Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.

For the full story:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060713235109data_trunc_sys.shtml

Now if only we could get Americans to also appreciate that everything isn't about them.

An interesting post, nice find, DA. I've wodered for years why, with all the Scientific advancements that have been generated by the US, the "Common Folk" are lagging so far behind in accepting Evolution. I mean, the Scopes trial, the "Monkey Trial" was in, what, 1925?

You can't underestimate the power of the hold that religeon has on people, I guess. See my post in the thread "Petroglyph Depicts Supernova".

I was never taught evolution and I went to a school that was pretty good in most other departments.

I've spoken with a lot of people who simply were not taught the subject.

Also, I think that when it is covered reasonably well, it's not integrated into the biology curriculum. My girls were taught it: mentioned in 7th grade life science, and taught for several days in 9th grade biology. Probably less than 10 lectures, maybe even less than 5. I just don't think that's sufficient to really understand the material.

Also our own propaganda tells us that "nothing makes sense except for in the light of evolution" and that "evolution is a central unifying concept in biology," but we don't really teach it that way - possibly because of a shortage of teachers who understand, but probably more so that they tend to shy away from the controversy.

Finally, I think when it *IS* covered, kids brains have already been turned off. The preachers and parents have already told them "all they need to know" and have effectively inocculated them against reason or honest evaluation of the details.

"The bible said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Part of what you need to understand about America and Americans is that this country was founded by people who thought Victorian English morals were too loose.

This country prides itself on sex being dirty. It prides itself on believing things that are absolutely contrary to fact such as that it was founded as a Christian country. Lies to itself about such things as when the phrase "under god" was added to its Pledge of Allegiance (and more importantly why).

American's, for all of the advances of its scientific and engineering community would consider some TV commercials shown in a Catholic country such as Mexico immoral.

It is a place of stark contrasts. And except in radical or academic circles everyone pretends they don't notice that the Emperor is naked and stupid.

the problem as i see it is that in church you are taught not to ask questions.

it used to be that in school you were, but with the overcrowding getting worse in the last few decades, teachers have not pushed that as much. as a result, there is less and less to counter the church's dogma.

I agree.

School reform should be to go back to the way schools were in the 1950s-60s.

Instead the liberal teachers are swinging off the planet to the left while the so-called conservative teachers take an equally illogical swing to the right.

There is very little of the middle left just as we are now watching the dismantling of the [economic] middle class.

I saw Tim Russert interviewing someone, can't remember who, about education in America. He seemed to think the problem was that people who become teachers study "teaching" rather than emmersing themselves in a subject they intend to teach. I only remember three teachers in high school that seemed to have real passion for their subject, history, physics, and computer programming....oh wait make it four spanish too.

The problem begins and ends with the parents. I speak now as a university educator and I can tell you that the children of most asian ethnicities are not illiterate. Neither are the, and I hate to get into naming names, the children of at least two religious affiliations.

Why you might ask? Because the parents, for cultural reasons, make sure their children understand the importance of education and fill in the gaps.

Are there teachers that can't teach? Boatloads.
Are there teachers unqualified to teach? Boatloads.
It isn't stopping some identifiable groups.

That said both the nut-case left and the moronic right are to blame for polarizing, for political gain, that which is far too important to be left to politicians.

There was a great quote recently about the war in the Middle-East that went ... "The fighting will stop when they love their children more than they hate each other."

Here's my version:
Education will improve when parents love their children more than they hate paying taxes and getting involved in good governance.

The problem isn't just confined to USA. Here in NZ there was research published that showed one quater of the population believed the earth was created in six days. Trouble is, it's part of our cultural background. There are also many people making a lot of money from pushing the ID or creationist barrow. Sure it's about education but you can't make people learn something they don't wish to. I teach guitar and most young people are at least keen to learn that but even so the same problem occurs.

More Americans know the names of Disney's seven dwarfs than the names of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court.

Actions speak louder than words.

They can not claim to care about their country when the evidence proves conclusively that it is not the case.

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsberg, Roberts, Alito...ummmm crap

okay now the dwarves

sneezy, dopey, happy, bashful, grumpy, doc, sleepy.

I do have a pair of 7 dwarves PJs I think that's why its so easy to remember

Another problem here in the US is teacher pay. I've been told by many different people that I'd make a good teacher. When I investigated the possibility, I realized I could make at least twice as much by poking holes in the ground, and I don't have to deal with hormone-crazed kids that way, either.

When it is treated like an honorable profession, it will improve.

Teachers tend to want to compare themselves to the very highest paid professionals only.

If a teacher wanted to do my job, she would get paid according to 1) highest degree obtained, 2) subject of degree, 3) years since degree obtained.

If I wanted to teach, I'd have to throw away all of my earned experience and start at the bottom of the heap. Right now I teach "advanced" topics in computer science as a volunteer. They're advanced because the teacher doesn't understand them - and I'm fine with that. This guy has had to learn java largely on his own and, besides, one doesn't become an expert programmer just by taking courses. So if I were to switch careers I'd start at ground zero. I hired a teacher intern this past year and paid her the same thing she was making as a teacher. (OTOH, I have more leeway than a principal would.)

They give the pretense that they're just trying to "ensure that only qualified people get in the classroom," but their requirements seem almost completely orthogonal to that stated goal.

regarding teaching of evolution. I don't think we should knock teachers. It's a job like any other. Some do it because they like it, some because they can and some because they can't do anything else. Many well qualified scientists don't actually understand how evolution happens. We have to be able to explain it simply to everyone. I'm pretty sure I understand it but explaining it to other people is tricky. The main problem is that even Charles Darwin confused "evolution" with "progress". after all he did live near the industrial age's beginning.

But I feel evolution is stunningly simple to understand if you imagine it as waves of genes spreading through species. One of my friends even calls it the wave theory of evolution.

By the way I was thinking of posting this topic myself but thought it would be presumtuous to do so. It was in the science news section of sagg, probably still is.

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes. Name me a species that only partially evolved. Like the great ape of long past gathered all the apes of the planet and henceforth asked each and everyone; who wants to be a human, raise your hand.....

I'd like to say it's just a problem with our language, but it is really more of a problem with our education system (or maybe just the social system in general?).
But whatever....

More correctly one should say, not that there are "still apes," but that apes (and humans) evolved from a common ancestor.

If you study how evolution works, you'll avoid many common misperceptions about the process (like that one about humans evolving from apes).

For instance....
How did Chihuahua's and Great Dane's evolve from the wolf (hint: the same way apes and humans evolved from....)?
Wolve's are still around too (though smaller than back then);

...just like lemurs are still around (the least changed of the ancestor to apes and humans).

Because
America still has a religious problem, but its not as religious as it used to be, I wonder why?

The question puzzles me.

Am I the only one who is puzzled by this question? Is America a person capable of having beliefs?

Over the decades, I have known many Americans. Over half my family--on my mother's side--migrated from Newfoundland to the USA, decades ago. Two of my mother's brothers were in the American navy in the late 1890's. They were sailors in the Spanish American War, in the Cuban campaign. Quite a story.

Me? I took two years of post graduate studies at Boston University in 1954-1955.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, a famous American, I have never met an American I did not like--Maybe one or two.

The bottom line? Most Americans I met, like most other fellow human beings, had enough common sense to ask questions, like any true scientist.

Hiya Revl.
I've just spent about 5 minutes thinking about all the different demographics in the US. As you point out it's not one person, but rather than list all the cabins, farms, towns, etc., I'll just ask if this makes sense:

I'd suggest that you've only met a small slice of one (or perhaps two) of the dozens of demographics around.

[I suppose it might sound more reasonable to suggest that you've only met a slice of a dozen or so out of hundreds] ...but I hope you see my point.

I know you have a lot of broad experiences and interactions in your life, but I still think it was with a small fraction of the different demographics in the US.
I don't (think I) have any special knowledge about this, but I'm continually surprised by the discovery more and more, large demographics.

There's an interesting couple of graphs on a social science forum (not to prove anything, but...):
http://hypography.com/forums/social-scie...html#post237208

I know there's at least one demographic that prides themselves on not asking questions.

Cheers!

THE KING FAMILY TRAVELS IN THE USA
=================================
BTW, We have been to North and South Carolina, and Florida--frequently--and to Arizona.

FOR THE RECORD:
In the summer of 1970, by car and tent trailer, the King family-- including two teenage children--traveled, via the Canadian route. Starting from Toronto we traveled north and west over Lake Superior, it took us two overnights to get to out of Ontario and to the next province, Manitoba, the capitol of which is Winnipeg. Then to Saskatchewan. There, I visited Dundurn, where I served as a student minister in 1950, when I was 20. The next province is Alberta. The next is British Columbia--Vancouver and Victoria, on the Pacific coast.

It was a pleasant trip.

From BC, we went south to Seattle, Washington, USA. From there we took the American route back to Canada. We went through Montana, the Dakotas--The weather became very hot trip. Yes, we saw the famous Mountain carvings of the US Presidents. There was no relief from the heat until we reached, Iowa. From there we went to Illinois and Indiana and then back Windsor, Ontario, via Detroit.

In America we only think sex is dirty if it's done right, but while we pride ourselves in having a government which seperates church and state, we are a very religious people unlike those European Monkeys.

INVOLUTION & EVOLUTION
======================
Involution. In botany this is term used to refer to a rolling inward from the edge--an inward rolling. I use this concept, in reverse, in my attempt to understand astronomy and the evolution, outward expansion, of the universe.

Evolution. To evolve is to roll outwards--an advance from the simple to the complex. Some scientists believe that all forms in nature come from a simple, perhaps single-celled, organism,

Speaking of the universe, science tells us that what we observe today as a multitude of planets and galaxies was once wrapped, involved, in one primordial ball only about thirty times the size of our sun. What there was before this, at this point, science has absolutely nothing factual to say. Speculating on this was, and still is, in the realm of the philosopher/theologian in us.

Think now of planet Earth. In the beginning, like all other creatures on Earth we probably lived as beings wrapped in our animal instincts (our psyches). It took a long time for us to evolve into conscious beings (pneuma-like beings). Google on pneumatology.

No doubt things began to change, rapidly, when in the first pneuma-like being, the first philosopher/theologian--one with a developed gift for language--came up with the idea: "I wonder if we can improve on life as we are now living it?" This led to the development of a written language, including numbers.

Probably when the first PT's discovered numbers (mathematics means the discipline), and decided to measure things, the first scientists were born. They soon, also, learned the value of doing experiments.

THE FIRST ARTISAN/ARTISTS
Those who began to apply what they learned became the first artisans and artists--the creators of things that are useful and beautiful. The Greek for carpenter is TEKNON.

IMHO, when we figure out who, or what, did the wrapping we will discover GOD--(the Spirit, the Pneuma, in and around us?)--that which was never lost; just hidden by our arrogant ego--our pride. When we do, we will create more of the beauty we have and the ugly will become beautiful.

What are we waiting for?

samwik's point is well taken. Try to count the number of times you've heard something like this:

"All that crap about smoking being bad for you is pure hokum. My grandfather started smoking at age eleven and died at ninety-seven, still smoking."

I hear it almost constantly in reference to all kinds of things and catch myself using the same mindset from time to time. I try to catch myself doing it and throw it out and I think I'm making some headway but it seems to be hard-wired in the human psyche. At first, it seemed such a small thing then I came to realize how pervasive it really is. It's huge.

"All that crap about smoking being bad for you is pure hokum. My grandfather started smoking at age eleven and died at ninety-seven, still smoking." Perhaps so! But we need to keep in mind that total health involves more than somatic (physical) components. It is accepted that there is a psychosomatic (mind/body)component. Furthermore, there is what I call a pneumasomatic (spirit/body) one--incorporating peace of mind (spirit) and the will to live.

WE ARE PNEUMATOLOGICAL--SPIRIT-BASED--BEINGS
============================================
Back to the question of this thread: Perhaps the main reason many Americans do not accept evolution as a fact is a pneumatological, or spiritual, one. We need to keep in mind (spirit) that most of the first pioneers were made up of Bible believers. Such choose--a function of the spirit--to believe what they were taught to believe until it became what they desire and want to believe.

BTW, until we understand this, we will never understand the minds (spirits) of the terrorists, or, generally speaking, even what makes some people criminals. The fear of the law--getting caught, or killed, is no deterrent. When are WE going to wake up?

Sorry, I wasn't arguing that. I was simply agreeing that there is a problem with too small a data set. A huge problem. I read your posts for the refreshing honesty I find in them, and because I agree with a lot of your logic. I have no hound in the mind/body/spirit hunt. Just a couple in the honesty/logic hunt.

Regards

Personally I think that Americans believe in Creationism, or some similar belief, because many are still fervent churchgoers who believe the stories of the Bible. The Garden of Eden myth is quite enchanting, all the created things getting on like a house on fire, then it's all ruined by the female, so let's invent original sin and make her pay for it forever! OK I've muddled up at least 2 denominations there, but many Americans do believe in Bible myths. Many more than in other countries. These beliefs are taught in childhood, as they were in Darwin's time, with largely the same result. People who feel the foundations of their faith may be shattered are not going to believe another theory, which has not obtained the appproval of their church. Epecially if they are told that they risk of losing the possibility of Eternal Life for it.

I would have thought it was possible to accept the Theory of Evolution on a scientific basis without it upsetting the religious apple cart, but it appears I am wrong.

Really it doesn't matter in the long run,. Evolution will continue, some people will not believe that it is doing so. Surely there aren't that many. Do they hold up research, stop the 'marrch of progress' or are they just nuisances, or more likely irrelevances, and annoying?

Ellis,it would be really interesting to know what percentage of the world's 6 billion people have enough education NOT to be trapped in some kind of false mythology. Is anyone aware of any literature on this topic?
=============================================
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_world_population_is_illiterate
The answer is about one billion.
I am surprised; I thought it would be more than this. Maybe there is hope for us yet.
==================================================
This looks interesting:
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/TooMany.htm
It refers to this:
http://wondercafe.ca/ It is about a faith, with which I am familiar, which encourages the use of reason and bold questions. Thinkers, including agnostic and atheists, welcome.

I don't think it is just a question of literacy (though I will always agree with the need for literacy for all). I feel it is also a question of early influences, conditioning if you like. As the Jesuits are supposed to have said-- Give us a child before the age of seven and we will have him (her) for life.

It takes a lot of conviction, as well as not a little courage to reject one's upbringing as in doing so we reject family, community and sometimes country. It is easier to cling to safe and comfortable beliefs, especially if the community is close, selective and promises exclusivity of rewards, perhaps even at the end of suffering for those beliefs. This can apply to something trivial, such as believing the planet was made in 6 days, as well as to the need for martyrdom for your faith. It's the same thinking and reasoning at work.

9fusppPerhaps it is possible that more people are not accepting evolution because the evidence for it simply is not there!I used to believe in evolution but as I started to really look at the science (or lack thereof)behind it, it really became difficult t continue believing.Some quotes by evolution believing people
1.In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)
2.But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)
3. "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)

There are lots more where these came from!

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that what we call "creation" is an illusion of the human mind, and we, individually, are creating it with our minds, right now.

BTW, I say the above as a matter of fact, without being judgmental. All illusions can be helpful.

I have my version of creation, and you have yours.

Think about it! What are you and I creating, right now?

More convincing thoughts of helpful illusions?

EMANATION
The concept of emanation, the Golden Middle Way between creationism and evolutionism, makes a lot of sense to me.

KEY PRINCIPLES
===============
That complex things are created in nature is not in question by Creationists (Abrahamic religions, etc.), Emanationists, or nihilists and atheists. Rather, the two principles that are in question are the locus for creation and whether a sentient, self-aware Absolute (‘God’) is a necessity for creation. Emanationists such as Pythagoras, Plotinus, Gotama, and others argued that complex patterns in nature were a natural consequence of procession from the One (Hen, Absolute)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanationism
===========================================================
Philosophy Dictionary: emanationism
The attempt made by Plotinus, and foreshadowed in Plato, to understand creation as an overflow, radiating out from the supreme principle or God, somewhat as light emanates from a light source without in any way diminishing it. In Neoplatonism the doctrine is associated with pantheism.
=======================================
CATHOLIC DICTIONARY
The doctrine that emanation (Latin emanare, "to flow from") is the mode by which all things are derived from the First Reality, or Principle.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05397b.htm

Certainly Emanation is the manifest of what is un-manifest.
Knowing the un-manifest, one begins to recognize the manifest not as illusion but as emanation or Truth manifest from the Truth un-manifest; not restricted by the illusions of time and space but restricted to the illusions of projection generated from limitations in the comprehension of reality.
As comprehension evolves so do the illusions of projection in the observances of reality, and science then subscribes to definitions of reality perceived as points of perception in time and space while engaging itself in the ongoing discovery of perception and analysis. As changes in perception evolve or expand, so does science and the reality of humanity and the universe evolve.

TTwrote
"As comprehension evolves so do the illusions of projection in the observances of reality, and science then subscribes to definitions of reality perceived as points of perception in time and space while engaging itself in the ongoing discovery of perception and analysis. As changes in perception evolve or expand, so does science and the reality of humanity and the universe evolve."

This is a great point. Science responds to the evolving realities/discoveries as they happen, and answers the questions raised according to the state of the knowledge at the time. I doubt there will ever be a time when all the answers are known though!

Very well put, Ellis. In other words, scientists are those who perceive what interests them, theorize about it, then they explore, ask questions, experiment, and evaluate what is and offer conclusions, eh? Kinda elementary, eh?

May I add: Being spiritual--individual or pneumatological--beings, scientists are bound to differ from one another, and in their perceptions as to what is.

I agree! And this is what makes me more interested in the journey, which I enjoy...I'm not even convinced there is a destination--a heaven, which is the central theme of so many prayers and hymns of the organized ego-based religions.

It is when one decides they don't enjoy what is in the journey, the scenery and circumstance when one decides there is a direction the journey must take which eludes to a destination.
When one removes themselves from expectation and judgment of who and what the journey contains and where it is headed, one becomes more cognizant of the manifest as the reflection of the absolute. Then as one becomes more familiar with the absolute the journey is seen as the absolute. Without beginnings and endings. All answers from the limitless are known when the question is posed within the absolute.

I'm from England. Many Americans may not accept the clear evidence of evolution, but your universities have good Anthropology departments. BTW I read Anthropology here in England (UCL) way back in the 1960s.

SM, as your comment implies, generalizations--for example, like: "America doesn't believe in evolution."--do not usually contain much truth of any real value. I took post grad studies at Boston University (1954-1955), a Methodist university and a very progressive centre of knowledge, and wisdom.

