Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

Not sure what you're really trying to say..



You mean you made your own assertions to counter mine as you perceive them...



Yes I agree.



Actual scientific methods are not specified in regards to this conversation or to the study of the self, only implied idealistic references in regard to your beliefs and your opinions.



Immensely.



Not so oh negative one. Everyone sees and accepts reality according to their understanding and comprehensive level of intellectual discernment, which if negative is often heavily influenced by belief and the current standards of education, and the vague possibility that the system is plugged into Truth or just summaries of conjecture and belief.

Not so sure there is any course which defines the meaning of life...Is there?



I'm not sure which claims you are referring to. The subject comprises several thousands of years of study, and hundreds of thousands of books, (most of which have been grossly mistranslated).



So you have proven in this discussion regarding your claims to have considered this conversation based on the labels "science" and "theosophy". You seem easily sphinctered whenever someone uses the label "Science."



In the examples of this conversation I can relate, in that what you have provided, exhibits no knowledge but instead claims toward something idealized within your beliefs, and a prejudice with a need to apply labels to your ideals.




"As if" is the inference to the interpretation of thoughts generated from a level of comprehension. A child (using your example) comprehends at a different level than an adult.
On the subject of expanded conscious awareness or even psychological awareness, a person who idealizes reality strictly within the limits of measure created by the instruments of current comprehension will need to accept that evolution will supersede technological and comprehensive idealism whenever one decides something relative is a constant.
The idea that every human experiences everything exactly the same would limit mans comprehensive levels to some kind of standard and that would be delusional.

I think Science has room for those things that are not measured by physical instruments created by man and yet are experienced by
the human instrument, and that the human instrument is at varying degrees of refinement within the evolving population. Leaving your opinion to a relative point not yet discussed, but in the interest of dominating the discussion by negating any relevance to any truth on my part I will assume you idealize as real and true, when compared to any seemingly contrary information on my part.

You seem pretty touchy about applying the label of "science" to anything other than what fits on your terms, or at least that's what I get from this discussion. It would also seem the only way to make the point is to degrade my input which has at least, been entertaining.



I'll take that to mean you are still waiting for me to meet your expectations. But you may have to evolve beyond that, before your eyes can see and your ears can hear anything that lives and breathes outside of that box of expectations and limits.