – I use the word 'theory' in the normal, unscientific way – was by no means new; as with most philosophical ideas, the Greeks got there first, and evolution was a long-familiar idea to intellectuals in Darwin's grandfather's day – in fact, old Erasmus even wrote a poem about it.


ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

Thus the tall Oak, the giant of the wood,
Which bears Britannia's thunders on the flood;
The Whale, unmeasured monster of the main,
The lordly Lion, monarch of the plain,
The Eagle soaring in the realms of air,
Whose eye undazzled drinks the solar glare,
Imperious man, who rules the bestial crowd,
Of language, reason, and reflection proud,
With brow erect who scorns this earthly sod,
And styles himself the image of his God;
Arose from rudiments of form and sense,
An embryon point, or microscopic ens!

The Temple of Nature, Canto I.v

All that being said, Darwin's claim was certainly a very audacious one – not because it was unheard-of, but because it contradicted the religious authorities of the day, and the doctrines on which their authority was based. Victorian England was a very religious place, and no-one understood this better than Charles Darwin, who had once studied for the priesthood himself.

But though his claim was audacious, Darwin can hardly be accused of hubris. He did not arrive at his theory by accident, or even willingly; its conclusions were forced upon him by his own research as a naturalist. It was only reluctantly that he gave in to them, and even then he kept his ideas to himself for twenty years – twenty years! – before he dared to publish them.

In the end, he only wrote The Origin of Species because another scientist, Alfred Russell Wallace, had more recently come to the same conclusions and was about to publish his own treatise on evolution. Shy as he was, Darwin didn't want to lose credit for a lifetime's hard work to another man, so he went public with his ideas at last.

In case you think all this is an evolutionist lie, I assure you that you can discover the truth for yourself. Any reputable biography of Darwin will tell you the same as I, and those biographies are based on reams of private correspondence between Darwin and his colleagues, his friends and members of his family. The letters have been preserved in various archives, and thousands of them are available for you to read online at the Darwin Correspondence Project, which also tells you where many of the rest are located. It will a huge task sifting through all that correspondence to prove or disprove what I have told you – personally, I'm content to take it on trust – but nothing is hidden or concealed. The truth is out there.

I hope this thread will turn out to be the start of a evolutionary journey of discovery for you, and perhaps for others too. For years, you have been told lies – that evolution is false, that it is 'just a theory', that it is unproven or unprovable – by people with a worldly, material interest in keeping you ignorant of the truth. Learn about evolution, and you will discover the truth for yourself.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Interesting, I didn't know that. Could it have been Gregor Mendel who wrote the letter? I do remember he supposedly wrote a letter to Darwin but never sent it, something to that affect, I'm not sure. Either way as long as heredity was well known Darwin's theory was plenty sound enough to go public with it.


It was Friedrich Miescher.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Correction to my own post. It wasn't Chambers who got scooped. It was Wallace. My bad. And yet, Wallace was just happy to be recognized for it at all. When the paper was presented, it was Wallace who lectured on it, not Darwin. Darwin was at home burying his son.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.

Or, since Darwin was an atheist, I assume you think he could not have believed his son had a soul, life, love, beauty, joy or an ever lasting spirit-identity-being beyond this tangible-time-evolution thing. Do you wonder about that--- That he nor his son were anything but a bag of flesh and bones and pumps and gizzards and the brain was nothing but a ball of convoluted electrical connections and so bury the bones was as interesting as uncovering bones---just a study in evolution based in materialism---.

What is Love? How did Love get into our blood and bones? Do you know what Love is?

I do not see how one can look at Life, how one can be Alive, be a real living experience and not believe in a Higher Power, and not have a sense the Wonder and Mystery and Profound depth and beauty of It---and realize there is a Supreme Primary First Cause and Its presence can be seen as Life Itself--- .

How can anyone look around and see people and trees and earth and sky and little kittens and flowers and rain and the smile on our child's face and her sweet sparkling joyful innocent spirit and say there is no God, there is no "heart" no "soul" no Life Force, Awareness, Consciousness here ---to look with eyes filled with Love and say there is no Intelligence beyond our own 'heads'--- I cannot imagine a mind and heart can't feel the unfathomable, incomprehensible Infinity of Life that exists in a very real and present meta-physical way---a state of being that is beyond the 'material form'---

When one believes that we are just evolved meat---that sort of makes ones view of Life entirely 'material' and that seems to me where most of the problems out there in the world stem from. The materialist view is no less destructive and corrupt as the dogmatic-authoritariam-religions. The materialist is always wanting to control the world---unable to Trust the Light of Life that knows exactly how to 'run its world' so to speak---

There is a deeply spiritual way and it involves an understanding of God as Divine Intelligence. And that does not eliminate science. Science is discovering that Light is information and information is intelligent and 'knows' ---

The scientists who study Light and black holes are finding there is more to Life than 'matter' --- that there is consciousness 'everywhere at once'--- Quantum science just might be at the very edge of finding there is Deific Being, and All Knowing Light behind all that we see---perhaps science will admit there is a God ---but proving God can only be done one to one between "Me and Thee" ---its an inside job between the individual heart and God.