We didn't evolve from apes, we shared a common ancestor with current apes. These latter are of course still evolving, as are we. The process isn't observable to us, as our time scale is too limited.

Anon posted:
"Name me a species that only partially evolved."

I thought that it may be possible that all life on this planet may be still evolving, ie partially evolved, (except for dragonflies and crocodiles!! ) But maybe we are not. That's not the question really, as other species are evolving right now, and have in the past. The process takes eons sometimes, and we usually cannot see it happening, as SM says. But that does not mean it isn't happening. And to us as well, after all we are animals too.

Whilst I realise SM, that American universities generally are not invoved with the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design, there are more formal educational courses in this area in American schools and colleges than elsewhere. My belief is that they represent the sincerely held views of many in that nation, and they are the people encouraging the belief in God and his/her creation of the world, which seems to discourage (in the US) a belief in the evolving nature of the development of life on Earth.

Aside from the standard, sadly misinformed creationist talking points, there is a vast quantity of evidence supporting evolution. Every angle that it's been approached has supported and strengthened it. It is one of the most successful theories in scientific history. But, to the point of why Americans are slow to accept its reality is, in my opinion, due to the fact that we are a very religious country, and evolution specifically applies to our origins. It took the church a long time, and many smart, well-intentioned people suffered, before they accepted heliocentrism. Same with the abandonment of the silly dogma of the perfection and unmoving nature of the heavens. They could eventually accept that and still believe the myth of our special creation and attention from a doting deity. Evolution strikes a near fatal blow to that delusion, and the religious mind lacks the flexibility to adjust quickly and maturely. Also, our science and math education is poor. I would also add that the size of our country contributes to the slow flow of information to isolated, ignorant demographics.

Anon posted:
"Name me a species that only partially evolved."

Species cannot "partially evlove". Evolution is not a quantity, it's a process. It is change. To think that evolution can reach some kind of completion is to imply that there is a goal in the first place. That would imply some kind of plan which would imply some kind of planner. People who reject the idea of God in favor of evolution, then simply reassign the qualities of a god to the process of evolution, are simply renaming God. Evolution does not have a "plan".

"Also, our science and math education is poor. I would also add that the size of our country contributes to the slow flow of information to isolated, ignorant demographics." --by Anon

I live in what would likely be considered an isolated demographic; the least densly populated area of the US. There is ignorance here but no more so than any metropolitan area in the country. There are areas in any city that are as isolated and ignorant as any here in the "wilds". So the size of our country has nothing to do the ignorance factor. Ignorance is ubiquitous.

Good point, Iztaci. I think of GOD in the same way. As you say, "evolution does not have a "plan".
IMO, neither does GOD. GOD is the plan. And, if we choose to accept it, we have an important role to play in helping the plan unfold, or evolve.

Am I "renaming God"? as you put it. No, I think of myself as redefining the god hypothesis. Check out:
http://www.redefinegod.com/profile/RevLGKing

I agree with you Iz. There is no such thing as an ignorant demgraphic, or at least an ignorant demographic due to geography. Ignorance can bloom in prestige universities, churches and teeming cities. It is a state of mind. It occurs when we refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just possibly, someone with a contrary view to ours may be, if not right, then at least worthy of a hearing. And like the flu we can all catch it! So we need to be alert and if necessary inoculate ourselves against it as ignorance can destroy us.

I can see no reason, why to believe in any scientific theory. After all, direct evidence for evolution wasn't still given.

Zephir wrote
"I can see no reason, why to believe in any scientific theory."

Abolutely agree with you, that is your prerogative, but I am very interested to hear what other theories you don't believe.

Evolution is not the issue, rather undirected evolution. Atheists say, e.g. the light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. They claim the eye evolved from here into an outward cup, then the cornea, iris, pupil etc. etc. Impossible mathematically. And there are thousands of similar examples of complexity. It is claimed that complexity only implies design. Wishful thinking.



curtismoh@gmail.com

My understanding is, logical theories are just an particular interpretations of reality from particular perspectives. From AWT perspective the evolutionary theory appears as quite relevant, but the creationism has some substantiation, too. The water droplet condensation is an emergent phenomena, rather the evolutionary one. So we should consider new species formation as a sort of phase transform as well. In this sense, creationism is useful, as it looks for alternatives to evolutionary theory. For example, we cannot be sure, the humans evolved from apes, until we find a definite evidence of it. The search for evidence of human race evolution couldn't prohibit us for looking for extraterrestrial origin of it and other alternative hypothesis.

Humans did NOT evolve from apes. They share a common ancestor.

Atheists have no great thoughts on eyes. Useful things for everyday use and hard, though not impossible to do without. As an atheist I definitely believe in eyes.

What atheists say, and what the word means, is that there is no god.

So all the millions of complexities, many interconnected, occurred by means of natural selection, beneficial mutations?
How was insulin, inside the body, selected to metabolise glucose which is obtained from outside the body? Just one example, extremely complex. Chemical formulae must match perfectly.
Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible?
[php][/php]

curtismoh@gmail.com

Anon wrote:
'So all the millions of complexities, many interconnected, occurred by means of natural selection, beneficial mutations?'

Yes, maybe.

"How was insulin, inside the body, selected to metabolise glucose which is obtained from outside the body?"

Not a clue. Seems a silly idea though and not one which would be designed by anyone with thought for convenience.

"Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible?"

Now this I find an interesting question. Actually it seems to me that it would be possible for a believer in a god figure to believe that their divinity had created life on earth, by evolution, and without giving precedence to any species.

Surely belief in a god does not have to include the belief that the creation myth as depicted in the Old Testament of the bible is a scientific description of the origin of man ('man' as in humans that is, we all know that the bible thinks that the origin of woman was a BAD BAD idea).

" Impossible mathematically."
Of course it isn't.

I am confused by all the Anonymous people---- or it's one person arguing against him/herself, which is interesting but annoying!

I can't figure out what is 'mathematically impossible'. I've reread the posts on this page over and they seem contradictory.

"Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible? "

Why would they when it isn't true?

I agree. There is a guiding hand. GOD in us, and GOD we are in, is the hand. But, IMO, GOD--an acronym, not a noun--is not a personal being separate from us.

To those who say "God is a personal being." I say: please have "him" post us a response.
http://www.redefinegod.com/profile/RevLGKing

REDEFINEGOD.COM

From Aether Wave Theory perspective, both God, both concept of creation are having a good physical meaning. By AWT all observable reality is formed by nested density fluctuations of hypothetical particle field of infinite mass/energy density, so called the Aether. This hypothesis violates no known experiment or observation, made so far.

The God is omnipotent, omnipresent creature of infinite intelligence and clairvoyance. We can observe His behavior by the same way, like our animal pets are following our behavior. From perspective of our dogs, the behavior of humans is totally incomprehensible, it appears like chaos or like the behavior of large system of chaotic particles.

The same dual view exists for creation. Every condensation (a phase transform) inside of dense particle system appears like sort of miracle. The water droplets are condensing from nothing, from hidden dimensions of space-time. Such condensation appears like miracle for me - just because it appears so often, I've a tendency to marginalize it's unexplainable behavior.

Should we consider the condensation of droplets in rain consider as the same sort of miracle, like the creation of species? Well, we should do. After all, the ideas, the observable reality is just a simulation of more intelligent powerfully creatures is sort of deism as well. It conceptually doesn't differ from deism of Christians and other churches. For further reading you can visit:

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-universe-appears-clever-for-us.html

I was not anonymous, since my email was in the message. Now I'm registered.
So, MAYBE the complexities evolved? "Naturally", this is the best science can do.
Inconvenient to metabolise glucose? Design a better one, then. Oh wait! it happened by natural selection with no selector! Now that's impressive.
Surely guided evolution is the answer, go to the top of the class, Revlgking!
If unguided evolution is possible, then "fallible friend" has invented a new form of probability. I won't bother to even go into the complexity of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are required for successful adaptations, because scientists say they have the answer, DNA has been sequenced, ha! ha! What a feat, explains everything, no designer required.
What is mathematically impossible? Take cosmology. Latest theories (could be wrong, scientists are only wrong in the past), claim that the gravitational constant, AND strong nuclear force, AND weak nuclear force, AND electromagnetism, ALL had to have been in place in their very, very, very, precise measurements at the instant of the big bang. How do scientists explain? Multiple universes!! Wow, but no proof. Maybe with infinite universes, and infinity of time going backwards, could it have happened? Add to the permutations for good measure laws of thermodynamics.
If you still do not comprehend mathematically impossible, ask, why four forces. Can an equation for a universe such as this be written?

All who ask God to appear, ought to have lived 2,000 years ago, then they could draw their own conclusion. After all, some say there was no holocaust, only 50 years ago.
The creator is a being outside of time, but when He appears again, there will still be doubters!

CM, you ask How about E = MC2 X F(aith)+H(ope)+L(ove)?
FHL have to do with the human imagination, which, Einstein said, is more important than knowledge.

I'm sure he didn't imply imagination without knowledge.
Faith can be invested in anything.
Hope driven from a sense of fear or hopelessness pitiful, and love when attached to objects of desire obsessive.

Energy equaling mass X Constant (speed of light) times superstition X inadequate knowledge X attachment = Churchianity or evolution based on beliefs and ideals, or superstition combined with theory equaling an active imagination split between 7 billion people.

It would be wise to find common ground within the beliefs and ideals of imagination driven by sphinctered knowledge and the runaway opinion of belief and superstition.

Anyone can make up mystical representations of reality and couple it with scientific theory but it don't make it True.

History has given us a pretty good picture of such nonsense.

"it happened by natural selection with no selector! "
False. It happened without a conscious selector.

"... invented a new form of probability.'
It's not necessary to invent a new form of probability. It's only necessary to understand that we don't know enough to derive the actual probabilities.

"I won't bother to even go into the complexity of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are required for successful adaptations,"
Because it is irrelevant. Successful adaptions already occur. Even ardent creationists admit this.


"Multiple universes!"
That is one explanation.


"All who ask God to appear, ought to have lived 2,000 years ago, then they could draw their own conclusion. After all, some say there was no holocaust, only 50 years ago."
This is the kind of silly comparison I expect one who is a religious apologist to make.

Where, and when, did I ever suggest that Einstein suggested that knowledge be ignored?

When and where did you suggest that it not be ignored? And where and when did you suggest the True meaning of Faith Love and Hope?

Oh, and where and when does Faith Love and Hope truly draw forth energy from a constant and what would that constant equal in mass?

"When and where did you suggest that it not be ignored?"

That is a really silly argument! You suggested that Rev had implied something-- he said he didn't. He cannot then refute something you implied he had done before he did it! Arguing logically is always a better idea than accusation.

"All who ask God to appear, ought to have lived 2,000 years ago, then they could draw their own conclusion. After all, some say there was no holocaust, only 50 years ago."

Many who were 'there' 2,000 years ago did not a) believe that Jesus' birth hailed the coming of the promised Messiah, b) believe that Jesus was the son of god or c) did not know of his birth, life or existence at the time. We didn't live then, so it's another ridiculous argument. I doubt that I would have believed then that this wise young rabbi was the son of god, as I do not now. As for the holocaust, some of the people who experienced this horror on both sides are still alive to bear witness, and denying that something exists does not negate its reality. If you believe that Jesus was the son of god then for you he will be. God exists in whatever form you wish, or without form if you prefer. All that has to happen is that you believe it so. I cannot prove your belief wrong anymore than you can prove that my disbelief wrong.

Understanding what is being said is always better than assuming something has been said that wasn't.
I simply met the Reverend with the same language he met my statement with.

If I suggested anything, it was that emotional attachment to the context of words does not sanctify meanings into Absolutes in truth, but instead divide and separate relative truths by their emotional attachment to belief and opinion.

What is Knowledge of God without the experience of God?
What is knowledge of evolution without the experience of Truth absolute?
What is the meaning of the SON of GOD when one does not live in Christed Consciousness but assumes the reality of a God that is separate from ones self and an idealistic Son of such a creation of belief and idealism?

What is Faith, Hope and Love if it is driven from emotional attachment to personality and belief that is an opinion.

And finally what has Faith Hope and Love have to do with E=MC2 other than it is an idealistic fantasy where the mind takes its knowledge and experience of quantum physics and applies it to emotions that are individual to ego?
Any constant when applied to change points to surface appearances that are constantly changing.

What does change have to do with evolution if change is a constant? Does something evolve just because it changes or does it just change? If something is a constant how can it evolve?

What is evolution when it is relative to beliefs in God and opinions of God and theoretical science derived of imagination that is not based on a constant but in changing perceptions and belief?

If we use a previous statement used by a source of information:
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that what we call "creation" is an illusion of the human mind, and we, individually, are creating it with our minds, right now. and then apply that to another statement used by the same source:
How about E = MC2 X F(aith)+H(ope)+L(ove)?
FHL have to do with the human imagination, which, Einstein said, is more important than knowledge.
The source is suggesting all that is being created is an illusion and in the illusion that source is implying a knowledge of God and an idea of Faith Hope and Love from the mind immersed in illusion.
What is the constant? Is it illusion? Is it God which is an opinion or belief? Is evolution based on illusion or belief?
Does Faith hope and love become an illusion of imagery within the minds immersion into belief?

What is the difference between illusion and belief? What is the difference between illusion and Truth absolute?
Does Truth absolute exist and can it be known and experienced and how would one come to know the answers to the questions?

Good points, Ellis.
BTW, Ellis, there is good evidence that qualities like faith, hope and love can be measured. Hypnotists use it all the time. Using the power of suggestion, in conjunction with the imagination, they use it to measure people's ability to have faith and trust. They use it to pick people out of a large audience, who are willing to accept, by faith, their suggestions.

BTW 2, Hypnotism--the ability to focus the mind on one idea--is a subject with which I happen to be very familiar. It has a lot to do with ones ability to have belief, faith, hope and love.

Beginning with my daughter--In 1964 she had a life-threatening lung condition--over the years I have found it a very useful pneumatological (spiritual) tool. It can be used to help people deal with psychosomatic and pneumasomatic (self-inflicted) health problems. To a limited extent, it also works somatically. Jesus used this spiritual power, and taught his disciples to do likewise. Check out Matt. 11:28,29.

Yes, over the years, I have been attacked, mostly by fundamentalist and obscurantists: "This is a dangerous, devil-based, evil and demonic power..."

ALL POWERS--PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL--CAN BE USED FOR GOOD OR EVIL
I have discovered that it is a power that can be used for good, or evil. What is dangerous is: when good people allow themselves to be ignorant of it AND fail to use it for good. Meanwhile, we can be sure that every demagogic dictator will use it to its fullest extent. The Nazis used a team of highly qualified hypnotists.

Revlgking;

Any time I see weasle words, I have to ask for some qualitying data. "there is good evidence" are classic, textbook weasle words. Where does one find this "good evidence" that faith, hope and love can be measured? What is the metric used in this measurement? Can you point me to any studies in which these qualities are measured?

Hypnotism as the "ability" to focus the mind on one idea? If hypnotism is an ability, what is the need for a hypnotist? It has "a lot" to do with one's "ability" have belief, hope and love? A lot? Is this a unit of the metric used to measure these qualities? How many "pinches" are there in a "lot"? How many "lots" are there in a "whole bunch"? How may whole bunches in a sh**-load?

Jesus used this "spiritual power"? Okay... human ability or spiritual power weilded by a diety? If a diety is omnipotent, why the hell would he need hypnotism if He could heal blindness or leprosy by touching someone on the head?

"The Nazis used a team of highly qualified hypnotists..." I don't know where you got this information but I don't doubt they did. Why wouldn't they? They used "highly qualified" teams into every kind of "magic" they could find, from deviners of chicken guts to astrologers and crystal readers.

I'm a little confused by this post. I usually find more substance in your posts. A bit of woo perhaps, here and there, but usually containing some interestingly grounded stuff. This one looks to be pretty much pure woo.

I could be wrong about this but... I doubt it. :>)

What you're alluding to is that people allow themselves to believe in something and with the aid of a hypnotist further solidify the belief in and amongst other beliefs. The suggestion has to have possibility and meaning before the hypnotist can suggest any meaning can lead to experience.

Focus no. Suggest in and amongst the myriad of other programs yes. Focus comes from desire and free will. No hypnotist can focus or direct desire and free will, only remind the easily suggested that they have a choice.
As I said faith can be in anything, one can have faith in a dog or a hamster, politics, science and religion, not to mention ones personal idea of a God incarnate or a personality living in the sky.
Hope lives in and amongst illusions created by diverse thoughts of being a victim to reality and a victim to others. Hope is thrown out when one reaches a culmination of thoughts idealizing ones sense of self that is lost in situations not created by ones own actions, desires, faith and love.
Love if it is driven by attachment and feeling, influences one to lose sensibility of reality in the relationship of creator and created. We by our beliefs in what is real identify what is around us including ourselves by the very thoughts passed on from parent to child, peer to peer and from social mores we often derive our purpose. Evolution might show is that the social mores have become more sophisticated with certain scientific discoveries but our morals are still bound by superstition and fear, and the personal attachments of love that is a feeling and romantic notion.
Scientifically we understand that a child falls before it learns to stabilize walking. Emotionally we try to prevent the very things that make sense scientifically as the necessities that expand our knowledge and awareness of ourselves. Love attached to the ideas of suffering sabotage the very things we scientifically derive as necessary to growth and in love twist our science and politics to try and save ourselves from ourselves. Wisdom is often lacking from faith hope and Love.

E=MC2 X FHL is an imaginary idealism not based on wisdom but on the personal ideals of faith hope and love in belief created from the ego.

You are suggesting hypnosis is a spiritual tool, and similar to the omnipresent and omnipotent potential in a Master of Self Realization. Possibly you believe Jesus used hypnosis to raise the dead and walk on water as well as the other miracles he performed?

No, you drew to you the reflection of your own beliefs. Self hypnotized by your belief in the opposition you saw anything opposing your ego as the devil when it was the reflection of your ego that you were battling.
No one can be hypnotized against their will. Period.
Ignorance of that fact sees human free will as a belief, because such a person has not realized the free will within themselves and does not know what evil is or what God is.

Evolution in appearances of human development is tantamount to the level of knowledge and experience of Human awareness of what it is to be Human. Victim or creator, that was more akin to the message of Jesus than hypnosis of the mind as spirituality or the tool to find the way to spirituality. Spirit is not a belief tho you can have many beliefs of spirituality.
The true evolution of the species is to rise above beliefs and to experience truth absolute.
Until then all ideas of faith love and hope are relative to ideals and projections of the ego.

