Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
- Thread starter darryl
- Start date
Try looking beyond wikipedia
I'm actually educated about Evolution, well enough to see crap when I see crap.
Because the truth is perspective to the individual in the following sense:Yes, this is a "Conspiracy," alright...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207079/Evolution-banned-US-schools.html
Guess the Illuminati did a poor job with the cover-up, huh?
No, from what I read last night, he did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
Yes, quite scientific and rational.
Must be an anti-conspiracy.
How about just finding the truth- period. Not finding the "truth" you want.
Esoteric knowledge does not make the physicist feel whole.
Physics does not make the mystic feel whole.
Mysticism does not make the Christian, disciples of Christ Jesus, feel whole.
Christianity does not make the non believer feel whole.
Agnosticism and atheism does not make the faithful feel whole.
And when you try to impose one truth for all people, the result is bloodshed and war and problems. Imposing one truth for all leads to trickery and deception. Guilt is imposed wrongly and unjustly. Human misery becomes rampant even in modern information based economies where we are expected to worship money and forsake our true spiritual nature.
That is why we do not impose one truth.
There is only one truth, Mazulu. Our job is to find the most accurate way of modeling it.
If many people wish to fantasize and delude themselves to feel yummy scrumptious warm n fuzzie's: Fine.
They don't get to teach it in Educational Curriculum.
You might want to have a deeper look, see here:
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Teilhard/Teilhard-evolution.htm
I don't agree with his anthropocentric bias when it came to the noosphere but his ideas about all matter having an innter centre is very interesting. I am not saying all of his ideas are science, thats why I posted it in this alternative section, but science does not have all the answers. Metaphysics etc is perfectly healthy to sometimes investigate.
Says who? that claim is almost always used to provide questionable doubt as to the veracity of 'religionists' claims.
Science has the method to achieve the answers. And if it exists outside of that, like gnomes and fairy tales- it really does fall under Fantasy.
Allow time to digest that link.
That depends on what you think the modern synthesis is. And it doesn't matter what most scientists think. It matters what they know. The evidence for a non-teleological process speaks for itself. It's the overwhelming agreement by the scientific community that the evidence speaks against teleology that is, for one thing, the reason this thread is relegated to the "fringe theories" category.
but that's the whole point of all of this. Otherwise there would be no argument and we would be discussing actual evidence.
Shapiro has not overturned any basic premise of evolution. Creatures still diverge, adapt and evolve by natural selection. One of his main arguments about genetic informatics deals with his own estimates of how observed mutation rates don't match his model, therefore there must be an underlying mechanism at play which he calls natural genetic engineering. Arguments such as this are good for trying to fully understand genome functionality, but no one is there yet, including him. Shapiro's central message is that there is more to the story than meets the eye, which is always true in science, and he serves as a reminder that it's bad science to oversimplify. All of that is fine except for the basic problem. With the fundamentalist argument, there would not be so much oversimplification. We would be talking about evidence instead of belief.
Anyone who has spent much time programming, especially in systems that adapt to statistical variations, those with feedback control loops and pattern recognition, can appreciate the apparent connected between DNA and "designed code". But anyone familiar with "self generating code" may see parallels too, in which the design is only apparent, the resultant of an even more efficient coding scheme which a deeper level of compression is done on the code itself. None of this supports teleology from its general tenets. It simply points to a level of complexity in the Archaean that is probably lost to us, until we can try to decipher the schema by reverse engineering. At that point Shapiro's ideas will partly stand corrected and partly be more fully explained.
It still doesn't overturn natural selection, which is what makes this line of inquiry so absurd. Natural selection defeats the idea of "directed" evolution. That's why creationists hate it and are dead set against it. It matters not to them what the evidence shows. Religion isn't about evidence. It's about burying it.
I am no fan of their propaganda war and the harm it inflicts.
Maybe I need to say propaganda more often since you missed that.
I guess you can't google either.
If you notice, he is not even mentioned in any curriculum on biology.
He was a Catholic, which is obviously Christian. In fact, if I recall my history correctly, all modern western Christianity derives from Catholicism. I don't think most Christians dismiss him because most of them don't have a clue who he is. You picked him because you are trying to argue from authority. But he doesn't have any significant contribution from which to base that authority. Like Shapiro, who has some good ideas, there is among them but peripheral ideas - many of them good and interesting - which simply fail to overturn evolution by natural selection. The evidence is too overwhelming.