But, science may get close---then what will you do when the science finds out, discovers that "we" are something not 'material' but a sort of living Infinity or that this living experience called Life is the very proof of Something Divine Itself--as in this 'life experience' is the Mind of God, is not matter but is 'thought' appearing as tangible 'things'--- Ideas that appear 'solid'---That your bone study is really the study of nothing but images within the Awareness of God---

No one needs to prove God to me---I have found God in everything and within my heart and in and of all things, above and below--with us always. I have found that God is really All there is.

My delight and joy about this book was really about my Love for God---not the god of religions, although one can find some marvelous clues as to our Real Identity in the religious texts---and they have their gifts to bring---but, my vision and understanding comes to me directly, through my Life Experience as Love and Grace holds my hand and leads me rightly by way of this Life of Love and Light.

Anyway, I did not think I was going to get so much antagonism -- I was a bit perplexed---I see there is NO Way to bring any talk of God or metaphysics here to this topic 'creationism' and 'evolution'---risky territory, you are set in your ways and I am set with mine---

Yes, you are right, my innocence prevails and I am good with that---I had no idea what I was walking into---but fortunately the Love of Life stays with me and I am filled with Joy for having tried....

Much Love---



edit on 30-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Once again, not a single part of that addressed evolution. It's nothing but philosophy and the occasional lie or exaggeration about evolution.

If you enjoy the book, that's cool, but just understand it's one person's philosophical opinion, and not fact based, like the theory of evolution.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.

Or, since Darwin was an atheist, I assume you think he could not have believed his son had a soul, life, love, beauty, joy or an ever lasting spirit-identity-being beyond this tangible-time-evolution thing. Do you wonder about that--- That he nor his son were anything but a bag of flesh and bones and pumps and gizzards and the brain was nothing but a ball of convoluted electrical connections and so bury the bones was as interesting as uncovering bones---just a study in evolution based in materialism---.

What is Love? How did Love get into our blood and bones? Do you know what Love is?


edit on 30-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)


Emotions, look it up.

And did you say since Darwin was atheist, he never saw his dead son as nothing but bag of flesh?

oh boy, ignorance is overwhelming. I guess emotions are only for religious people in you sense.

You should create a new ATS account.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.

Or, since Darwin was an atheist, I assume you think he could not have believed his son had a soul, life, love, beauty, joy or an ever lasting spirit-identity-being beyond this tangible-time-evolution thing. Do you wonder about that--- That he nor his son were anything but a bag of flesh and bones and pumps and gizzards and the brain was nothing but a ball of convoluted electrical connections and so bury the bones was as interesting as uncovering bones---just a study in evolution based in materialism---.


What the hell are you ranting on about? Darwin was no atheist.

He also married his first cousin and all of their children had medical issues--he always suspected it was the lack of diversity in his family tree that caused the problems.


What is Love? How did Love get into our blood and bones? Do you know what Love is?

I do not see how one can look at Life, how one can be Alive, be a real living experience and not believe in a Higher Power, and not have a sense the Wonder and Mystery and Profound depth and beauty of It---and realize there is a Supreme Primary First Cause and Its presence can be seen as Life Itself--- .

How can anyone look around and see people and trees and earth and sky and little kittens and flowers and rain and the smile on our child's face and her sweet sparkling joyful innocent spirit and say there is no God, there is no "heart" no "soul" no Life Force, Awareness, Consciousness here ---to look with eyes filled with Love and say there is no Intelligence beyond our own 'heads'--- I cannot imagine a mind and heart can't feel the unfathomable, incomprehensible Infinity of Life that exists in a very real and present meta-physical way---a state of being that is beyond the 'material form'---

When one believes that we are just evolved meat---that sort of makes ones view of Life entirely 'material' and that seems to me where most of the problems out there in the world stem from. The materialist view is no less destructive and corrupt as the dogmatic-authoritariam-religions. The materialist is always wanting to control the world---unable to Trust the Light of Life that knows exactly how to 'run its world' so to speak---

There is a deeply spiritual way and it involves an understanding of God as Divine Intelligence. And that does not eliminate science. Science is discovering that Light is information and information is intelligent and 'knows' ---

The scientists who study Light and black holes are finding there is more to Life than 'matter' --- that there is consciousness 'everywhere at once'--- Quantum science just might be at the very edge of finding there is Deific Being, and All Knowing Light behind all that we see---perhaps science will admit there is a God ---but proving God can only be done one to one between "Me and Thee" ---its an inside job between the individual heart and God.