Matthew:
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus did not hypnotize his disciples and his disciples did not use hypnosis to spread the word of Jesus. Hypnosis is not a spiritual tool to realize enlightenment or Christ Consciousness.
Jesus spoke only of the Father that resides within the human heart and the ability to become self aware of that which lives in every human. This has everything to do with free will and choice and the refinement of the senses. Hypnotism and belief are tools of the church and they can lead one to the diversity of beliefs so that they may choose to seek something, or set the mind to an idea. But if an idea is founded on beliefs that are constantly changing one will have to find something that is stable regardless of changing beliefs.
Hypnosis is not the spiritual tool to achieve that, and no one of such a level of consciousness would invade the evolutionary process of free choice and free will to leave the ego and its illusions behind for truth absolute.

WOW! What a flurry of comments and interesting questions. If I chose to answer all of them I would need to write a book. Just time, now, for a couple of notes on hypnosis:


==============================================================
More about the Rhodes Scholar George Estabrooks
http://www.textfiles.com/conspiracy/mind.con
===============================================
http://www.dangers-of-hypnosis.co.uk/stage_hypnosis_how_it_works.html

ABOUT PROFESSOR GEORGE ESTABROOK
================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Estabrooks

Fantastic claims. Morality then is not imbedded within the psyche but influenced into being.

Quotations of Estabrooks:
"I can hypnotize a man -- without his knowledge or consent -- into committing treason against the United States."

So much for those who say we all have free will. In my opinion, free will, like knowledge and wisdom, is only for those who consciously choose to have it.

"Is hypnosis dangerous? It can be. Under certain circumstances, it is dangerous in the extreme. It has even been known to lead to murder. Given the right combination of hypnotist and subject, hypnosis can be a lethal weapon."

The above points to the danger of choosing to remain ignorant.

"The key to creating an effective spy or assassin rests in splitting a man’s personality, or creating multipersonality, with the aid of hypnotism.... This is not science fiction. ...I have done it."

In my (LGKing) Estabrooks was right. All successful demagogues in all categories, including religionists, made, and are making, use of this knowledge. If good people do nothing, they can, and will, succeed.

Estabrook implies that hypnotism is possible against the will of the subject. Is this so? And can everyone be hypnotised, or are some people naturally immune!? Does anti-hypnotism always have to be learned? People generally are very easy to persuade --- we only have to look at the numbers who fall for the latest scams--- but I thought hypnotism, as opposed to propaganda-type behaviour modification, had to have consent to be successful.

PS. Obviously I am not talking about drug use in conjunction with hypnosis here.

Ellis, using my son's 'puter, this is Lindsay G. King. At my age, I have no fear of anyone knowing who I am, or where I live. Being a BIG ego, like you my fear is that they will get my name wrong, eh?




And can everyone be hypnotised, or are some people naturally immune!? Does anti-hypnotism always have to be learned? People generally are very easy to persuade --- we only have to look at the numbers who fall for the latest scams--- but I thought hypnotism, as opposed to propaganda-type behaviour modification, had to have consent to be successful.

PS. Obviously I am not talking about drug use in conjunction with hypnosis here.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/hypnotic+susceptibility

It is still me, LGK. Now to your questions:

1. Estabrook implies that hypnotism is possible against the will of the subject. Is this so?

In my experience, yes. Unless we are consciously aware of what is going, we are vulnerable.

2. And can everyone be hypnotised? (to be continued when I get back to my own computer.)

Back to my 'puter. Ellis, you ask:

3. And can everyone be hypnotized?

Yes. But pay close attention to the following: ALL HYPNOSIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN SELF-HYPNOSIS. It iS for this reason that I want us to have a new word, pneumatism--the conscious self (pneuma) acting on the mind and body--the psyche and soma.

Keep in mind that the Scottish surgeon, Dr.James Braid, the one who invented the word 'hypnosis' tried, later, to change it to 'monoideism'--the ability to focus on one idea. Though he failed to get this idea accepted, he was on the right track.

4. Are some people naturally immune?

Yes. But such must consciously choose to be immune.

5. Does anti-hypnotism always have to be learned?

Anti-hypnotism? What we need to learn is this: the nature and function of hypnotism. (More on this).

This is an interesting topic. It seems to me that it could be that we are more responsive to hypnotism in a group. For instance rallies of any sort will allow us to get caught up in the moment (even without the 'funny' cigarettes etc). I'm thinking, for eg, of religious rallies, Hitler's brilliant manipulation at his rallies and of course good old Rock concerts. People are in a highly emotional state at these events, and even in small groups of people can behave in ways they would not as an individual.

Though is this hypnotism? Or is this 'group consciousness' something that a skilled hypnotist may be able to exploit in an individual. Certainly there have been many religious leaders, politicians, military commanders and rock singers who do just that. I mean- manipulate peoples' emotions for their own advantage.

Actually Rev-- it was the plethora of Anonymi, all holding different points of view, that got to me, not the fact that some people prefer to be 'unknown'. Very confusing!

The primary reason why Americans reject evolution in such numbers is that we collectively have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works. Moreover, we have a profoundly false view of the history and philosophy of science.

Also, our democratic ideals have imbued us with the bizarre notion that the opinions of anyone off the street are just as good as those of any scientist.

We are suffering a mass delusion due in part to the active creation of ignorance.

People who believe themselves to be "smart" and "well-educated" have deluded themselves into believing that they are eminently qualified to reject the collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions of 10s of thousands of the worlds very best scientists, in favor of the mindless rants of a very vocal minority who collectively constitute AT THE VERY BEST utter mediocrity in research.

They believe that they have done sufficient research that they can make that call, but the fact is that none of them would even recognize real research.

Surely any bright Anons who wishes to post more than once could adopt a pen name. For example, I would register as Anon de Canada. Actually, not a bad name.
==================================================================

You ask about "group consciousness": "Though is this hypnotism?"

IMO, hypnotism, like its predecessor 'mesmerism'--named after Dr. Franz Antoine Mesmer of Vienna--ought to be relegated to the archaic category, if not dropped.

Keep in mind: Braid coined his word out of the Greek for sleep, 'hypnos'. The deep meditative, or trance, state is more related to waking up than it is to sleeping.

Ellis, did I tell you that when I first started using what I now call 'pneumatherapy'(in the 1960's)--that is, awakening the power of the human spirit (pneuma) and teaching people how to use this power in healing their minds (psyches) and bodies (somas)--that by Ontario law, the use of hypnotism was confined to medical doctors, regardless of what they knew about it?

This was obviously a bad law, which did nothing promote public good. With the help of others, including medical doctors, I was able to persuade the authorities to change the law. The authority who interviewed me, after I gave him a demonstration of the role "hypnosis"--the use of words to achieve realization and increase faith and trust--plays in pneumatherapy he quickly agreed: "We would have to pass a law against the use of public and private prayers and meditation."

The law got changed.

That would be hypnosis of ego. Evolution of Man is linked to the macrocosmic expansion of creation. The ego clings to the idea that it is the center of the universe and it's beliefs and opinions are all that matters (or is real).
Even Science is influenced by the restrictions of ego.

I can't think of anything I'd rather do than agree with every word you've just written. If fact, I once did. But I can't now. For one thing, (I'm not going to attempt a list. It would be too long and redundant.) how many truly revolutionary ideas have come from people/scientists who went against this "collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions..." group? I can't think of many that weren't.

I once worked with a PhD geophysicist who was converted, after 15 years as an successful explorationist, to a young-earth Christian. At every level of education, I've encountered the same failures of logic that I've encountered with the nearly completely uneducated. I don't believe in your "active creation of ignorance." We don't need one. Ignorance is ubiquitous. It's an unavoidable aspect of the human mind and where it shows up in any given mind is as random as the location of an electron while it's speed is being measured. It's surely genetic, or maybe I should say congenitally set as there is no predicting where the ignorance will show up. It depends on how the brain wires its self after gastrolation. No amount of education or training can change it once wired. Just look around. No matter how educated and inventive we've become, we can still become so enraged over a perceived minor verbal insult that we kill each other over it. This is hard-wired and has remained unchanged since before we evolved "intelligence". Ignorance is not going away. It will be there, on the street and in the labs at MIT (or wherever) as long humans exist as such.

Just as ignorance is tuned within the circuitry of the intellect and emotional body, so is the refinement possible to expand the intellect beyond ignorance. If the DNA contains the potential for ignornace so does it contain the potential for genious and or liberation from ignorance.
It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default.
Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution from a point of reference in some outward identification of the source of humanity that is speculative at best and demeaning to our very nature.

There is within us all a greater experience of humanity than the current ideals of cellular identification and the belief in random chance that is evolution.

Whenever atheists are presented with the reality that undirected evolution is impossible, they either disappear or spout illiterate nonsense.
No one can dispute that the universe and its inhabitants were finely tuned. I can envisage natural selection and random mutation figuratively "having a meeting" to design the eye, because these forces were created just as gravity was.
"Anonymous" is, in all likelihood, here, if he/she/it exists at all, because of a 23rd chromosome being x or y, and a complex reproductive system that could not have evolved by tiny steps over eons of time.
Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe.
If a creationist said that Science killed, because it invented weapons such as the A Bomb, atheists would scoff and rush to the defense of Science. Yet, they blame religion for wars. Religion and Science are inanimate and therefore incapable of killing. Humans kill, and multiple millions were killed by atheists in the name of hate or race.
One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught.

C M wrote
"One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught. "

........and your point that this somewhat obtuse statement illustrates is.......?

Ignorance isn't "tuned in" to anything. Ignorance is not a thing; it's the absence of a thing. Knowledge. You cannot tune a non-thing. Sounds like you're trying to compare ignor-nace with gen-ious. I ain't gots no idea what neither of them things is but dey don't sound lak dey otta be in the same chewin o'the fat.

DNA "contains" the potential for ignorance? How can DNA "contain" a "potential". Gift wrapped in a glycoprotein fabric with a nucleotide bow? DO NOT OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF DRUIDS!

"It's the reason so many turn to spirituality for some kind of freedom from fear, and release from the ideas of inevitable process that we are destined to incorporate ignorance into humanity by default."

Incorporate a non-thing into humanity? You might incorporate air, you know, the stuff your above paragraph is made of, by injecting it via certain orifices in your body. But then air is something. Ignorance is nothing. Nada. Zip. Squat. Along with being grammatically impossible, your statement is nonsense.

"Balance can be achieved in a humility that lay beyond egoic impressions and the creation of evolution..."

Ignoring the grammatical violations that would be obvious to a fifth-grader... "creation of evolution"? Good grief, TT, you've outdone yourself. You've transcended the infinite in a point of outward cellular identification to a new paradigm of non-random chance and non-chance randomness that we are destined to free ourselves from fear and egoic perchance and the evil emotional body.

"There is within us all a greater experience of humanity..."

Within us all? You got some toads in your pocket, TT? If my experience gets any greater, I'll have to change my shorts every hour. What could be greater than knowing your incredible tutelage is just a mouse-click away 24/7?

I don't know if this was prompted by my posts or not. If they were and you assumed me to be an atheist, it's just another of the wild, wild generalizations you splattered so generously all over your post. I don't know if undirected evolutions is possible or not but I am sure, by the undirected shotgun barrage you've just released, that you don't either.

"If a creationist said that science killed..." What creationist? Are they identical? "... atheists would scoff and rush..." Also identical? What happened? Did God create but two types of individuals then clone them so He'd only have to deal with two groups, each with identical views?

"Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe."

You are not describing a paradox here. You are spouting what you defined in your opening sentence. Illiterate nonsense.

Can one OD on discredited evangelism?

CM----Only someone who was able to hate on the flimisest of reasons would suggest this ridiculous idea, and incidently it makes as much sense as loving something simply because you believe it. Such silly nonsense!

"Whenever atheists are presented with the reality that undirected evolution is impossible, they either disappear or spout illiterate nonsense."
This isn't about atheism. It's about science and evolution. But since you bring it up, you are the one who is spouting nonsense. There is no evidence that undirected evolution is impossible. You are citing urban legend as if it were fact.


"No one can dispute that the universe and its inhabitants were finely tuned."
Of course they can. That's why the vast majority of real scientists accept the reality of evolution.


"Atheists are in a state of denial because paradoxically they hate the creator in whom they do not believe."
Assertions are not facts. I know this is a mystery to you.



"If a creationist said that Science killed, because it invented weapons such as the A Bomb, atheists would scoff and rush to the defense of Science. Yet, they blame religion for wars."
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Sagan had it right. Our obit will read "They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods." Nothing to do with evolution.

"Religion and Science are inanimate and therefore incapable of killing. Humans kill, and multiple millions were killed by atheists in the name of hate or race."
Questionable. Nothing to do with evolution.

"One now discredited evangelist put it best: If you believe you evolved from a rock, you could not be that stupid, you had to be taught."
Reasonable people do not look to evangelists for advice about science.

No its an absence of experience in Truth that is not relative to belief and theory. Ignoring the subtle which is present but not believed often drives the mind further away from truth into superstition based on what aint real aint what I can't see and comprehend based on what I been told, Jethro.
How can a seed from a tree contain a potential tree? Plant it nourish it and you get a tree.
DNA contains all the building blocks for the human mechanism. nourish it by feeding it sh*t and you get a sh*tty human. You should be familiar with that idea, you tend to speak of sh*t often enough. What you give your attention to multiplies itself in personality and belief.

If Jethro don't 'sperience it, it aint possible, 'cause Jethro know everthang real....

Exactly. Who created the idea of evolution? Did it create itself to reveal itself in words and definition for man to stumble upon or did man surmise its owm beginnings under the headings and definitions of evolution? Now then Who decides when the only answer has been determined and when will that be? WTF are you ranting about?
In most cases an open mind, but in your case there may be no cure for what nails you to the cookbook version of reality.

'how many truly revolutionary ideas have come from people/scientists who went against this "collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions'

This is a half truth. LOTS of people have disagreed and continue to disagree with the dominant paradigm. The vast majority of them are wrong. And the ones who were right demonstrated such complete understanding of their subject - including the theories they were supplanting - that few of them were doubted to be brilliant even when they were wrong. Comic book history of science tells us that 'people' scoffed at Galileo and Columbus and Einstein. Those who assert this are just wrong. Nobody who understood what was going on scoffed at these guys - even when they disagreed with them.

I can think of one tragic case that meets this criteria - Ignaz Semmelweis. However, in this case one has to cheat - like a creationist. The people who persecuted and ridiculed Semmelweis - and who were probably ultimately responsible for his death - were not scientists: they were doctors. Of course, when creationists compile their list of "scientists who disagree with evolution" they list a bunch of MDs, vets, and engineers, as well. They gotta scrounge pretty low to inflate the list. The followers who aren't prone to doing homework are not likely to notice (or even care).

Anyway, that's a major difference between these the real scientific revolutionaries and the creationist pretenders.

As for your geophysicist friend, there are people who abandon reason the world over and join cults - $cientology, Hare Krishna, the religion of the week.

Look up Robert Proctor at Stanford. Agnotology. There is genuine ignorance and their is cultivated ignorance. Creationism is a prototypical example of the latter.

The world is not flat. The world is not the center of the universe. Fish did evolve legs. Dinosaurs did roam. Man did evolve from apes. Man did create global warming. Nuclear weapons will make the world flat.

Nuclear weapons may clear the landscape but if it isn't flat already they won't make what isn't flat, flat. And my greatest greatest greatgrandparents were not apes nor were they exclusively indigenous to this planet..

OK, I agree there are those two types of ignorance and, of course, I agree that creationists are an examples of the latter. In the vast majority of cases. Many were cultivated by fundamentalist parents and friends but, some were just born idiots. And, I'll give you a point on your comment that I'm only half right in the statement to which you referred. But, when you talk about "scoffing", you're referring to someone else's comment, not mine. I said many of the great discoveries were made by those who "went against" the conventional wisdom of their time. And scoffing was not and is not exactly rare in elite scientific circles. Due to my experience in geophysics, Alvarez pops into my mind. He was virtual run out of the discipline for his idea that the K/T Boundary was the result of a big-assed rock from outer space. Continental drift? That one still crops up. Arizona crater? That one got pretty damned hot. I knew, very well, a scientist who was ridiculed internationally for his ideas that amplitude versus offset calculations could provide enhanced definition in seismic data. Thirty years hence, AVO is now standard throughout the industry. And fraud was not that rare. Fraud that made it all the way to the textbooks like the Piltdowners and Sigmund Freud.

To get any further in this discussion, you and I would have to agree on some terms. And some rules of logic. First, and we may agree on this, I don't consider paleontologists, psychologists, geophysicists, MDs, geologists - the list is lengthy - to be scientists. I consider them to be professionals who are extensively trained to use the tools developed by scientists. I was one of those. Scientists are the ones who develop those tools. Many discoveries have been made by scientific experiments conducted by people like me but only by using the tools developed by scientists.

As for logic, proof via negation is a logical fallacy. You aptly pointed it out to Curtis Mohomed and then committed the same proof by negation fallacy when you argued there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement. As for your reference to "real" scientists, I'm reminded of the all too common retort of many fundamentalists: "Well, 'real Christians' know better than that." When you pin them down, "real Christians" are the ones who agree with them.

Last: As for your geophysicist friend, there are people who abandon reason the world over and join cults - $cientology, Hare Krishna, the religion of the week.

What's this? Argument by agreement? It's what I said.

I doubt we disagree on much of any substance. You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor.

Scientists often scoff at each other's ideas, even in a mean-spirited way on occasion. But that doesn't necessarily mean they think the other guy is an idiot. My daughter is reading a debate between Gould and Morris right now in which they are ridiculing each other, but are also talking about they think the other guy should be nominated for a nobel prize. Each of these guys knows very well that the other guy actually understands the situation.

"there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement."
This is at the core of why evolution is real science and creationism is not. Evolution is falsifiable, but not falsified.
Moreover, numerous creationists assert like Curtis, that evolution is refuted by 1 and/or 2 laws of thermodynamics, probability, information theory, string theory, fossil record - and a number of other things. These statements are contrary to fact. Evolution is not refuted by any known scientific principle.

"You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor."
I appreciate that. The whole "scoffing" thing needs better explication than I have offered in either the previous post or this one.

The comment about "real scientists" is only superficially like the similar one made by Christians against their brothers. I thought I made this clear. If you look up bios on the creationists' own websites, you find that many of them have degrees from diploma mills, or degrees that are not in science. Many have published very few scientific papers.

YECs aren't alone. There used to be a list of "100 scientists who do not accept evolution" that was put out by the discovery institute. The list is up close to 1000 now, I think. But you look at the list and it includes vets, medical doctors, engineers, etc. I don't have a problem with vets and doctors or even engineers. Some few of them really ARE scientists - but one is not a scientist by virtue of simply having a degree in one of those areas or even practicing it.

Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=channel_page

Tutor, Your greatest greatest greatest grandparents were aliens? On what planet did they evolve? Um, no. I beg you to take a biology or genetics course. Your ancestors came out of africa. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You are still as special as you always thought you were. Oh, and, of course, I wasn't suggesting that nuclear weapons would actually flatten the physical world. But New York will be flat. And so will just about every major city.

If by "comic book understanding" of science means "religious" or "fairy tale" understanding of science, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, you are also right about our democratic ideals. A democracy is only as good as how educated its citizens are. Look to Iran as a clear example. Our focus must be education.

No not aliens, Humanoid.
How many planets are there in the Universes that can support human evolution? Also the soul is not isolated to one dimension.

Again, I am not arguing that evolution is refuted by any known scientific principle. I am familiar with the creationist "logic". I've been checking in with them since Henry Morris got into it with both feet. I read all of his books. I'm always curious as to what they will conjure up next and once in a great while, it's kinda fun to deconstruct. Henry was a civil engineer. I have no beef with civil engineers. That was my major for a while and I worked for a municipality, as an engineering aide, while I was going to school. But Henry was in way over his head. And, I've been a fan of the late Stephen J. for a long time whether punctuated equilibria proves to be of any value or not. I emphasize I am not arguing with any of the points you offer up in defense of your statement. I am arguing with the statement. The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything. Why make such a statement? You, in fact, rejected a similar statement by your antagonist previous to your own. The most a lack of proof could help, in a pursuit of fact, would be to provide a little encouragement that at least you hadn't been proven wrong yet. You're wasting your time arguing evolution versus creation with me. I couldn't be more scientifically oriented. Even as a child, religious indoctrination was never attempted on me. My father saw to that.

Of course there are actual scientists in other branches. I never implied there weren't. In my branch, there are theorists, experimentalists, practitioners and even managers who all have the same degree. I consider the theorist and to some extent the experimentalist the scientist. I don't assign any more importance to one line than the others. When I became a manager, I ceased to be an experimentalist and became a manager with some knowledge of what he was managing. It's simply a matter of nomenclature. Take your pick. I prefer fresh ground dark roast coffee brewed in a French press. Maybe you prefer medium roast from a dripper. Maybe you don't like coffee. I have no argument there but I will argue that lack of proof is not proof. Using a flawed argument against a flawed argument leads to nothing but heightened tensions which leads to a squabble. Even among enlightened scientists, a squabble is not scientific.

But hey! Hope you had a happy solstice.

Evolution is a fact. Creationists grasp at anything they can to argue their point, even though they have no evidence.

People would rather believe than think because it's easier to just say 'god put us here and we can't understand god so that's enough for me.' It's the coward's way out.

" The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything"
First, science is not about proof, but disproof (that's a by-product of falsificationism). Math uses proofs. I never said that the lack of proof of anything is a proof of anything.

However, more to the point in this case, creationists have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by probability. They have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. Both of those arguments are false - and it is important to understand that they are false. I have not said that evolution is supported by either probability or thermodynamics. There are other strong evidences of evolution (fossil record, genetics, biostratigraphy, homology), but if, for example, evolution really were refuted by 2LOT, then we would have a serious quandary since the evidence clearly tells us one thing and accepted natural law clearly tells us something else. Fortunately, that's not the case. The creationists have misrepresented the second law and probability. This doesn't prove evolution - never said it did. However, scientists realize that neither evolution nor abiogenesis violates any known scientific law. It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus.

Online Shops for you Low price! high-quality!! good prestige!!!

Hello! welcome to our website; www.shoes-trader.com

we can supply low price with high quality products.You can view our website for the details.
Thanks for your reading , pls email us if u have any questions about business .

We hope that will make a long&great business with you in future.
Your satisfactions,Our pursuit!

I'm at a dead end in this argument. It is not an argument of belief. I don't think there is much difference in our core beliefs. It's not an argument of proof. It is not an argument about disproofs. Not about falsification, methodology, not about creationists vs evolutionists, denial, god, Jesus, coke bottles lost in the jungle, etc, etc, etc.

Ours is an argument in semantics. In the way in which we use words, construct sentences. Face to face, it could include facial expression, tone of voice and body language. I don't believe any argument between the logical thinkers and the emotional thinkers will ever be solved with facts or theories or laws or hypothesis or rules. I do not believe that using logic to refute the statements of the emotional can ever bear fruit. I only argue with emotionalists when I tire of their constant yapping. I'm working on that.

You seem to be more Popperian and I'm more verificationist, although I have few arguments with Popper, if any. I simply wish we could rise above generalizations like "It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus." I'm guilty of it too but I actually believe generalizations and even minor flaws in logic are harmful to logical discourse whether it comes from me or someone else. In this case, my nitpicking led to nothing but us slinging stuff, back and forth, both of us already knew. I may be off on a wrong track here. Gotta think about it. Hell, if it were easy, it wouldn't be any fun. Think I'll spend some time with Kafka to cheer me up. :>) See ya later.

Those who witnesses miracles 2,000 years ago believed, assuming there were miracles. This is my point, if you were not there, you can't KNOW what did not happen.

Some scientific atheists are sure, without a shred of scientific proof, that their grandmother was a rock. If this is not ignorance, what is it then?

But evolution, the undirected one, deals with the origin of species, not life. So the rock remains inanimate.

Atheists are stupid, that is what it illustrates.

My comments were addressed to all.
Iztaci says
"I don't know if undirected evolution (UE) is possible"
Do you accept mathematical probability?

The explanation of those who believe in UE, i.e. "given enough time" is hardly scientific.

Fallible friend:
"There is no evidence that undirected evolution is impossible."
But atheists say there is no God because of the absence of scientific evidence.
My point was, and is, as in the 4 forces of cosmology, that it is impossible, and there are thousands of examples in biology as well. Maybe, maybe, one process such a renal function could have evolved without direction. But to accept undirected evolution, one must deny the interconnections of organs in the body. No need to expand on this.

Humanist says:
The world is not the center of the universe.
The sun will be at the center of the milky way on December 21, 2012. Wait for this!

Fish did evolve legs. Man did evolve from apes.

Point me to the proof. Seriously I ask, but not to frauds such a Haeckel.

By the way, the evolution of legs does not a mammal make. You've got to get many other processes right, and some simultaneously.

What possible difference could it make, to you, what I accept? You made your mindset known in the post directly above the one I'm quoting here. After reading your splattered scribbling just now, I have changed my mind. I do, now, believe that some individuals can, and do, evolve in a state of disorder. Or, simply exist in a state of permanent disorder. I think you reject evolution because you are unable to take part. I don't blame you. That would piss me off too.

Do I accept mathematical probability? Of course. I estimate the mathematical probability of your ever having a cogent thought to be 1 Divided by the Population of Planet Earth to .1.

Happy Holidays.

Curtis: "Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say? "
Please use the quote facility properly. You have me quoted as making that comment, when it was yours. Nor would I make such a statement when it is false.

Cosmological evolution is not biological evolution. The theories we have are much more questionable in CE than in BE. Creationists, because they are confused by actual science, have a strong tendency whenever they find a gap in understanding, of asserting that the lack of knowledge is proof that a creator is the only reasonable explanation. That is never a scientific approach to any question.

Nevertheless we have no basis for evaluating the probability of cosmological evolution. It's not surprising that creationists have jumped right in and started making mathematically and scientifically unjustified assertions. It's also not surprising that those who already have a strong disposition towards irrational beliefs are elated to find any justification that their beliefs are supported by "hard scientific facts."

The source of universe reality is the Infinite. The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Universal Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God. Causation in the physical world, self-consciousness in the intellectual world, and progressing selfhood in the spirit world, these realities, projected on a universal scale, combined in eternal relatedness, and experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value, constitute the reality of the Supreme. But in an ever-changing universe the Original Personality of causation, intelligence, and spirit experience is changeless, absolute. All things, even in an eternal universe of limitless values and divine qualities, may, and oftentimes do, change, except the Absolutes and that which has attained the physical status, intellectual embrace, or spiritual identity which is absolute.
The highest level to which a finite creature can progress is the recognition of the Universal Father and the knowing of the Supreme. And even then such beings of finality and destiny go on experiencing change in the motions of the physical world and in its material phenomena. Likewise do they remain aware of selfhood progression in their continuing ascension of the spiritual universe and of growing consciousness in their deepening appreciation of, and response to, the intellectual cosmos.
Only in the perfection, harmony, and unanimity of will can the creature become as one with the Creator; and such a state of divinity is attained and maintained only by the creature's continuing to live in time and eternity by consistently conforming his finite personal will to the divine will of the Creator.
Always must the desire to do the Father's will be supreme in the soul and dominant over the mind of an ascending son of God.
A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality.
All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition.
Mindless causation cannot evolve the refined and complex from the crude and the simple, neither can spiritless experience evolve the divine characters of eternal survival from the material minds of the mortals of time.
The one attribute of the universe which so exclusively characterizes the infinite Deity is this unending creative bestowal of personality which can survive in progressive Deity attainment.
Personality is that cosmic endowment, that phase of universal reality, which can coexist with unlimited change and at the same time retain its identity in the very presence of all such changes, and forever afterward.
Life is an adaptation of the original cosmic causation to the demands and possibilities of universe situations, and it comes into being by the action of the Universal Mind and the activation of the spirit spark of the God who is spirit.
The meaning of life is its adaptability; the value of life is its progressability; even to the heights of God-consciousness.
Misadaptation of self-conscious life to the universe results in cosmic disharmony. Final divergence of personality will from the trend of the universes terminates in intellectual isolation, personality segregation. Loss of the indwelling spirit pilot supervenes in spiritual cessation of existence.
Intelligent and progressing life becomes then, in and of itself, an incontrovertible proof of the existence of a purposeful universe expressing the will of a divine Creator. And this life, in the aggregate, struggles toward higher values, having for its final goal the Universal Father.
Only in degree does man possess mind above the animal level aside from the higher and quasi-spiritual ministrations of intellect. Therefore animals (not having worship and wisdom) cannot experience superconsciousness, consciousness of consciousness. The animal mind is only conscious of the objective universe.
Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. Knowledge is a possession of the mind; truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values.
These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience.

Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected.
Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man's ascending universe path to Universal perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.
Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.
Potential evil is inherent in the necessary incompleteness of the revelation of God as a time-space-limited expression of infinity and eternity. The fact of the partial in the presence of the complete constitutes relativity of reality, creates necessity for intellectual choosing, and establishes value levels of spirit recognition and response. The incomplete and finite concept of the Infinite which is held by the temporal and limited creature mind is, in and of itself, potential evil. But the augmenting error of unjustified deficiency in reasonable spiritual rectification of these originally inherent intellectual disharmonies and spiritual insufficiencies, is equivalent to the realization of actual evil.

All static, dead, concepts are potentially evil. The finite shadow of relative and living truth is continually moving. Static concepts invariably retard science, politics, society, and religion. Static concepts may represent a certain knowledge, but they are deficient in wisdom and devoid of truth. But do not permit the concept of relativity so to mislead you that you fail to recognize the co-ordination of the universe under the guidance of the cosmic mind, and its stabilized control by the energy and spirit of the Supreme.

"The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Universal Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God."

Nothing in that post has any relation to science. Assertions are not facts.

It has everything to do with science, and facts are only relative to perceptions that are not absolute but changing.

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



Science
Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy. --Coleridge.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

All this new science that men lere [teach]. --Chaucer.

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth. --Sir W. Hamilton.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history, philosophy. --J. Morley.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.

Note: The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy; -- the first three being included in the Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven, And though no science, fairly worth the seven. --Pope.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

His science, coolness, and great strength. --G. A. Lawrence.

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

Comparative sciences, Inductive sciences. See under Comparative, and Inductive.

Syn: Literature; art; knowledge.

Usage: Science, Literature, Art. Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of knowledge of which the subject-matter is either ultimate principles, or facts as explained by principles or laws thus arranged in natural order. The term literature sometimes denotes all compositions not embraced under science, but usually confined to the belles-lettres. [See Literature.] Art is that which depends on practice and skill in performance. "In science, scimus ut sciamus; in art, scimus ut producamus. And, therefore, science and art may be said to be investigations of truth; but one, science, inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, art, for the sake of production; and hence science is more concerned with the higher truths, art with the lower; and science never is engaged, as art is, in productive application. And the most perfect state of science, therefore, will be the most high and accurate inquiry; the perfection of art will be the most apt and efficient system of rules; art always throwing itself into the form of rules." --Karslake.

Science
Sci"ence\, v. t. To cause to become versed in science; to make skilled; to instruct. [R.] --Francis.

The Science of Yoga or Union is the Science of Self Awareness and the study of spirit as the source of all relative reality. Historically it is over 5000 years old practiced and studied by those not exclusively restricted to facts of belief and the study of relative values. Outside of known historic records the Science of Yoga predates human history.

Science has everything to do with knowledge but unfortunately belief divides knowledge into categories of acceptance democratically idealized by trends in perception.

One mans God is another mans superstition and fantasy.
One mans science is a box based on ideals and belief.
Religion then becomes both scientific and spiritual when limited by the mind of human perception in belief and opinion.

"Religion then becomes both scientific and spiritual when limited by the mind of human perception in belief and opinion. "
More nonsense.

People reject evolution for one reason - they have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works, as well as a "knowledge" of evolution that amounts to nothing more than barber-shop gossip. This makes it impossible for them to understand distinguish science from urban legend.

Science has proven itself by far to be the most reliable method for generating useful knowledge about the physical universe. On the one hand it kinda sucks to be an obscurantist. Real science has made obscurantism unappealing. But since most people are too lazy to learn real science, the obscurantists can still afford to quit their day jobs.

Any time scientists can't explain something right away, the obscurantists pounce in with their read-made "explanation." The average population accepts the benefits of science, but rejects it's methods. They are suspicious of science, largely because they don't understand it. It all seems so mysterious to them. As Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To many people, even very simple and well-understood science might as well be magic.

The obscurantists feed off this ignorance and do everything they can to cultivate it - and they do this in several ways. On the one hand, they point out all the short-comings of "science:"

Science can't answer the 'really important questions.'
Science is materialistic!
Science produces suffering and holocausts!
Science makes people arrogant!

On the other hand, realizing not everyone is going to find this a convincing argument to reject science in favor of the obscure fad of the week, many obscurantists then go about cloaking their own psuedo-scientific opinions in the jargon of science. Advertisers do this a lot. They don't necessarily have to lie; it is sufficient merely to be misleading. Modern day snake-oil salesmen know that that adding words like "scientifically proven" or "space age" or "energy" or "force" to a hard sell will fool a lot of people - especially if they can convince themselves that it's true.

Etymology suggests that science encompasses all knowledge. But many words don't mean (either in denotation or connotation) what their etymologies suggest. Some words have definitions that contradict each other - 'cleave' and 'sanction' for example.

The word 'science' is laden with multiple definitions - and while they are all correct, they are not all related to the activity associated with nuclear physics, advanced medicine, or biochemistry. Obscurantists thrive on the ambiguity. It might be good if people were required to say which version of science they mean when they're talking: Science-1 or Science-2 or Science-N.

Modern science has the de facto status of an Underwriters Lab. But for that to be a useful to society, society needs to learn which version of science is "underwriting" a particular claim.

or maybe its just that its too hard to believe that life came from lifeless matter !!

Did we evolve from rocks?

because if evolution is true then we must have evolved from rocks!

I have heard of people who had pet rocks in the 70's but they were not living - biological creatures , they were just rocks.

its not too hard to see why people dont just allow their minds to be polluted with nonsence such as evolution...

what you call evolution is nothing but adaptation to the environment , and how can the so called evolution claim to
have brought about life from non life?

.

Your argument is even more rediculous when you consider that even a frothy mouthed, holy-rolling hell-on-wheels knows we came from rocks. The bible describes god shaping man of clay then breathed life into him. When you are buried, the words: "Earth to Earth, dust to dust." are said over your carcass. What is clay, earth and dust? It's dirt. What is dirt? It's rock... broken down to dirt.

If you can't get your head around that, you better tell the preacher, before you kick the bucket, to change his words consigning your body back to the dirt from whence it came. Obviously god didn't breath quite hard enough on your head. It's still full of clay.

No theory of abiogenesis says that we evolved from rocks. That's comic book science.



Evolution is not a theory that explains how life came form non-life. More comic book science. No theory of science explains everything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMIkp8udPg
No theory of science needs to. Evolutionary theory explains one thing: the diversity of life. That's it. Real science is not constrained by the limits of comic book science.

"Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say?"

Dear God! Can you learn to use the quote function correctly? We don't have any idea what the probabilities are. Made up numbers are not real science. This has nothing to do with evolution, though. That fantasy is just more creationist misrepresentation.

I'm not sure I agree with that ... but it's a very interesting point.

Well, when you decide to beg a question, you do it with panache. Maybe I am wrong and dirt is that stuff between the pages of Hustler Magazine... or the technique used in the auctioning off of Senate seats. Maybe it's the soft talk in the backseat after the prom? To me it's the combination of minerals abraded from rocks and the oganics that accumilate through composting of dead biota. Organics had to have had somewhere to grow before it could ever combine and that stuff was silt.

Silt ain't dirt? What's your dirt, FallibleFiend? There's plenty of metaphor out there. Take your pick. Let's see if you can make the word scientific. It's not very, ya know. It's actually pre-Dolby tape-hiss. That's about as sciencey as it gets, methinks.

America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Simple. It's even a part of their founding philosophy, that no one has the right to kerb one's freedom of speech. Or some such. (wasn't really paying attention during Hollywood crime movie night)

Evolution is as possible as Creationism in the realm of American Law. It may be an injustice, but it is still the law. The nature of the answer will be in legal jargon, not science or religion.

I cant believe that most posts here have missed this point and gone straight for the throat of their opposition viewpoint.

I am not religious, I am not a scientist but at least I am grounded enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I like this site so much I thought I'd register. my post as above:


America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to.

Simple. It's even a part of their founding philosophy, that no one has the right to kerb one's freedom of speech. Or some such. (wasn't really paying attention during Hollywood crime movie night)

Evolution is as possible as Creationism in the realm of American Law. It may be an injustice, but it is still the law. The nature of the answer will be in legal jargon, not science or religion.

I cant believe that most posts here have missed this point and gone straight for the throat of their opposition viewpoint.