This is a science forum. If you are not interested in discussing things from a scientific perspective, why post here at all? When you say atheist scientists, do you mean other SciForum members? Why would you be so provocative? Are you trolling? If you do mean other SciForum members, if you had read carefully you would know that what you have said is simply not the case. Non-theists members of this forum just patiently explain facts to an endless stream of people such as yourself who seem to come here just to provoke us. I really think we should just ignore such people, but as you are new, I am hoping you can understand the purpose of SciForum. It is not to tell us that a god or the tooth fairy or friendly shoe-repairing elves are welcome into your home. You can believe, what you like, but no one is interested, especially if your beliefs just lead to mindless sniping.
God is a very important part of a lot of people's lives, including mine. It's part of the culture of how we see the world. When you say, "discuss from a scientific perspective", that means that we talk about evidence and the laws of physics. It does not mean that you or anyone else has a license to make hostile remarks about our beliefs.
You were the one who made hostile remarks, referring to atheists as bashers. I thought I might be mistaken and gave you a chance to explain that you were not referring to SciForum members. You have not responded to that question. And yes, we do talk about evidence and the laws of physics quite often here, which is why you should confine theistic remarks to our religion forum, and even there you must 'gather evidence' before making thoughtless remarks about other people's "beliefs".
As for "how you see the world", surely the whole point of participating in a science forum is exercise your ability to be open to new theories. It's wrong to come in with any cultural baggage, belief system or a rigid perspective. And here you are insisting on your 'beliefs' and calling people names - your beliefs or anyone else's are completely beside the point here.
As for "how you see the world", surely the whole point of participating in a science forum is exercise your ability to be open to new theories. It's wrong to come in with any cultural baggage, belief system or a rigid perspective. And here you are insisting on your 'beliefs' and calling people names - your beliefs or anyone else's are completely beside the point here.
The original question asked by darryl calls for discussion about whether or not evolution was directed. This thread is clearly a discussion of evolution versus creationism. Believers in creationism are expected to show support for God, which I did. In doing so, I am immediately attacked for believing in God.darryl said:
Last edited:
And rightly so. Such threads belong in the Religion section, darryl the OP tried to sneak his topic into 'alternative theories'. This sub-forums name suggests science is wanted. I don't know if this is the reason darryl has been banned but I see that he has been. The ban list strangely says the ban was requested by darryl. :shrug: Anyway, I think you are jumping to conclusions with creationism being asked to rear its ugly head. Intelligent design perhaps, but not outright creationism. Show support for god!? Save it for the religion sub-forum, please. I agree with Dawkins' view that the days when 'religious feeling' demand knee-jerk respect are over. They can't end soon enough. Why should your religious beliefs be automatically respected and tolerated when they are clearly nothing more than myth and legend? (Please don't answer that!)
God, and/or other supernatural agents, can manipulate matter through its etheric duplicate. The etheric duplicate of the hydrogen atom looks like this. In effect, quantum mechanics can only predict the probability that a quantum system will be in one particular quantum state. A supernatural agent can predict the exact quantum state without disturbing the system; a more powerful supernatural agent can control which eigenstate the quantum system will be in with >99% certainty. Therefore, a supernatural agent could have influenced the evolution of species without leaving a scientifically detectable trace. Whether or not you believe in supernatural agents will largely depend upon whether or not you have ever witnessed their phenomena. Atheist physicists don't witness supernatural phenomena because they're a bunch of dogmatic God-haters. For example,
Epictetus said:
This is a fairly funny sentence for 2 reasons. Dogma is a term that is used in religion and defined as beliefs that cannot be doubted. Science on the other hand rewards individuals that destroy the current theories.
The second reason is, how can an atheist hate God? Wouldn't you have to believe God exists to hate him? :shrug:
Rewards people that destroy current theories? :roflmao:
I've been showing proof that the lumineferous aether exists. I've been showing you pictures of the hydrogen wave-function; those are aetheric duplicates to the hydrogen atom; those are aetheric structures in the aether plane. And you all dogmatically insist there is no aether. I have explained why there are interference patterns in the two slit experiment, even when the particles travelone at a time. The pathways are wave-functions that exist even when the particle is not present. Only when you close one of the slits does the wave-function cease to exist. When you do that, the sole remaining wave function has nothing to interfere with, and the interference pattern goes away. Yet you all perpetuate the dogma that particles interfere with themselves. You perpetuate the dogma that there is no aether. You should be laughing at the physics community's dogma!