But, science may get close---then what will you do when the science finds out, discovers that "we" are something not 'material' but a sort of living Infinity or that this living experience called Life is the very proof of Something Divine Itself--as in this 'life experience' is the Mind of God, is not matter but is 'thought' appearing as tangible 'things'--- Ideas that appear 'solid'---That your bone study is really the study of nothing but images within the Awareness of God---

No one needs to prove God to me---I have found God in everything and within my heart and in and of all things, above and below--with us always. I have found that God is really All there is.

My delight and joy about this book was really about my Love for God---not the god of religions, although one can find some marvelous clues as to our Real Identity in the religious texts---and they have their gifts to bring---but, my vision and understanding comes to me directly, through my Life Experience as Love and Grace holds my hand and leads me rightly by way of this Life of Love and Light.

Anyway, I did not think I was going to get so much antagonism -- I was a bit perplexed---I see there is NO Way to bring any talk of God or metaphysics here to this topic 'creationism' and 'evolution'---risky territory, you are set in your ways and I am set with mine---

Yes, you are right, my innocence prevails and I am good with that---I had no idea what I was walking into---but fortunately the Love of Life stays with me and I am filled with Joy for having tried....

Much Love---


Wow, someone needs to go take their meds. I don't know where you got all this out of the few sentences I posted about Darwin. This is just a really long, rambling strawman argument.

edit on 5/30/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Nothing you just posted has anything to do with Darwin's scientific theory





Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.


The above is an incredibly moronic post. You just lost the last bit of credibility you had left...



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 

You make a passionate emotional case for the existence of God, based on the 'mystery' of love. Your sentiments become you, even if I don't happen to agree with them. You are, like the rest of us, welcome to your beliefs.

The theory of evolution does not tell us whether God exists or not. In that sense, it has no religious dimension. It simply explains why and how life comes to exist in so many different forms. There could still have been a Creator, and evolution could easily be taking place under the guidance or according to the dictates of that Creator. God and the theory of evolution can quite comfortably coexist.

It is true that the theory of evolution contradicts the accounts of Creation given in the Bible. That's a little different. The Bible, we can safely say, is not literally true – it is inaccurate not just about evolution but about astronomy, cosmology, geometry and a whole lot of other things besides. People who insist that the Bible is literally true have to deny not only science but history, geography and common sense.

I don't think you're a Biblical literalist, though; you sound to me like someone of a more mystical persuasion. You should be able to accept the theory of evolution and still go on believing in God without any problem.

I'm an atheist now, but I wasn't always. I assure you that I still have the same feelings for other beings that I had when I was religious. I didn't stop loving my family and friends, my pets, my country or anyone or anything else when I lost my belief in a personal God. Music did not affect me any less powerfully, art did not cease to engage me, nature did not cease to delight and awe me. If anything, the opposite happened, because with the blinkers of religious prejudice removed, it was easier for me to appreciate things I had once seen as wicked or wrong.

I don't mean to preach; I'm just pointing out that atheists have the same humanity and capacity for love as anyone else. We may not believe in immortal souls, but that doesn't mean we look at a fellow human being and see nothing but a bag filled with flesh and bones. That would be truly unnatural.

Have a little more charity, and please try not to confuse atheism with Darwinism. They are very different.

edit on 30/5/12 by Astyanax because: of another thing besides.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.

Probably. By all accounts, he loved his family very much.


Or, since Darwin was an atheist, I assume you think he could not have believed his son had a soul, life, love, beauty, joy or an ever lasting spirit-identity-being beyond this tangible-time-evolution thing. Do you wonder about that--- That he nor his son were anything but a bag of flesh and bones and pumps and gizzards and the brain was nothing but a ball of convoluted electrical connections and so bury the bones was as interesting as uncovering bones---just a study in evolution based in materialism---.