I am not religious, I am not a scientist but at least I am grounded enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Speaking from the scientific POV, I don't care diddly for your "nature of the law" bologna. If you are implying that the law side is more natural, you're all wet regardless of how grounded you think you are. Jurisprudence, American or any other, ain't even in this MP4. The prevailing "law" declared Galileo to be in violation of natural law. As you should know, being so grounded, that ultimately didn't pan out so well for the Pope's veracity.

"America doesn't believe in Evolution because it doesn't have to."

No human has ever "had" to believe in anything. They merely had to profess they believed or did not believe to escape the stake, as Galileo did when he decided he wanted to live.

And... what the hell is a kerb?

Since I'm an American I guess I can speak for America. We as America believe in both Evolution and Creationism. We believe in alot of things and we also don't believe. So as long as this is the era of blanket statements, make mine nebulous.

Since I am not an American I can speak for all the rest of us!! You state that 'America' (by which I presume you mean the United States thereof, and not the countries to the north and south who also inhabit that part of the world known as America) believes in both Evolution and Creation. And here is where it all gets a bit complicated. You see I 'believe' in neither, and this is where the crucial aspect of 'America's' belief system impinges on scientific fact.

In order to 'believe in Creation' it is necessary to believe in God, or at least a supernatural being who made heaven and earth, or if you are more trendy designed the Universe. Every society in the ancient world had its creation myth and the one that is cherished by those who 'believe in Creation' is the myth of the early Jewish civilisation, via Ancient Egyptian texts-- and bit of general middle eastern legends thrown in too. The thing is that in the US more people believe that this myth really is the way life began than most people in the rest of the world. This difference is, in my opinion, due to the fact that religion and church generally is still important in a way that it is not in for eg, in my country, where politicans are unafraid to affirm an oath of office instead of swearing on a holy text. They do this without fear of offence.

To get back to Evolution. No one 'believes' in Evolution. It maybe that people believe in the ability of the idea to encompass much of the previously unknown facts of life's origin has been sustained, and it is able to absorb the new discoveries without having to invent flights of fancy to explain new discoveries. Until a better theory comes along, this one is doing fine. But it is not a 'belief'. A true belief requires faith, but not necessarily truth.

So some of 'America' does believe in Creation, but some others accept the Theory of Evolution as being a more empirical truth.

America is America North and South.

In order to believe in creation one must believe something is created rather than just an accident or comes about haphazard and randomly.
You took a survey or you believe someone has?
Can I interest you in a bridge?
I do?!!!!??? I think.
Theoretically speaking of course.
Theoretically...

I'm an American. I'm a tenth generation American, with an Honorable Discharge, a consistent voting record, no police record, and no tax evasions.

And... YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. No one does, ever has, or ever will, without my express consent, which you do not have. If you think you can speak for all Americans, you need to get in touch with the Spirit of the word American. Any statement to the effect of you speaking for America is not only oxymoronic but ultimately UN-American.

That doesn't give you any more privelage in making a determination regarding American principles and beliefs than any one else does it.? So much for any survey regarding beliefs of Americans eh?

Which is why this topic is fallacious.
By the way do you believe it is American for the President of the U.S. to speak in representation for all Americans?

Perhaps the evolution of America is to return to a government for the people and of the people. Rather than world policy based on fallacious surveys regarding American beliefs and ideals, and the comparisons of foreign ideals in contrast setting any man, or country against another.

Anonymous:

That doesn't give you any more privelage in making a determination regarding American principles and beliefs than any one else does it.?
It gives me precisely the right I expressed. To speak for myself. Where the rest of that statement came from, I suspect, is from a place I wouldn't want to see. American principles? What is more American than speaking for one's self?

So much for any survey regarding beliefs of Americans eh?
You're trying to cover waaay too much ground with this nonsense statement. Polls? Polls?

By the way do you believe it is American for the President of the U.S. to speak in representation for all Americans?
You are an American and you are not aware that in the act of voting for a president, you are authorizing him/her to speak for you? You need to deflate yourself a little. I'm not arguing with the president. I'm arguing some guy who thinks he can speak for me. If you are the president, let's see your seal.

It gives me precisely the right I expressed. To speak for myself. Where the rest of that statement came from, I suspect, is from a place I wouldn't want to see. American principles? What is more American than speaking for one's self? Everyone has the right to express ones personal opinion, belief and experience. The point I was making is that when one assumes something that is not their direct experience, or makes the assumption that all of America believes in something, and then compares that with the rest of the world it can only be reduced to personal opinion rather than assumed to be truth in reality.

You're trying to cover waaay too much ground with this nonsense statement. Polls? Polls?
No the subject or topic covers way too much ground and is a statement of nonsense.
Hence those who wish to engage in the subject as if it were real are being nonsensical.


You are an American and you are not aware that in the act of voting for a president, you are authorizing him/her to speak for you? You need to deflate yourself a little. I'm not arguing with the president. I'm arguing some guy who thinks he can speak for me. If you are the president, let's see your seal.
Whether I voted for the President or not does not give the president the ability to assume my thoughts or beliefs. It might give him or her the right to uphold the laws maintaining the freedom of my rights or beliefs.
As it is, the current trend to assume the will of the people is in accord with special interests to loan the corporations money to maintain corporate status, retirement funds and company bonuses for failing companies who make bad business decisions is not something I lend to any politician in America.

If you do, I don't consdider you an American in an America described by the Constitution of the United States, but more along the lines of an American described by radical extremists of foreign countries who describe Americans as fat lazy and out of touch with global events.
You wouldn't be a regular at the Waffle house would you?

This is crazy. You're all over the place, backpedaling and craw fishing. You're even contradicting yourself. First you presume to speak for America and now you're saying that even the duly elected president can't speak for you.

The nearest Waffle House is at least 500 mile from my house. But were it nearby, I might just have me some nice greasy pork chops and eggs for breakfast. Do you have an insipid stereotype you need to insert into all your crap to make you feel better? Shoot'em up, genius. You badly need some cheap ad hominem here to deflect attention from your pitiful attempts at logic.

This is crazy. You're all over the place, backpedaling and craw fishing. You're even contradicting yourself. First you presume to speak for America and now you're saying that even the duly elected president can't speak for you.
When I said I spoke for America I was being facetious, but you took me seriously. Not my fault.
And the President can't speak for me. Only I can speak for me.

The nearest Waffle House is at least 500 mile from my house. But were it nearby, I might just have me some nice greasy pork chops and eggs for breakfast. Do you have an insipid stereotype you need to insert into all your crap to make you feel better? Shoot'em up, genius. You badly need some cheap ad hominem here to deflect attention from your pitiful attempts at logic.

Just thought I'd cuddle up to your particular flavor of temperament when posting thoughts of personal opinion and criticism. Thought you'd feel more at home.
Too bad you take things too seriously to see through the illusion of generalities and sweeping statements. It sucks to be you.

OK, you've had the last word. Bye, Bye.

OK, you've had the last word.

There is no such thing. You really do enjoy the melodrama. tsk

wow, and I thought this was dead, who would have thought a few opinions on a page could spiral so dramatically into such a personal battle. No I am not American, but the question was no ' why don't Americans believe in evolution, please only Americans answer'. No I gave my opinion like everyone else. BTW kerb: • noun a stone edging to a pavement or raised path. Maybe I should have said gutter, or trash or something, I don't know it made sense at the time. Common vernacular ' kerb your behaviour - change the way in which you behave'. Look it up. I am speaking ENGLISH.

America doesn't believe in Evolution, I can only guess, but so can any of you. It is an impossible question to answer unless you are the collective mind of every American. To say that I am wrong is an OPINION, it's your right to have, but the odds alone would say that someone else in that big world would agree with me.

Tell me, even in a Democratic nation, are the defeated parties of a national vote wrong, simply because the majority won?

Sorry about the kerb question. But, I was spiraling dramatically into a personal battle. Tweakin twits as I call it. I'm sure you can understand.

I don't really understand what you're saying here except for your last question. The answer to that is: Yes! Of course they are wrong. They voted for the loser for crying out loud. How much wronger can you get? They should be incarcerated in isolation, fed only Vienna Sausages, forced to listen to John Denver 24/7 and given only vinagre to drink. Let them serve as an example to others so stupid as to consider voting for the wrong candidate.

Americans are solipcist. Only a twit wouldn't know that. And that's not my opinion. It's graven into a marble tablet hidden on top of Mt. Arafat. When Nostradamus comes back, he'll go up and retrieve it for us. And that will finally put a curb to all this dramatic spiraling that's spiraling so dramatically out of control these days.

And you thought this was dead? WRONG! Do you like your weenies with mustard or BBQ sauce? Sunshine on my Shoulders or Rocky Mountain High? Wine or Cider?

OK. what I should have said was that if this is a discussion, why should it get personal and ridiculous?

I mean sure, there are virtues of religion that are good and for the people and give hope to people and good for all those believers. Just as using the scientific method keeps many others entertained and whatever.

The point is America doesn't believe in Evolution because the majority voted not to, or at least those that make the laws decided not to teach it in schools.

So regardless of what points of view you have on whatever religion, good or bad, is inconsequential to the actual topic of discussion. I could not care less if someone is a Baptist minister or a well read scientist, because at the end of the day its all about what is being taught or not being taught in the classrooms of American schools.

Big note yourself all you want, call me a twit if it makes you feel better about yourself, and sorry for not spelling out my argument in a more concise manner.

When I submitted my first comment, I was hoping to garnish some real world perspective as to why 'America doesn't believe in Evolution' and all that I've read is about how Christians and theory of evolution supporters really feel about one another.

So to save on anyone commenting about what I have just written - because it is not important - can anyone here tell me why the American Education System can allow one unprovable theory over another, to be taught to their children, when all the real world evidence tips to the Theory of Evolution. Is it a case of no true separation of religion and state, or the sheer number of Christian devotees voting in someone who plays the 'I am a true believer' card......

and pleasssseee, don't take it personally.

"Americans are solipcist. Only a twit wouldn't know that."

True. (Solipsist.)

Another way to put it is:
Someone is making an assumption or claim, that America doesn't believe in evolution because of the controversy around religious beliefs, and whether religion should be a part of the educational curriculum regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not.
Because of the controversial nature of religion in public schools it was decided by the loudest voices, (remember how many americans do not get involved and vote) to remove all relative information that might be tied to religious views from the public school system so that it remain in house and dealt with on an individual basis according to personal or family values so as not to upset someone who might feel opposed to it.

It's kind of like the American legal system where warning labels have to be put on everything because invariably someone might die from the misuse of an object or product if improperly used. Remember McDonalds was sued for serving a warm beverage which someone decided to place between their legs while driving and tho it was clearly a negligent act by the consumer, McDonalds lost the suit.

Now to be fair, this kind of thinking is not isolated to the U.S. To be fair we could actually take this subject and retitle it to indicate the devolution of common sense on Planet Earth. There is no nation free of stupid behavior.

1) Does the US teach Evolution in schools or not?
2) Does the US teach Creationism in schools or not?
3) Does the US teach both in the same school or not?
4) Are there exams (tests) to pass on Creationism in US schools?
5) How are the tests on Creationism studied and marked in order to differentiate them
from tests in Religion? After all would not the main textbook be the Book of
Genesis?

Oh yeah, and it's TIRE, not TYRE.

Okay, seriously for a change. I didn't mean to call you a twit. Bad wording on my part. I just get tyred of questions like "Why don't cheerleaders wear panties?" that I get to where personal and ridiculous seem the only way to freshen it up.

The point is: America is clueless as to what it believes. There are consistent stats that indicate 85+% of Americans are Christians. I have traveled America extensively. I have worked/lived in all but 4 or 5 states. My job required that I have rather extensive dialogue and even social relationships with hundreds of people. From this I know/opine that most of the men I have ever met, especially husbands, call themselves Christians because they hate sleeping on the couch. When you get them alone and make them comfortable, they don't have a clue what they "believe". And the few that did believe were the scariest humans I ever met. There are huge numbers that call themselves Christians because that's how they grew up and they have never bothered to check it out. They also have never read the Bible. The all time best seller and all time never read. And the all time least understood because it's also the all time least understandable. There are huge numbers of Americans who became Buddhists because it's cool and the only thing they do is argue with each other over whether they should meditate sitting on a pillow or not. Just like the Baptists argue with the Catholics over Sprinkle vs. Dunk. There are huge numbers of people who "believe" because they don't have a clue but also don't want to take the risk of missing the big guy when he calls them all to the sky. In a nutshell, most of the thumpers I’ve ever got to know never gave so much as a thought to belief. They spent all their time memorizing the dogma and ritual. Remembering the Rosary, genuflecting, transubstantiation, transmogrification, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If you could get all these "religious" people together and figure out some way to get them all to answer truthfully, it would sound like a huge flock of seagulls trying to eat a hubcap.

Questions worth consideration are questions like "Is religion hardwired?" "Are there evolutionary reasons for its enormous popularity?" Logic and research can be applied to these questions. Something can be learned. Questions like "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?" are doomed to spiral dramatically into personal tirades because they are bullsh** questions in the first place.

In real life, I've had to learn to duck a roundhouse. On this forum, I may have over-reveled a bit knowing I didn't have to worry about that and I love a blistering dialogue with people who express themselves well. I’ll try to kerb my satirical side as well as my schadenfreude a bit. I’m just trying to have a little fun while I await the event horizon. If I can learn a little along the way, so much the better.

Cheers.

One could easily apply this type of thinking to humanity in general rather than isolating it to the Americas



Religion is a belief inspired by Self enquiry, and a lot of mixed information. Spirituality on the otherhand lay dormant within each personality, underneath the self identifications of the ego and it inspires one to give thought to ones life and its purpose of note, and the possible structure of the Universe and its life experiences.



The evolution of self awareness is the foundation for beliefs that are labeled religion. As a species mankind often lacks the imagination to elude superstition, and includes it in all of its sciences and theory in its process of growth or evolution.

One could easily apply this type of thinking to humanity in general rather than isolating it to the Americas
That's why I didn't say "America and America alone doesn't have a clu..."

Religion is a belief inspired by Self enquiry, and a lot of mixed information. Spirituality on the otherhand lay dormant within each personality, underneath the self identifications of the ego and it inspires one to give thought to ones life and its purpose of note, and the possible structure of the Universe and its life experiences.
Answers nothing.

"a belief inspired by self inquiry..."
Vague and ill defined.

"Spirituality, on the other hand lay dormant..."
Physchobabble.

underneath the self identifications of the ego
C'mon. Ego? Why even use this junk word? It was co-opted by Sigmund Freud from his translator who just Latinized a bunch of crap into words like super-ego, id, Oedipus-complex, etc. They have no meaning at all. Ego is just a crock of crap word stolen by a coke-addled narcissist who was trying to hold on to his job and inadvertently started a fad that became a world-wide institution. You want to know what is going on in the “ego”, try studying the relationship between the limbic system and the frontal lobes.

This crack-head even convinced millions that most male children developed a sexual fantasy with their mothers as the object of desire and called it an Oedipus-complex. No one thought to ask him why on earth he named it that. Oedipus had no idea that was his mother. Turns out that it was all crap anyway. Your statement is pretty heavy on woo. Freudian Psycology is in the same catagory as opium/alcohol based snake oil which was also a world-wide institution for a while.

As a species mankind often lacks the imagination to elude superstition, and includes it in all of its sciences and theory in its process of growth or evolution.
I certainly agree as to mankind's mixing woo with science. So, why are you doing it with all this pseudoscientific crap you're spouting? You've got Shirley McClain mixed up with Richard Feynman with a drib of Stephen Pinker added... not to mention a generous helping of Tooter the Turtle.

Try just dumping the psychobabble and study the Brain.

Correct. There is no one answer to the question. Every answer leads to another question. There is no finite answer that words could contain. That is why religion is often changing with the evolving knowledge and experience.


You mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. Correct again. No answer completes an experience it only leads to experience if one is actually interested in finding one. Then experience continues to evolve and change.


Because it applies to a greater experience than Freud's musings and the misconceptions of egoic definitions.


The understanding of the Self, or "Consciousness" includes the Spiritual aspects of reality. Sciences derelict in giving any thought or attention to spirit assumes reality is confined to the physical machinery of mans current intelligence levels and mans mind and senses.
In other words, some believe the world begins and ends with the birth and death of the meatsack we call the human body.
The typical meatsack retort to anything unknown or not believed to be real, is to label the intrusion of spirituality in science, pseudo science and all verbiage regarding spirituality as a science psychobabble.
Psychologically speaking, by popular belief and limits of experience and information, most only dabble in the first 3 states of consciousness, which are sleeping, dreaming and waking. The states beyond are relegated to the labels of those confining themselves to the meatsacks boundaries of life and death, and all that we can contain in perception as belief allows.

The Ego is predictable when it confines science to personal preferences and ideals. Typically speaking it's more difficult for someone over 50 to imagine anything new because the mind has chained itself to a personality of egoic idealism.

You mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. Correct again. No answer completes an experience it only leads to experience if one is actually interested in finding one. Then experience continues to evolve and change.
No. I don't mean it doesn't permanently satisfy. I mean it's vague and ill-defined.

Because it applies to a greater experience than Freud's musings and the misconceptions of egoic definitions.
"It" applies to nothing. "It" is a junk word and has no meaning. A word with no meaning can not apply to anything. "It" very roughly resembles some of the behaviors of survival triggered by the activity of the limbic system buffered by the frontal lobe system which can be and usually is conditioned by the cultural setting. Depending upon the strength of the limbic impulse and the strength of the individual's conditioning within his cultural setting, a persons behavior is described as humble or egotistical. This is nothing more than slang, These words are used by those who simply don't know WTF they are talking about. The words and terms have become memes. They are extremely popular like the archaic and senseless term “heart attack”. "Oh, he died because his heart attacked him."? Yeah, right.

Freud wasn't "musing". He was fabricating. There's a difference.

Okay, these words and terms are handy. For casual conversation. We don't need to be so specific when we are telling a friend about the death of a mutual friend. Heart attack is fine for that. Egomaniac is fine when you're chatting about some puffed-up ass down the street. But, we're not engaged in a casual conversation here. You are trying to convince me and/or the reader that you know what you're talking about and impart some "universal wisdom" upon us. And you're using slang. In this context, your slang is drivel.

The evidence of your language means it doesn't satisfy your opinions and beliefs. Definitions are superlative. They satisfy a niche in the intellect, nothing more.
In this case it applies to your inability to grasp an understanding of the word beyond Freud's definitions, or fabrications as you have decided.
It applies to your imagined line in the sand. Whether you agree or not is moot; you don't really matter when it comes to the opinions of anyone else. You decide to build your castle walls proclaim yourself King and give yourself meaning. No one else has to live within your expectations.