No offense, but you really need to do some research from sources other than creationists and people peddling quantum woo. Two things:

1. Darwin wasn't an atheist. From his own hand:

[My] judgment often fluctuates.... Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. -- I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, -- that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

2. I'm sorry that you've been led to believe that recognition of the "love, beauty, joy" can't be understood by atheists. I'm even more sorry that you willingly choose to believe it. As an atheist, I can tell you with certainty that you are wrong. Your claim is the hallmark of a bigot and shows how far mainstream Christians haven't come in even trying to grasp how anyone who is not one of them views the world.


I do not see how one can look at Life, how one can be Alive, be a real living experience and not believe in a Higher Power, and not have a sense the Wonder and Mystery and Profound depth and beauty of It---and realize there is a Supreme Primary First Cause and Its presence can be seen as Life Itself--- .

"It's pretty!" isn't evidence of a creator.


When one believes that we are just evolved meat---that sort of makes ones view of Life entirely 'material' and that seems to me where most of the problems out there in the world stem from.

Given that the vast majority of people on this planet are theists of one brand or another, I'd argue that most of the problems in the world stem from theists arguing with each other over whose deity is the right deity and trying to force people to live to their deity's inconsistent standards.


My delight and joy about this book was really about my Love for God---not the god of religions, although one can find some marvelous clues as to our Real Identity in the religious texts---and they have their gifts to bring---but, my vision and understanding comes to me directly, through my Life Experience as Love and Grace holds my hand and leads me rightly by way of this Life of Love and Light.

So you read a book that you knew would already support your ideas. Have you ever tried reading something you don't agree with and actually, you know, understanding why you don't agree with it as opposed to just outright rejecting it because it doesn't appeal to you i.e. it's not "pretty" enough?


Anyway, I did not think I was going to get so much antagonism -- I was a bit perplexed---I see there is NO Way to bring any talk of God or metaphysics here to this topic 'creationism' and 'evolution'---risky territory, you are set in your ways and I am set with mine---

Go back and read your own posts from the perspective of one that doesn't share your beliefs. If you actually have the empathy do that, if you are actually able to put yourself in another person's shoes instead of just rejecting their beliefs that run counter to yours because you don't really understand them, you'll understand why your posts garnered "so much antagonism". And if you think this thread was somehow over the top with antagonism, you should batten down the hatches because you're in for a bumpy ride here on ATS.
edit on 31/5/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, you are correct, I have no religion and never did.

I do not like religions either--- i see they have been set up to control people. They are authoritarian systems that have caused most of the problems and wars. I do not have to have a religion in order to know there is Something Intelligent "behind" or Being This Field of Awareness.

I did not know that a Darwinist or 'evolutionist' leaves the door open to Something Intelligent that designed the first cell or the first mud filled water puddle or wherever they believe 'things' began from 'out of'---


What is the Darwinist looking for? The Origins of Life? If so, then would you not have to go back much further than the first 'muddy swamp"? Don't you wonder where "that first muddy swamp came from? Or how the whatever" came to? At some point, you have to go back further and further until you come to Pure Isness, No?

The Omnipresence of Something That Always Was must mean It has no beginning and no end---and It is Intelligent because we live in world where an Intelligent comprehension and awareness exists everywhere seems to be the essence of all things and the whole experience we call Life.

Well, anyway, I thank you for helping me understand a little bit more on the subject.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


My point was ---acutally, my point was meant to be quite the opposite--- i know 'atheists' DO feel love and have have feelings--of course they do--- that was my point; they do.

And therefore 'they' (silly labels) as well as all of us----are Much More than we have been given to believe ourselves to be---We are all made of much more than skin and bones and yes, of course Darwin wept.

Which, again, was my point; That our sorrow is a sign of an Intelligent and Loving Presence (God) connected to us through or as Life Itself--- Mind, Heart, Soul, Spirit, Intelligence, Consciousness, Awareness. None of those things can be literally found in the bones or even in a living body---yet they exist. We cannot deny that we are aware---and yet we cannot find this 'mind' or 'awareness'.

I was actually saying that it seems difficult to really believe we are only skin and bones and there is no Intelligent Design. You could never convince me there is not Something that Came First and Exists as the Intelligent Omnipresence we call Life.

I would like to see Intelligent Design taught in schools--- i think it would help people find a bridge between letting go their "old time religions' and still have an understanding of Truth and Reality without 'leaving God out of the equation"--- I thought this book was a good 'study' bridge.