Why would anyone need to convince you of anything? You give yourself more importance in the scheme of things than is necessary. Such is the ego as it is described in scripture and Eastern philosophy rather than the isolated definitions confined to Freud.


Your ignorance and prejudice reveals itself.

This is a fun game isn't it!

The evidence of your language means it doesn't satisfy your opinions and beliefs. Definitions are superlative. They satisfy a niche in the intellect, nothing more.
My oh my, how you bandy the obvious. I've never even implied that any opinion can do anything but satisfy a niche. Are your opinions somehow above and beyond?

In this case it applies to your inability to grasp an understanding...
Any disagreement with your woo is immediately branded as "an inability" Standard answer of the peddler.

You give yourself more importance in the scheme of things than is necessary.
Standard ad hominem. You can do better.

Your ignorance and prejudice reveals itself.
You can do much, much better than this. It's so predictable from you. If you must rely on worn-out insults, at least re-word them. Freshen them up a bit.

This is a fun game isn't it!
It is indeed, for a while, but your repetitious ad hominems and vagueries do weary one after a bit.

Negatory O' Master of the Obvious. Simply meeting your flatulant responses with an appropriate remedy.


No, the ignorance of said subject matter branded as woo is immediately recognized as a weakness rather than a strength by someone who is more knowledgable.


I could, but first we must address you at your current level of comprehension to see if there is any hope to improve upon its stagnant levels of perception. Moving forward without your understanding of the subject would be pointless. One would have to point out the obviousness in your lack of comprehension before we could actually have a conversation on said subject, intelligent or otherwise.

The game can be played any way you want to. When you decide, everything about the game will change. You can position yourself and others as the victim to circumstance, or the creator of ones reality. When you decide to improve, so shall your world and everything in it.
Until then, you attract toward you all that you give your attention to, and the universe does not hear negatives. It is the very things you give the most attention to that are attracted to you, and that would include the tremendous content of thought laying within the subconscious.
Mostly you give your attention to that which underlies your surface awareness. The stress or fear in discovering your lack of experience and the hope that your life means something to someone other than yourself so you might feel better.

So when you actually want to discuss the subject rather than what you think about the subject and those in it, the conversation will change in its energetics from a pissing contest to expanding knowledge and experience.

Until then beating your chest and adjusting your balls will only temorarily satsify your need to claim a measure of self worth. And then you die...

"...and the universe does not hear negatives."
That pretty much sums up everything you've had to say, for star-gazers and deviners of chicken guts. But as I said, you do weary one after a bit. I won't be seeing any more of your woo. You'll have to come up with yet another username to assault me with this crap. And then I'll just toggle that one off too.

Cheers.

Kinda like watching table tennis really. Everyone's really serious, watching the ball getting smashed back and forth, stern faces at the height of concentration... Small court, tiny white balls.

Systematically closing out the world until you are locked into the room of personal belief is the nature of being close minded.

C'est la vie

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
-Albert Einstein-

right , we didnt evolve from the clay ( rocks ) God created us , life.

if he didnt breathe life into man , there would have just been a clay statue that he made.

and we wouldnt be here to argue about it.

In my experience from observing people where I live, I believe fear and religion are the biggest barriers to understanding and believing in evolution(at least in Ky USA.) Fear and religion are the two biggest causes of ignorance in regards to science among other things. I see this from living and working around some of the most closed minded people in the world.

I hear at least once a month from some fanatic, usually someone I work with, his or her theory of why evolution is wrong. None of these people have read The Origin of Species. They believe that the book is the work of satan. They believe that people like Richard Dawkins are working for satan. They also shoot squirrels through windows in their houses from the breakfast table(a coworker of mine actually said that he did this the other day after his young son spotted it while eating Captain Crunch cereal.) They haven't the slightest clue how evolution works, they just "know" it's wrong.

Believing what you read about evolution only, because you have given yourself to that particular authority without having your own experience, often tends to block the awareness from any other possibility. This is a plague that infects all beliefs, be they religious or scientific.

I was born in KY, graduated HS there, and went to university there. I know what you're talking about. The biggest mark that evolution has against it is that the vast majority of it's detractors have a vast repository of false knowledge on the subject. What they need to hear is this:
"Almost everything you think you know about science is wrong. Your 'knowledge' of science and of evolution is not just minuscule - it amounts to anti-knowledge."

If you tell them this, you get the response: "HA! That's what you EVILutionists ALWAYS say!"

Which is correct for the simple reason that it is always true.

FF- Where do these people hear all this "anti-knowledge" nonsense which given to them as "truth"?

I think he's referring to knowledge not based on actual experience and the ability to think beyond some designated authoritative postulation.

Many take what's given them without any experience and comparatives, and often reject anything which may or may not fit within the content designated as the authoritative word.

Science can build on what it discovers and experiences if it engages discovery with an open mind to keep looking further into the experience and the information. If it were to stick to data and experience without any further thought it wouldn't be science but rather belief and opinion.

Being flexible enough to take information and to build upon it and expand upon it is the nature of spiritual evolution. Cookbook evolution may exclusively deal with Darwinisms or Religious dogma if it is absorbed and accepted as the beginning and the end.

I know when I was in school a lot of the subject matter was laborious to get through. The intention was to pass the course not to master it.
If my heart wasn't into the subject at hand I would only absorb what I had to and only understood the information as it was perceived at that level.

With schools using a grading system which measured the retention of material and inspiring competitiveness in the individual it was easy to find something else to find some form of worthwhile ideal to attach myself to, rather than to measure my Self worth according to some kind of grading system on subjects I had no interest in.

The educational system standardizes relative values of worth in subject matter, not necessarily covering the extent of the subject but maybe certain highlights of it. If someone wants to become a evolutionist in some field of science or psychology they would have to study further in some higher educational process maybe even write a thesis based on ones own immersion into the subject. Obviously one who had no interest in the subject would make no effort to take their thoughts any further than what they retained in the human programming factory they attended in order to become a useful adult in today's society.

In casual conversation lots of people blurt out what they have heard or read with some kind of idea that they know something, and without actually putting much time and effort into the subject. This is seen as normal and it is that level that is taught to our children by the same type of programming that exists in the parents. Simple memorization and standardization of highlights based on old information.
Schools are not often on the cutting edge of new technology and scientific discoveries. It would seem there is more current information on the Internet than in the school curriculum.

Prejudice of information, such as what has been determined as righteous in school curriculum and what isn't, can affect the thought process and influence beliefs of those who attend school.
Some subjects such as creationism, are dissed because of the ignorance of the subject rather than the knowledge of it.

Imagination is often stifled by the parameters set within the grading systems and the curriculum of the school, and the board of education which is scrutinized by the idealisms and beliefs of the community. Children are programmed rather than educated.

I don't know about Australia but in the U.S. we graduate students from High School who don't know how to think, or read the English language. These people vote and without knowing what they stand for assume a position they often have no connection to. Most are motivated by hearsay given to them by someone they think knows something, often the media which says one thing one day, and something other the next.

My own e-mails were full of some kind of facts regarding who and what the candidates for our government positions stood for and most of it was dirt, flung from the other side. Because we accept blindly what the media has to offer as our point of reference we must have been taught to accept this.
I know I was never told in school to question authority or the information I was being tested on. If I was given a hint that I could challenge it with something superior to the information given, I might have entertained a thought that everything I was being graded on was relative to current knowledge and understanding rather than just the plain truth.

I think this is an important detail that is left out of the daily curriculum that leaves most students uninspired to see beyond the categorization of competitive based memorization, and the imaginative creativity that could be inspired into the curriculum so that no one would be left out.
Instead of leaving school with an open mind we leave with a sense of accomplishment in passing the grade, or jumping the necessary hurdle standardized as THE way of life.

Evolution is much more than a chemical and physical progression of the human meat sack. It is psychological in the awakening of intuition and spiritual insight in what Human being is. That is not taught in school, in fact it is discouraged if it is upsetting to the fixed mode of belief and superstitions that rigidly hold the authority to the written word.

Our United States is governed more and more by fear based laws which insist that we are threatened by everyone who is not an American.
Our Homeland security is an invasion of our rights and freedoms created in the name of protection and security.
We accept more and more each day that we must give our rights and freedoms to those who tell us how much we are threatened and need to be protected. By giving up what we gained in our original fight for freedom detailed in the Constitution without understanding it was this very same type of tyranny we make a choice that is without knowledge and insight.

In one sense we will need to have our rights and freedoms taken from us before we can value them and stand up to create them again just as we did over two hundred years ago.
Thing is, with this virtual reality being created through the media, will we ever really know what is happening or will we be electronically fed enough distractions to keep us from being aware of reality as it really is?

Ellis,
Quite literally, most of what people "know" about science and evolution amounts to Barbershop Gossip and rumor. They learn this anti-knowledge from their parents and grandparents, from their preachers, from family friends and members of their peer groups. They pick it up on YouTube and on the Internet. They also ingest it gradually and continuously from television programs and popular culture - to the point where they think they understand what it's about when they really don't. Literally, they have the illusion of knowledge. There are groups of people who have a very strong vested interest in misrepresenting the facts. The authority they use to influence people is based on faith in the "inerrant, literal word of the Living God." Their entire method is to sow confusion so that doubting evolution seems more reasonable than it is.

Evolution is a fact and a body of theory for explaining those facts. The only debate about whether evolution occurs is in the popular culture. Among scientists the debate is strictly about how evolution does occur, not whether it occurs.

FatFreddy,
There are no human footprints next to dinosaur footprints in Paluxy, Texas. You have accepted anti-knowledge as fact.

The "archaeologist" in the video is Carl Baugh who is not a scientist and whose PhD in theology seems to be a fake:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

The real experts who have examined the Paluxy prints identify them as dino prints next to dino prints. In a few cases, someone has carefully gone in and carved out one of the prints to make it look human. It's not just that this is a small fraud. The real scientists recognize this as an OBVIOUS hoax.

the footprints of the dinosaur and the two legged humanoid led under a limestone ledge.

they removed part of the ledge by seperating the layers of the limestone , and the prints were there also.

now I could understand you might say this was a hoax if the footprints stopped after they removed the limestone ledge and would not be writing about this , but if the footprints are there then they have been there as long as the limestone ledge has , over 100 million years.

thats a fact that cannot be denied , except by evolutionist
and of course many of the people on this forum.

after all they can only know WHAT KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE HAD ACCESS TO



what type of evidence do you believe?
seen or unseen?
why havent you seen loads of non-evolution evidence.

heres an example , listen to what is said about facts being IGNORED by evolutionist.


thousands of feet inside mountains in central california inside tunnels that were being dug by the california gold minners , human skeletons and artifacts were being found , yet because these finds contradicted evolution they were ignored - false science at its greatest.

http://www.mcremo.com/california.html



EOCENE-- 54.8 to 33.7 MILLION YEARS AGO --http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/eoc.html

Darwinists / evoloutionist routinely assert that humans like ourselves appeared fairly recently on this planet, between 150,000 and 100,000 years ago.





one thing I've personaly noticed about false science is that it refuses to accept evidence contrary to itself.

ie...



sceince is the GATHERING of knowledge , not ignoring new found knowledge.

thats why I call evolution false science.

when evolutionist normaly call this type of thing false science.


LOL ;-]

.

LOL ;-]

certainly not in ANY text book , because the textbook is anti-knowledge.

they find the truth by themselves probably because they feel what they have been taught is wrong.

.

Well then it looks as if they have found a new dino species that only exsisted in this one particular place on the face of the earth...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL

what a load.

.

"one thing I've personaly noticed about false science is that it refuses to accept evidence contrary to itself."
You don't seem to be particularly adept at discerning false science from the genuine article. Here's a quality of false science: The purveyors are often accept very weak 'evidence' with utter credulity, and then mock extremely powerful evidence.

Cremo is not a scientist and I'm not going to waste more time than is absolutely necessary watching his idiotic videos. If there is a specific timestamp you want me to watch, I'll consider.

Cremo is a prime example of anti-knowledge.

I really dont care what you do.

but if you want to hear for yourself then its at 5.55 minutes into the video.

have fun !!




and what makes a scientist?

a diploma?

and what happens to the years of study to get the diploma
if you as a scientist go against the very nature of science?

the very things you have been taught?

then you would become the ANTI-SCIENTIST !!!!!

LOL ;-]

Actually, no. Creationists claim that the footprints are those of a giant human who was crippled and was walking in a funny sideways motion. Yes, in some cases, it's another dinosaur. In others it's a natural formation that has been "worked" by creationists (i.e. a fraud).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

is there a illustration of this dinosaur with human like yet larger feet?

any evidence other than conjecture to back up your claim?

a fragment of a jawbone perhaps that can be used to construct the entire skeleton from , anything evidency?



Creationist seem to have hard evidence to support their claim

now where is the evoloutionist's evidence.

now its time for you to put me on your ignore list , because you cant provide any evidence , and that is the normal way out.

.

.

He was walking in a funny sideways motion because his pet dinosaur was pulling too hard on the leash.

perhaps !!

.

"Creationist seem to have hard evidence to support their claim"
"Seem" being the operative word. Lots of things seem completely reasonable when you don't know any better. The prints are of a kind of tridactyl as mentioned on that webpage I mentioned previously.

let me clarify that.

Creationist seem to have hard evidence to support their claim.

do you have any evidence to contradict this?


ie...


Definition:

tridactyl : with three digits on each limb: having three claws, fingers, or toes on each limb

Great , that leaves us with the EXTRA TWO DIGITS shown in the pictures.

there are clearly 5 digits on each limb , therefore we are not dealing with a dinosaur that is a tridactyl.



I dont see any similarities other than they both are footprints.

could you please post some type of evidence?

or do you just CLAIM that evolution is a fact !!!

FF wrote:
"Evolution is a fact and a body of theory for explaining those facts. The only debate about whether evolution occurs is in the popular culture. Among scientists the debate is strictly about how evolution does occur, not whether it occurs."

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However I think that the point addressed in the original question from DAM, and the questions I have asked earlier is why it should be that the debate is fierce and acrimonious in the US and amost non-existent elsewhere. It is a non-issue, and religious people read the Creation Myth in the bible is just that, whilst they are also able to believe, if they wish, that a supernatural entity made the universe. Why is this so? Why, for example, is so much time and intellectual energy in the US given to proving a proveable untruth, ie.that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? Why is denial so strong in the US?

I wonder how the ancient cambodians were able to feed these large dinosaurs !!

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/dino-cambodia/



how did they construct / lift these huge stone blocks and transport them such far distances?

were the aliens helping them , or were the stegasauruses involved?

Paul,
You seem to be unaware that there is more than one set of prints found in the area of Paluxy - at different sites. Some of them are, as I mentioned, just dinosaur prints. However, you're completely right when you say that this print in the picture you gave us is not a dino print. It's also not a human print. It's a fraud. It's called the Burdick print and even most creationists think it's fishy. There is an analysis online, but I'm sure you don't have any interest in finding out what the actual scientists think. Real science is, like, you know, so boring and stuff.

But you don't really need to know real science. Have you ever played in the mud? I did it a lot when I was a kid. I used to walk barefoot for miles up the creek. Anyone with the slightest iota of experience doing this will recognize that real prints don't look like that.

Freedom of Religion. When China turned the masses loose, the temples were packed. When Russia turned the masses loose, the cathedrals were jammed. Religion is hardwired, for whatever reason, and it ain't goin away anytime soon. And it doesn't matter what kind. Any kind will do. And arguing with idiots won't tell you a thing. Get used to it... until neuroscience figures it out. Then, who knows?

Ancient Cambodians never saw a stegasaurus - and that carving is not of a stegasaurus. It's of a pig and it has markings around it - just like in other carvings on that wall - the ones that are outside of view. That one just happens to resemble a stegasaurus, because you don't see the surrounding stuff.

"until neuroscience figures it out. "
My youngest daughter says she wants to be either a neurosurgeon or a neuroscientist. I hope I live long enough that she can give me insight into the subject.

No I would like to see the analysis if you have the link please post it.

but please dont take the stegasaurus stuff serious , it was a joke.

also if you can find a splinter of support for evolution could you please post it also.

please include some pictures of the support as I have so that I may have the same advantage as you.

thanks in advance.

actually I believe they found 80 of the human like footprints , along with 400 dino prints.


normaly there should be several feet of separating sedimentation rock layers between the footprints due to the millions of years that passed between the setting of the footprints , however these are located on the same layer at the same time.

that is what is so evident about this evidence , and I strongly doubt that someone lifted the layers of limestone , forged the footprints and then replaced the layers of limestone without damaging it , just for a hoax.

its not a pig , unless they had really long and fat tails when the carving was made.

get real.
cant you see that it has been reworked , the almost sandblasted look gives it away.

One of the Anon wrote:

"Religion is hardwired"

Yes I agree for the sake of argument-- but this 'hardwired' religion does not insist, in other countries, that the myth in the bible is the truth. People still believe that god made 'everything' but they are also able to accept Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life. Why is this so very much not so in the US? That was the original question asked here. I think it is an interesting one, and it is so far unanswered.

That stegasaurus/pig thing looks like a really bad (but very funny) fake!

Glen Kuban is a biology teacher and Gregg Wilkerson is a PhD geologist who have followed the Paluxy prints for years and have written about the Burdick print here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

(Unlike Baugh's fake credentials, both of these guys have real degrees from accredited schools that actually exist.)

You ask for a "splinter" of support for evolution - with pictures? There's plenty of real science material available on the net. I don't know what possible use it could be to you, if you dismiss it outright. As I mentioned previously, creationists demand an unreasonable standard of "proof" from evolution, but are completely gullible when it comes to "evidence" provided by creation "scientists" like Baugh, Gish, Morris, and Berlinski.


Here's some evidence:
DonExodus2 has a series of 4 or 5 videos called "irrefutable proof of evolution." (He's using the word "proof" in the legal sense, not the mathematical sense.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

But I would not start there. Before you examine what the evidence is for the science, it would be a good idea to understand what science is and what the theory of evolution is.

The best book I know of to explain evolution is "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr. It discusses some small evidence for evolution, but that's really a side point. It's primary value is that it explains clearly what the theory actually is and what it predicts. Of course reading this book is not a cure all. I was arguing with a creationist a while back who was quoting the book to me, but who obviously hadn't read it very carefully. I know that scientists are like, you know, all arrogant and everything, and like, you know, creationists are filled with godly humility, but it would seriously help the argument, if, when they read something, they would actually make an effort to understand what is being said. Books require some effort.
Here's a weak attempt to explain evolution in a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_-zqHoub8
This is my attempt to answer "The Octamed Challenge" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCumew-ifXE
He has a number of video responses.
If you're serious, you'll find a good book, though.
Here's a clarification of a simple point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TOwPLP72bg
Another common creationist misrepresentation of science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMIkp8udPg
Creationists almost always assert that they 'HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK' but even when they can recite factoids, every other sentence they utter betrays a profound lack of comprehension of what they're talking about.

Which leads naturally into the following: before trying to understand evolution, it might help to understand what science is. Creationists often tout some comic book presentation of science and then show how evolution fails to meet this comic book criteria they have laid out. One mantra is that science has to be observable, predictable or repeatable - which is almost right, but requires some elaboration for correct understanding. Another one that is just plain comical is that "Evolution is merely INFERENCE!"

Here's a blurb on the difference between law and theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

Here's a few vids on scientific method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsSlj916GDU&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

A good thing to do is read a book like "Objective Knowledge" by Karl Popper. However, it's hard going.
I offer a brief synopsis here: http://geocities.com/elbillaf/read_001.html

Of course, to understand it requires a serious reading and not the usual activity that creationists identify with that name.

Before I am banned for responding in much the same manner as those of you who respond to my post , I will examine the evidence you have provided to me.

and thank you for posting some evidence.

I have just started reading the below evidence and in the first paragraph I found this



how do you carve a rock , and leave subsurface lines of any type?



I will edit this reply as I read this document / evidence.

with an open yet inteligent mind.
but for now , hopefully you can tell us how the rock can have naturally occuring subsurface lines that line up precisely with the faked depressions that were actually carved.

further down I found this remarkable find.


OK.. there was a man who admitted he carved some footprints ,
still there is NO WAY he could have carved the subsurface lines in the rock shown in the cross sectional images.

below is a cross sectional image of the rock just beneath the toes.



notice the image is from a bible web site and not from a
science web site , the science web sites (those who claim the footprints are faked )dont seem to have cross sectional views of the footprints , but I only browsed around for about 10 minutes to find a cross sectional view.

Im not trying to say that the science web sites are hiding evidence that might damage evolution , just that science is data gathering , not data dismissal.

and if that man claims that he carved the footprint that the above cross sectional image was taken from , then I personaly say HE lied... could science base such an important find on the story that one man tells when faced with such evidence as this?


which brings me to the next sentence in the first paragraph I mentioned earlier of the evidence.





algal structures are formed from algae that grows on water.

http://people.ku.edu/~stalder/KS-limestone.html



may form irregular shaped and banded structures.

and in this case science would have us believe that algal structures just happened to form in amazing footprint shapes underneath the stone that was to be carved out millions of years later by a man who has admitted to it?

it is clear to see that this is caused from pressure in the soil and not by a carving instrument , I would love to see any scientist TODAY reproduce this type of substructure compaction in a piece of 100 million year old limestone.


So far the evidence has not held water , in my opinion.

.......................

"Im not trying to say that the science web sites are hiding evidence that might damage evolution , just that science is data gathering , not data dismissal."

A *huge* part of data gathering is figuring out what the real data is, figuring out what the outliers, whether they are part of the signal or part of the noise. This point has nothing to do with the evolution issue. Anyone who has ever done a substantial amount of experimentation knows that sometimes you get bad data. You don't just "ignore it," but you don't include it with your analysis either.

This issue is a little more broad. Since the evidence demonstrates that the Burdick track is a hoax, it's not just that the data is bad, but that it was intentionally fraudulent. Scientists "ignore" the Burdick print for the same reason that they "ignore" Piltdown, Ica figurines, . It's been refuted. But like all the other kooky crap that gets posted on the internet, creationists can't take "No" for an answer. They think real scientists have got nothing more important to do that spend their entire lives answering the same questions over and over.

Is the guy who made that site Dr. Patton? Is he another guy with fake scientist credentials from an unaccredited diploma mill.

I guess thats what happened with the california gold mine finds.

anyway I will continue further down in the evidence you posted for me.

I am moving on to the...


and the guy states these are the 4 irrefuteable facts that
cannot be explained away by creationism.

the 4 nails in the coffin ... so to speak !

brb.

the video disscusses the possibility of humans evolving from apes
of course.

it states that two of the ape chromosomes fussed into a single chromosome and we humans are the result , of course they overlooked the possibilities that one of our chromosomes could have just as easily split and formed two chromosomes and apes would be the result.

in nature I believe it is splits that are prevalent over fussions
not the backwards way evolutionist claim.
it is much more probable that apes evolved from humans and this was most likely due only to environmental reasons not selection.

so then it moves on to the viral dna , and uses the same location in each as proof , well it would be in the same spot in either case...

using a fussion is not PROOF because a split is also possible for the reason apes exist.

I cannot find the next video in the series can you post a link to it?

anyway these 3 nails dont hold the bucket that dont hold water.

if I can see the final video on sumation I can determine for myself if the final nail can hold the bucket.

"and in this case science would have us believe that algal structures just happened to form in amazing footprint shapes"
That's not clear. One of the algal growths appears under a ridge between the toes, meaning if it were a "substrate pressure line" as Patton and Baugh propose, that oddly there is greater pressure between the toes than under the toes in that case. In another case it is under the toes. What is it that we infer from this?


"So far the evidence has not held water , in my opinion."
If you can't look at the print and tell it's a fake, I'm pretty sure that the analysis of actual scientists is not going to be very convincing to you. Your appraisal of the evidence is important to you. It's not the long pole in the tent for scientists.

You asked for the info. I gave it. I have no interest in debating the subject other than to post links to counter some of the more egregious creationist claims.

The thread title asks why Americans don't believe in evolution. The question is moot - evolution does not require belief, but it does engender tentative acceptance in those who understand the evidence.

Many of our citizens reject the opinions of scientists by holding the actual science they don't want to believe to an unattainable standard of "absolute proof." They accept largely uncritically the rantings of non-scientists like Baugh, Patton, and others.

Sagan pegged it when he suggested an epitaph for planet Earth:
"They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods."

Americans are like radical Islamists in their efforts to protect the narrowest interpretation of their religion. The myriad ways that religion interfered with scientific progress extends far beyond the matter of Galileo. Daniel Boorstin, the former librarian of congress, wrote in his book, "The Discoverers"
"The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

Apologetics was developed for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of knowledge. Americans uncritically spread and repeat this stuff like poison amongst themselves and take it for granted that it's either 1) a great mystery to scientists, or 2) a complex conspiracy by scientists to keep the truth hidden.

Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

could you provide direction to the area you are referencing
and colud you use the top cross sectional photo please?

ie 25% left to right , 50% down...

"anyway these 3 nails dont hold the bucket that dont hold water."
Thank you for your astute evaluation of the evidence. Actual scientists disagree. But they payed close attention to the evidence and the logic. The relation of humans to apes does not depend on fusion. Either fusion or fission would be consistent. The evidence favors fusion, but there's no sense arguing details. The point is that a prediction of Natural Selection is that such a relationship as this must exist. Had there been no relationship between the 2 ape chromosomes and the human chromosome then the theory of evolution would have been disproved.

"if I can see the final video on sumation I can determine for myself if the final nail can hold the bucket."
They're trivial to locate, if you were genuinely interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

Of course, there is always the creationist explanation - magic.

It's the image with the dark blue arrows on it - the rightmost arrow that points down to a "substrate pressure line."

from what I make of this point on the image , the area you are refering to is not compacted , and is between the two toes above it , and is more in an area of undisturbed soil.

the pressure that disturbed the soil underneath the toes in this cross section even reflects the amounts of pressure that someones toes would present to the soil , ie.. the larger or big toe is shown distributing more pressure than the smaller toes in a progressive fashion.

when you are walking your smaller toes do not press down as much as your big toe does.

to me this is more evidence that this particular cross section is not a carved fake.

I am sory I have taken so long today to reply to the links you posted for the remaining videos , they do show impresive evidence I must say , but there are things that occured in earths past that would have more impact on the development of the human skeletal system , due only to environmental exposure.

Im not going to pick at straws but I would like to point out a few things I found in the videos and comment on them.

in the videos he states that ativisms cannot occur from mamals to birds , nor from birds to mamals etc...

he states that for this reason that mamals cannot have bird parts
and that mamals can only have reptile parts , a platapus clearly has a duck like bill attached to its skull , and a duck type bill is from a bird.

a platapus is not a bird as it has no wings , and a duck is not a mamal as it has wings , so which is correct ?

or is this one case a freak of nature that evolution will allow?

shortly after this he states that we find whales with leggs but we dont find fish with leggs.

it so happens that there are several species of fish that WALK on land and BREATH air as they walk...

such as
snakehead fish

and

walking catfish

granted they dont have legs as we do but they walk just the same on their fins.

the important thing here is that they adapted due to their environment , they walk to water , although they are fish.

Im sure there are many other examples that could be found that would disprove what he says about ativisms.

what about an octupus , a butterfly , how many diverse species are there here on the earth , yet we seem to want to believe that we evolved from apes.

why couldnt we have evolved from the purple rinocerus?

why isnt there a similar species to humans?

why didnt the other animals learn to walk on two leggs?

why are we the only species that wears clothes?

what happened to evolution in all the other species?

those are a lot of questions you have already heard in the past
but lets think about time and the changes in geography that have occured in the past , and about climate changes , and about sea levels.

at or around the time of death of the oldest modern human skull found (apx 40,000 years old) the earth was in an ice age.

sea levels were far below what they are today even much further than you expect.

393 ft

if you will look at where most people live today you will find that they live close to the sea shore , and that all people in greenland live close to the sea shore , simply because all the ice.

where Im getting at with this , and I will have to finish tommorow is that the oldest skull found is just the newest oldest skull that could be found.

and that we cannot claim things such as evolution when we have not uncovered the oldest possible places and probable places of human existance.

Im tired I will finish tomorow OK

just posting these links for use tomorow.

skull

skulls and time lines

ice

jaw bone

gorilla 10 my

still editing this ok...

I have already done this in the past but I believe it was lost when the SAG server lost everything awhile back..
now there are a few additional points I would like to make so its for the best that the information was lost anyway.

Not sure if I'm going to respond to the rest of your message, since most of it conveys an implicit misunderstanding of evolution and you could pretty easily figure it out, if you wanted.

But I thought I would respond at least to the part about the platypus, since that information is really quite new and the lay reporting has been vague and misleading.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/...ent=channellink

Platypuses are not "part bird" at least not in the sense you imply. Although birds, reptiles and mammals all shared a common ancestor, we could think of the "duck bill" as being a case of convergent evolution. The bill superficially resembles that of a duck, but it's different material.

For reference, "convergent evolution" refers to a similar feature that evolves independently in different lines. Example: bats, birds, and some insects have wings, but they evolved them separately.

"when you are walking your smaller toes do not press down as much as your big toe does.

to me this is more evidence that this particular cross section is not a carved fake."

This is an explanation that doesn't explain the observation. The fact that the big toe presses harder than the little toes would explain (if it were observed) a less pronounced feature under the little toes than under the big one. But that isn't what we observe. We observe the feature under the ridge BETWEEN the toes. Your explanation doesn't explain that. It also doesn't explain why the delineation of the feature doesn't seem to vary with the depth. The "substrate pressure line" seems absurd simply because it doesn't explain the observation.

Of course, I'm not a geologist. However considering that limestone is pretty porous stuff, the algal explanation seems a pretty good explanation. As one of the authors of the original paper is an actual PhD geologist, it seems likely he would be familiar with this kind of thing.

thank you , you seem to have observed that correctly.
and that is what I am focusing on to establish evidence that
can be used to determine if this footprint was faked or is an actual footprint.



I observe the entire body / amount of evidence , I dont pick what would be appropriate for my observation , in this case by denying that the whole body of evidence exist by singleing out specfic areas of the picture and acting as if the remaining evidence does not exist.




look at the picture above... now picture in your mind a soggy waterless or slightly dried up river or creek bed.

Im sure you have seen these , they are litteraly filled or covered with algae depending on their geographical location
and climate etc...and they resemble a swamp or marshland.



now if you place your foot on this soggy mud surface covered with algae you would depress the top of the algae into the mud
and this is what shows up in the rock that the cross section is taken from.

the undisturbed soil is seen showing less pressure lines in the
sample.

the disturbed soil shows the distinct outline of the footprint underneath the surface IN THE SUBSOIL.

HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUBSOIL WAS CARVED TO REFLECT THE FOOTPRINT?

just answer that then.

if you cannot think for yourself and answer the above then I dont think that you are approaching this with a scientific mind only a closed mind that has been influenced by the teachings of evolution and that evolution will not change and should not be associated with science as science itself is not a closed dicipline.

the question Im asking you has nothing to do with evolution
it is just a question about a foot , some pressure , and mud with algae on it.





Im trying to understand it , I really am , its just that I have the ability to think beyond the textbooks and am not locked into the knowledge they convey.

I personaly believe that evolution is correct in many ways only that it tends to want to adhere that we humans evolved from apes
showing extreme prejudice in that direction , where the imense amount of evidence has not yet been found that could change its direction.

it is a theory and not a fact.

just like the footprint above where extreme prejudice has been displayed as to the validity of it in itself , not to mention the evidence that has been denied in the past such as the california gold tunnels finds.



I would be more inclined to agree that the presenters of the evidence against the validity of the footprints were the ones hoaxing , and the the data they presented as evidence was not just bad , it was fraudulent and intentionaly fraudulent.

but that does not not dismiss that evolution itself as a dicipline is fraudulent , it only shows the extreme prejudice that accompanies the dicipline of evolution.

continuing from yesterday

setting the scene...



[img][img]http://www.ehhs.cmich.edu/~zha238/EDU290folder2/elephant.jpg[/img][/img]



Pleistocene 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago

I don't think the subsoil was carved to "reflect the footprint." It seems to me that you are not looking at all the data, but only the part that supports your point. Look at the zoomed out view with the blue arrow that shows the "substrate pressure line" BETWEEN the toes and farther away from the surface. If these really ARE "substrate pressure lines," why is that one there?

what the arrows point to are not pressure lines in the picture , the arrows are simply pointing to algal substrate.

the arrows point to the fact that algal substrate do not always grow in a position that the narrow point is always pointing "DOWN".






they grow in various positions in the limestone as depicted in the picture.




here is a cross section of the heel area of the footprint.



and below is a top view of the Burdick footprint , it closely resembels a modern human footprint although it is mostly triangular in shape has a almost pointed heel and it is 13 1/4 inches long.

"HOW DO YOU THINK THE SUBSOIL WAS CARVED TO REFLECT THE FOOTPRINT?"
I don't see any evidence to suggest the subsoil does in fact reflect the footprint. You seem to be looking at the evidence subjectively. You ignore the blue arrow I mentioned in your own data and talk about the effects that agree. We have the word of two people who parade false credentials about what those things are vs the opinion of a guy who really is a PhD geologist. There is no reason to accept that this features are caused by pressure. They occur in other places besides directly beneath toes. A real scientist says they were algae formations.

And we're ignoring for now the fact that the shape of the "imprint" is anatomically correct.


As for the other - evolution is a fact and a theory for explaining that fact. It doesn't explain 'everything' - nor does it have to. There are some questions it doesn't now answer - and some that it probably never will. There are many questions that it's not intended to answer.

You ask why there is nothing else like humans - there are other things "like" humans - apes and monkeys. There is a case of a chimp who actually walked upright on a regular basis, had very human facial expressions and kept trying to mate with humans. Some people thought it was a Humanzee and incorrectly called it that. Genetic analysis determined it was genetically a "pure chimp." However, the conclusion here is that a mere chimp CAN ... with the right genetic accident walk completely upright.

You ask why nothing else wears clothes - why should they?

You ask why we didn't evolve from a purple rhino - because we didn't. There is no genetic or homological data suggesting it happened. Is this intended as a philosophical question?

FF wrote;

"You ask why nothing else wears clothes - why should they?"

Exactly...

Added to which... the wearing of clothes is a cultural adaptation and has NOTHING to do with evolution. We are all born naked, and indeed many primitive tribes wore no clothing, particularly in hot climtes, until recently. Covering nakedness was always a priority of missionaries. So why did they cover up? The answer is very off-topic... but interesting, if unscientific.

Ellis,
I made a video you may find interesting titled "Creation Apologetics: the Antithesis of Honest, Competent Research."


at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAuXnZfWtQ

WASHINGTON — Two centuries after Charles Darwin's birth on Feb. 12, 1809 , people still argue passionately about his theory of evolution.

Was Darwin right? Should schoolchildren be exposed to contrary views in science class? These two controversies continue to rage, partly because both sides are evenly matched.

Most scientists and courts that have ruled on the matter say that overwhelming evidence backs Darwin's explanation of the origin and evolution of species, including humans, by natural selection.

Many people, especially religious and social conservatives, strongly disagree.

Among them are ``creationists,'' who take literally the Genesis story that God created the world and mankind in six days no more than 10,000 years ago. Others support ``intelligent design,'' the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without a supernatural ``designer," presumably God.

Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June 2007 , found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed almost even for at least 25 years.

Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political independents accepted it.

A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution.

The controversy is most acute in the public schools, where conservatives want evolution banished from science classes or at least described as ``a theory, not a fact.''

Darwin's supporters counter that to scientists a theory isn't just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence.

At a hearing last week before Texas' State Board of Education , scientists and social conservatives exchanged fiery arguments over a rule that requires science textbooks to cover ``the strengths and weaknesses'' of evolutionary theory.

Darwin critics control seven of the 15 seats on the board and have the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry . The chairman of the board, Don McLeroy , a dentist, is a creationist who believes that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not billions as most scientists think. The board will decide the issue in March.

Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use ``supplemental materials'' that aren't in regular textbooks about ``controversial'' subjects such as evolution and global warming.

Louisiana's new rules ``ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution,'' according to the Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .

``We fully expect to see the Discovery Institute's book, `Explore Evolution,' popping up in school districts across the state,'' Barbara Forrest , a Darwin supporter in Hammond, La. , told Science magazine .

The Louisiana school board also eliminated language that had banned the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, saying that the ban is unnecessary.

``The creationists got what they wanted,'' said Patsye Peebles , a retired Louisiana science teacher.

The opposition to the Discovery Institute is led by the National Center for Science Education , a pro-Darwin research center based in Oakland, Calif.

The center contends that intelligent design is a subtle way to introduce religion into science education, which the courts consistently have declared unconstitutional.

``The phrase `strengths and weaknesses' has been spread nationally as a slogan to bring creationism in through the back door,'' center executive director Eugenie Scott told the Texas school board.