We need a new understanding of What God Is---We should introduce a new view of what God Is; one based on Reality and Science--- not a "god of authoritarian religions" -


I thought this book would be good in schools---to teach there is a 'scientific' way (quantum physics, Intelligent Design, Photons, DNA, Light that carry information, Consciousness as everywhere at once, Unseen Light et al) to understand what God is without the dogma of religion--- That seems cool to me---


Life, for me, is more like this vast field of Infinite Wonder and Beauty and that we are something extraordinary experiencing this Marvelous World of Living Truth and Immutable Reality ---

but, no matter what I think, each has to find It individually---no one can tell another "what is"---one has to find Reality and Understanding for our self alone--- But, if we can share a little more light on the Truth, then I think we should at least try.

The confusion it seems is over the definition of 'god'--- not God Itself---

Reality and God are the same thing---so in finding Reality we will find "That Which Is"--- and then the demise of the 'control game' entirely.













[
edit on 31-5-2012 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

I thought this book would be good in schools---to teach there is a 'scientific' way (quantum physics, Intelligent Design, Photons, DNA, Light that carry information, Consciousness as everywhere at once, Unseen Light et al) to understand what God is without the dogma of religion--- That seems cool to me---


That would be replacing one dogma with another. If you teach it as pure philosophy in a religion class, it may be acceptable. Science is based on experiments with testable and repeatable results. Intelligent design is not based on that. It's based on guesses about what science cannot fully explain or understand in the present. It boils down to personal opinion in the end. DNA appears complex to you and science doesn't yet know its origins. Mentioning science doesn't make the book scientific when the conclusions the author draws from it are guesses. I'd like to see some specific experiments he's referring to.

I agree that "god" is very much outdated, at least the versions based on ancient texts. I just don't understand why books like this can't promote their version of god or intelligence, without attacking legitimate fields of science like evolution and biology. He tries to disguise it by calling it "Darwinism", but we all know the true intentions. That, above all else is what instantly discredits this book. The concept of god and evolution are perfectly compatible, and I do agree you need to find it within yourself, not within religion. The only way for the religious and the skeptics to come together is if people like this stop the attack on knowledge.

Knowledge is vitally important to the human race and our future as a species. Anybody that attacks the basic foundation of modern society rubs me suspicious. Just be aware of this while reading the book. If he's really about a new metaphysical scientific version of god, then why couldn't science, like evolution, be PART of it, instead of rejected flat out. It doesn't make sense, unless he actually believes this god created everything bible style. What else could explain the rejection of evolution?
edit on 31-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Please explain " spirits" " ghosts"
Don't even try to say they don't exist. Too much evidence now to ignore.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Which, again, was my point; That our sorrow is a sign of an Intelligent and Loving Presence (God) connected to us through or as Life Itself--- Mind, Heart, Soul, Spirit, Intelligence, Consciousness, Awareness. None of those things can be literally found in the bones or even in a living body---yet they exist. We cannot deny that we are aware---and yet we cannot find this 'mind' or 'awareness'.

For the same reason that we can't see the data on our computer's hard drive by looking directly at the hard drive. You seem to have a faulty idea of what constitutes materialism. Do some research on what materialism actually is before trying to argue against it. Otherwise you're just engaging in a strawman argument.

Hint: Materialism says that all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Including consciousness.


I was actually saying that it seems difficult to really believe we are only skin and bones and there is no Intelligent Design. You could never convince me there is not Something that Came First and Exists as the Intelligent Omnipresence we call Life.

Then you're being just as dogmatic as you're accusing atheists and people who accept evolution of being. You've already made up your mind, regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary. I, on the other hand, remain open to the concept that there may be whatever your Grand Source of All That Is Woo may be. I just require evidence, and have been presented with none that is compelling.


I would like to see Intelligent Design taught in schools--- i think it would help people find a bridge between letting go their "old time religions' and still have an understanding of Truth and Reality without 'leaving God out of the equation"--- I thought this book was a good 'study' bridge.

In what context would you like to see creationism taught? And don't delude yourself, that's exactly what Intelligent Design is -- creationism rebranded in an attempt to have it forced into school science curricula in spite of it's wholly religious nature and a complete lack of evidence.


I thought this book would be good in schools---to teach there is a 'scientific' way (quantum physics, Intelligent Design, Photons, DNA, Light that carry information, Consciousness as everywhere at once, Unseen Light et al) to understand what God is without the dogma of religion--- That seems cool to me---

This is not a book about science. This is a book about quantum woo -- new age mysticism based on misinterpretations of modern physics. You're trading one dogma for another.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 





I thought this book would be good in schools---to teach there is a 'scientific' way (quantum physics, Intelligent Design, Photons, DNA, Light that carry information, Consciousness as everywhere at once, Unseen Light et al) to understand what God is without the dogma of religion--- That seems cool to me---


Intelligent design isn't even a scientific theory...for that it would require objective evidence behind it...which it simply doesn't have.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



Do you think Darwin wept with a broken heart when his son died? I do. I think he did.

Or, since Darwin was an atheist, I assume you think he could not have believed his son had a soul, life, love, beauty, joy or an ever lasting spirit-identity-being beyond this tangible-time-evolution thing. Do you wonder about that--- That he nor his son were anything but a bag of flesh and bones and pumps and gizzards and the brain was nothing but a ball of convoluted electrical connections and so bury the bones was as interesting as uncovering bones---just a study in evolution based in materialism---.



I am new here but this statement suggest that if you do not believe in God then you are numb to everything and are basically incapable of any emotion.
I have no religious affiliation and im not an Atheist. For almost all of my life I believed in God, but it was not until I stopped that I became a truely passionate and care person. Emotions are not just for believers.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


What is the Darwinist looking for?

What is a 'Darwinist'? Do you mean someone who accepts the theory of evolution, or do you mean someone actively engaged in the study of evolution – an evolutionary biologist?

An evolutionary biologist is seeking to discover and understand the reasons why living things come to have the forms and functions they do – why the peacock has such an elaborate tail, why female seahorses 'impregnate' males rather than the other way round, why some humans can digest milk while it gives others an upset stomach. Things like that.

There are other biologists who study the mechanics of evolution – how genes function to create, maintain and repair living bodies, how the environment affects these functions, what chemical and mechanical processes are involved in life and how they can be replicated or modified. From their researches, many advances in modern medicine have emerged.

There are also evolutionary psychologists, who seek to understand how various kinds of animal and human behaviour evolved – how some fish recognize their siblings and never mate with them, why vampire bats share blood with each other, why birds will starve their own chicks to feed a cuckoo's.

As for people who simply accept the theory of evolution, I don't suppose we're looking for anything special. We're just ordinary people like you, except that our beliefs are different from yours.

The idea that Darwinists are looking for some kind of spiritual or philosophical enlightenment is mostly held by those who do not understand evolution and are hostile to the idea. It is they who think of 'Darwinism' as some kind of belief system, some Satanic faith or philosophy. It's none of that; evolution is just a field of scientific research, just like solid-state electronics or meteorology.

It is true that evolutionary biology provides answers to a lot of moral and philosophical questions. It explains, for example, why human beings compete for status, why men are more promiscuous than women, how things like kindness and fairness evolved from their roots in animal behaviour. It even answers the biggest question of all: why do we exist? But the bigger the question, the more banal an answer evolutionary biology is likely to give. Answering Big Questions is not its purpose; it's more of a side-effect, just as it is for other sciences like physics and cosmology.

It is not the fault of science, or of scientists, that the things they discover about the world contradict what many religious texts and spiritual masters have told us. If someone has invested their emotions and self-image in the belief that the world was created in seven days and has four corners, as the Bible tells us, then the discovery that it is round and over four billion years old is going to upset them. Terribly sorry about that, but there's no point in blaming science for it or railing against the arrogance of scientists; they are just bringing the news. The truth is what it is. Don't shoot the messenger.


The Origins of Life? If so, then would you not have to go back much further than the first 'muddy swamp"?... At some point, you have to go back further and further until you come to Pure Isness, No?

Darwinists are not looking for the origins of life. You are. And – rightly or wrongly – you believe that the scientific account of evolution and what it suggests about the origins of life are obstacles to your quest, or seem to mock your own beliefs about life and spirituality. I understand how very galling that must be, and in a way I sympathize.

There is a lesson to be learned here. It is this: if one's personal worldview, whatever it is, disagrees with well-known facts, then one had better adjust one's views, because the facts are not going to change. You can't disprove evolution – this place is full of desperate people, some of them quite intelligent and well educated, trying to do just that and getting terribly angry and miserable when they fail. How much better to stop this futile denial and incorporate the fact of evolution into your worldview so that it actually mirrors reality!

Don't keep on living the lie. Embrace truth instead.

edit on 1/6/12 by Astyanax because: to include Satanic back-masking, obviously.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweetmystery
 


Not to say that Darwin was totally off - he was an exceptional thinker of his time - but he mentioned that he was unable to find the fossils to support his theory. Evolution, like all theories, has its flaws, but theres still some good science in there.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join