Similar proposals are pending or expected in Alabama , Arkansas , Florida , Georgia , Michigan , Missouri , Oklahoma and South Carolina , according to Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education .

``In a typical year, NCSE will be monitoring about 80 episodes of creationist activity in the United States and abroad,'' Branch said.

``This issue isn't going away,'' John West , a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute , wrote in an e-mail to his allies last May. ``Although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try.''

The theory of evolution itself is evolving. Since Darwin's day, researchers have acquired powerful tools that revealed DNA's role in passing inheritance from generation to generation, something Darwin knew nothing about.

Around the middle of the 20th century, this led to the ``Modern Synthesis,'' a major updating of evolutionary theory to accommodate new information. Many biologists are suggesting still another revision, which some call ``Modern Synthesis 2.0.''

For example, Darwin described evolution as the growth of a tree, the ``Tree of Life. '' The tree began with a single, original organism at the root, with myriad species branching off from the trunk.

Biologists increasingly say that evolution resembles a web or a bush rather than a tree. Microbes constantly swap DNA. Hybrid plants and animals cross species lines, blurring sharp lines between species.

``We understand evolution pretty well,'' said W. Ford Doolittle , a Darwin supporter and biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia . ``It's just that it's more complex than Darwin imagined.''

``This issue isn't going away,'' John West , a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute , wrote in an e-mail to his allies last May. ``Although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try.''

West is a liar. People are allowed to "raise questions." What they aren't permitted to do is present their religious objections as bona fide science in a public school classroom.

FF- That is a nice video as it has so any ideas, some of which I find very different from the usual points of view. The issue of 'modelling' is an area in which I have even less expertise than usual, but I find myself agreeing with you regarding the issue of the meaning of words. As I have revealed many times on this site, I am a pedant about the correct useage of words, but meaning is a slippery thing, and varies from person to person. Words and their meanings overlap, morphing into each other seamlessly, sometimes leaving us behind. However, and I think you allude to this, the meaning, the idea trying to find expression, remains the same. This is the reason why focussing on individual words to interpret concepts probably will not lead to understanding the underlying idea, especially in the absence of goodwill.

The idea is debatable, and constant. The vocabulary is fickle and changing. I do not think that debate is being shackled in this instance, but I do suspect that the idea and the meanings are being hi-jacked by people whose thinking is rigid and self-interested. I still do not know why it should be so especially in the US, and so far no one has answered this question!

There are movements in Canada, England, among other places. Initially, it was almost entirely a fundamentalist Christian idea. Evolution is a threat to the authority of those who rely on literal interpretation of the Bible.

The U.S. has well-funded people who belong to certain religions and certain politico-cultural backgrounds that are willing to spend LOTS of money "defending the faith." These people have some heavy influence in the media and have been successful at confusing people sufficiently that they can tie in evolution to other social issues - abortion, atheism, communism, liberalism - and so on.

There is an entire "news station" that embodies the opposite of actual news. FOX has the same relation to 'news' that Pravda had in at the height of the cold war. Anyone who disagrees is an ivory tower liberal communist.

It's started here, but it's spreading to other places. Adnan Oktar has been able to tap into the Muslims in Europe, for example. If you're interested, you should try to do a little research on this fellow.

Ellis,
Another thing to consider:

This is not a debate in the scientific community. It is a debate in the political and cultural community, because of certain ramifications. But among scientists, the issue is decided. The evidence does not get shakier, but gets firmer and firmer every few years.

Creationists cannot win the debate in scientific circles, because there is no debate in scientific circles, and because scientists have enough actual knowledge that the typical sort of 'evidence' and arguments that creation followers accept is recognized as transparent nonsense.

But "winning" is not their immediate goal in the usual sense. Victory for them is confusing the issues sufficiently that reasonable things seem extremely improbable and highly unlikely things seem almost certain.

It is interesting though that, even allowing for free speech and so on, that the whole creation myth is so very strong in the US and an absolute non-issue anywhere else. I wouldn't have heard about creationism in the press, on TV or in magazines here since that absurd museum was opened (by an Aussie I believe) showing happy cave people playing with dinosaurs!

I think that I will have to accept this phenomenom as a bizarre fact!

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC

Thanks for posting those videos. I'll read them when it gets a bit cooler (no a/c in the computer place at home!) However I do notice that the ridiculous idea about having to believe in creationism if you are a christian is trotted out again. This blinkered US attitude is what I am referring to. Many people who live elsewhere are able to be christian and reject the Creation Myth. Instead they see it as an allegory of the origin of humans, similar to the other creation myths of Hindus, Muslims, aboriginal Australians etc. There are many such myths, which attempt to explain the mystery. Evolution attempts to explain it with the backing of scientific observaton backed by facts. It is a theory which itself is evolving as new evidence emerges, unlike the Myths of the various religions and societies of pre-history. Elsewhere people have no difficulty with this. Surely one can be a christian and accept that humans evolved, as did the other life here.

"Surely one can be a christian and accept that humans evolved, as did the other life here. "
Many are. But a certain brand of fundamentalism very common in the U.S. insists otherwise.

"Why People Believe Strange Things" by Michael Shermer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k

ERV (endogenous retrovirus) - evidence for common descent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosyEXMz6d8

Whale Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC

Scripts at:
http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html
http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/2ndFFoC.html
etc.

General video on out of place fossils:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_0DLExSeQ

One of the great problems that science educators face is overcoming false knowledge - things that people know that aren't true. Among the specific instances of this false knowledge is the conviction that certain characteristics "could not possibly have evolved."

Characters included are eyes, ability to use logic, morality, and so forth. In some cases, the mistake is one of basic science; in others, a flawed understanding of what evolution is and how it works. In others still they embed unjustified assumptions into their arguments.

Anyway, here's a nice paper on the evolution of empathy.

"The Evolution of Empathy" by Frans B. M. de Waal.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Quoted on wiki:
"The possibility that empathy resides in parts of the brain so ancient that we share them with rats should give pause to anyone comparing politicians with those poor, underestimated creatures."

I really enjoyed reading the paper on empathy. There are some really original ideas about what we regard as truly 'human' traits.

I heard an interesting theory the other day- it proposed that evolution for humans has stopped because we preserve those with faulty genes. It did not moralise about it, merely made that suggestion. I found the idea interesting, but very challenging if taken to the logical conclusion. And could it not be argued that such 'weaker' genes could evolve into something unexpected too, or is evolution only ever survival of the srongest and fittest, and never the smaller and wily?

Interesting article, TFF.

Also, from MIRROR NEURONS AND THE BRAIN IN THE VAT [1.10.06]
by V.S. Ramachandran


* University of Parma, 1995
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html

More:
MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html

V.S. Ramachandran is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute.
http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html

Paul,

First of all, trying to disprove that the human like footprints are not fakes still doesn't prove that either evolution is not factual, or that the god of Abraham created the universe. By your argument alone, it is as possible that time travelers and aliens stalked dino prey. The thing that gets to me the most is that many creationists that I've spoken to tell me that their God placed dinosaur bones in the ground to test peoples' faith, if that were true, why would creationists go to all the effort trying to prove that the fake human footprints are in fact real? Isn't that just killing your point altogether? - sounds like you are arguing for the point of arguing.

Does evidence suggest that sexual reproduction is irreducibly complex?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

• Snow ball period and Cambrian explosion linked to sexual dimorphism and reproduction
• Feasible mechanism of life formation proposed by AWT

Latest research contradicts the genetic origin of empathy, considering it rather a social meme. Little children often handle animals in cruel way.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16535-why-teenagers-cant-see-your-point-of-view.html

The cited article doesn't "contradict the genetic origin of empathy."

I can say easily, the cited article "does contradict the genetic origin of empathy". And so?

By my opinion it does, because cited article illustrates, just the prolonged life of teenagers in human society can learn them some empathy. Of course I can still be wrong, but I've an argument for my claim.

Try to use magical word "BECAUSE" in your arguments - without it your reply is just an ad-hoced claim/opinion and for me it has no meaning to bother with them at all. People, who don't use implications have no arguments in fact, because they're spreading a tautologies only without true value.

You already said that it does contradict the genetic origin of empathy. The article doesn't even mention empathy, but it does suggest that teenage behavior is a result of brain function. BECAUSE the article doesn't say anything about or even hint at social memes and BECAUSE it explicitly does say that the observed phenomenon is related to biological development of the brain and BECAUSE the article does not discuss evolution, we can safely conclude that the article does not contract a genetic origin of empathy.

I'm sure, otoh, that AWT offers an insightful and lucid account of the origin of empathy.

I dont agree to many of the senarios that are being used to either prove or disprove creation , and it may be that God placed many things to test our faith , who knows but God.

the one thing that Im certain of is that life cannot begin from non-life.

you can have a planet that has no life on it at all , and that planet might have had life of some sort on it at a given time in the past , so life can be destroyed.

anytime anyone wishes to show a single instance of life that began from non-life then feel free to do so , until then I will cling to my belief that God created Life.

Its pretty simple stuff just make some dirt live that has no life in it.

Im sure that if all the smart people get together since they are so smart that they can accomplish this , and then we who believe that God created Life would know better , wouldnt we.

So just do it !

No wait lets do this first to get you warmed up... get all the smartest people together and let them create a single grain of sand from nothing.

then they can cause life to go into that grain of sand.

not a problem right?

... Well were not claiming that we smart people can create anything you know , just that we can claim that life just occured from some type of casual occurance somewhere , were not sure how it occured or the circumstances involved , in fact we havent got a clue !!

but we do know that were right about evolution and that all those who believe that God created life are wrong.

because were smart !!

right?

.




...

The fact of evolution does not preclude the existence of any God(s). Creation apologists have succeeded, however, in conflating these two ideas in the popular consciousness.

Evolution does not propose to describe how life arose...just how species came to be. Darwin's book title is "origin of species" not "origins of life".

You are supposed to be on My ignore list and I on yours.

so I cant reply to You.

I can agree that Species change due to their environment , any species can change if its environment changes to a degree that does not upset its food supply , there have even been major changes to species due to its food supply.

there have been species that have gone extinct due to food supply, if you put a group of humans in a container that has trees in it that bear fruit and you flood that container with water then the humans will climb the trees and begin to live in the trees.

their feet might even change to help them to climb in the trees
their big toes might move back toward their heels to give them a better grip on the tree limbs.

their skin might even grow thick hair to help them to stay warm.
their skin and body hair color might change likewise to help keep them warm or cool , why is it that man cant think beyond what is in the books they read that were written in the last hundred years or so?

how much information could you pass to your children if you were suddenly deposited on a deserted island with your family?

and how much information would they pass on to their children?

and where is the writting paper they would use to accomplish this
and suppose a few million years go by , what information would they have passed on?

they might have been passing on this information generation after generation just so know it all's could tell everybody how it really happened!

after all they were there , and they do know it all , right?

Would you specify your source, Zephir? I see nothing to that effect in your cited article.

Do you discount the research of Iaccomo Rizzolati and Vittorio Gallasse and the quite recent work by UCLA researchers on morror neurons (or, as V.S. Ramachandran calls them, "empathy neurons")? If so, I would like to know your reasoning.

I have been to the old city of Jerusalem and seen the supposed site where Jesus healed the blind man. It is apprx 20 metres down from the current street level. That is intensive living on 1 spot for 2000 years.
According to the bible, Adam & Eve were created 6500 years ago. This at best means our Earths crust has grown around 70 metres at best in 6500 years. Geologists that search for oil will tell you our Earths crust is around 2000 metres deep. Where did the other 1930 metres of Earths crust come from????? Dead animals, fish plants, insects and humans-pretty obvious! They say our Earths crust has been growing things for 5 billion years.
The bible is chocka full of contradictions. i.e. 3 versions of the final words of Jesus in the 4 gospels.
The hallmark of Creation/nature/evolution is 'precision'. That precision is ‘not’ in the bible and thus the bible blows itself apart as anything credible to go by. If God can create perfection in nature he can proof read the bible to make sure it was correct & he didn’t. Yet misguided Christians will still keep saying it is the inspired word of God. Most books on the shelves out there these do not contradict themselves!
Yes at some stage there was some type of creation – something has to have come from somewhere.
The reality is 5 billion years ago, things were created on this earth. And us as humans will 'never' know the answer.
We can only guess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

didnt you mean 20 ft , because 20 meters = 65.61 feet

here is a picture that apears to have been taken from the top of
the pool of siloam.





The original Bible , the Torah consisted of only the first 5 books of the bible.

The Torah is also known as the Chumash, Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses

they are the Books of

Genesis (Bereshit)
Exodus (Shemot)
Leviticus (Vayikrah)
Numbers (Bamidbar)
Deuteronomy (Devarim)

the oldest (known) alphabet is semitic - hebrew in origin
found in egypt - 4,000 years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/521235.stm



the Torah was written at least 3,000 years ago.

So if man has only been here for apx 6,500 years then the information was passed down by mouth via memory generation by generation for 3,500 years until Moses had a written language that could be used to write with.

now just try and recite an entire book , any book you choose will be fine.

then add 4 more books to the list... and try to not get a word out of place.

pass that information down to your children and them to their children etc..etc..etc.. after 3,500 years have gone by and they are allowed to write the books down do you think they will have memorized every single word exactly as you told them 3,500 years ago?

I wonder if I could read a few of the scientific journals and writtings that were written down a few hundred years ago and find any flaws or contridictions?

the earth is flat - everything rotates around the earth - etc.
how many thousands of errors / contridictions can be found today with what we now know about the past in what was then called science.



and there had to be a creator there to create.

Contradictions are irrelevant.
Nonsensical assertions are irrelevant.
Why? Because God "explains" everything.
X= -5, god did it.
X=13e1000, god did it.
There is literally nothing that can't be explained by God.
Which is why God is not a scientific concept. Magic (God) is an explanation that doesn't actually explain anything.

Blind adherence to evolution is nonscientific approach as well. Every evolutionary episode can be explained by terraformation activity of intelligent extraterrestrial creatures, for example.

I'm affraid, proponents of evolution can overlook this possibility quite easily in their holy fight against creacionism.

ahem...Amen to that.

3/4 of the earth is covered by water.

most of what is now dry land was covered by ice and snow at several points in the past.

the sea level was much lower in those peroids as noaa references below.



http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02quest/background/paleo/paleo.html

that sea level drop was in the last 15,000 years ... the time that man is "BELIEVED" to have first occupied north america.



further down in the article



hmmmm...

this means that the evidence has been covered up and that people that lived on the earth way back then probably lived close to the ancient shorelines where food and warmth could be found more readily.

so evolution bases its validity on partial evidence.

thats kind of like peeling back only three or four layers of soil and studying what is found in the three or four layers and then claiming that this is history and anything below that we will just overlook because we cant get to it to determine what history really was.

hopefully the scientist that do discover any remains of these underwater habitations will not be so pig headed as many of the evolutionist today.

and they will approach the findings in a scientific manner and not try to cover up the findings as they have in the past just to support evolution.

"Blind adherence to evolution is nonscientific approach as well. "
Which is why scientists don't blindly adhere to evolution. Instead they recognize that the actual data support the collection of theories quite well.

Would it have made any difference to the acceptance of the theory of evolution if DNA had been discovered before the publishing of the theory? The discovery of DNA and its role in providing what seems to me to be an explanation of the connection of life on the planet is becoming more and more evident. This would have been able to provide a framework for the philosophical as well as the scientific explanation of the origin of species, if not the origin of life-- (though maybe even that eventually). Please tell me if that is nonsense, FF and others.

Yes. It would have made a difference to the scientists. I doubt it would have made any more difference to the theologically inclined than it does to their intellectual progeny today. But having a mechanism through which traits could be communicated to the next generation would likely have made evolution easier to follow for scientists.

It may have helped to get rid of that stupid 'I wasn't descended from monkeys' rubbish. In fact we share, is it 98% of our genes with them? But the descent is not from monkeys but that we share a common antcestor, and we also share an incredibly high number of genes with a fruit fly as well. Such certainties, whilst they would not have dented the belief of the welded on creationists may have given pause to some of the more rational amongst them as it forms some sort of scientific basis for the argument for evolution that in my opinion is unassailable.

Wake up, this is just a politically correct sentence for most radical creacionists.

Of course we are evolved from monkeys - we are only few million year old species, before which nothing else, then apes didn't exist at all. Apes just found a way to exploit their specific niche, so there was no need for them to evolve further.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1118_041118_ape_human_ancestor.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...y/apewskull.jpg

Ellis obviously knows what she's talking about. She is right, Zephir, and you are wrong. Monkeys are not apes, and humans are not descended from any species of monkey. Your linked article does not contradict that.

That article is very interesting, though. Those 13 million year old fossils may be from the common ancestor of humans and our great ape cousins. Good find.

I have not seen any scientific sources that indicate humans evolved from monkeys. Every source I've ever read was clear that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. I'm pretty sure this organization hasn't got anything to do with political correctness.

There is an interesting theory on the Net, that planet X (Nibiru)comes around our sun every 3600 years then disappears into deep space. It (a dark sun) is coming in from the South Pole in around 100 years time, although some believe it is coming in 2012.

Maybe God created the people on planet X and the people on planet X created/developed us from a primitive form of human or monkey.

That really would explain a lot. They (Niberuians) get there chance to play God every 3600 years.

They say the first written language on Earth came from the Sumerians (500 years before the 1st 4 books of the bible were written by Moses) The Sumerians ancient text actually has reference to plant X. Check it out with Google.

Maybe the old testament is not true at all. It does leave every other nation on the earth out of favour with God - doesn't sound particularly fair really. Don't think God would do that somehow - not a fair one anyway. Favouring 1 race over all others - like an exclusive sect. Why do it???

Christians are blind to the fact that the 1000's of contradictions in the bible mean that God did no inspire the bible. If he did, he would have proof read it. Instead it was inspired by man and thus should hold as much sway over mankind as any other book ever written by man.

It never ends. Are the Niberians also known as reptilians?

In Ralph O. Muncaster’s book 101 REASONS YOU CAN BELIEVE: Why the Christian Faith Makes Sense shows how accurate the writer of Genesis was a genius and the creation story very true. Muncaster says:
WMAP Confirms Creation Event
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP---a satellite) measures data from the cosmological radiation left over from the origin of the universe…. proof that the universe had a beginning---just as indicated in Genesis 1:1. Limiting the time (whether to only 10,000 years or to 13.7 billion ) proves that there is not nearly enough time for random evolution of the first living cell to happen… (p.86)
He also points out:
The Impossibility of the Random Origin of Life
Science can now assume that the random origin of life is impossible. This is because
• the molecular components necessary for the development of a living cell could not conceivably have come together in the manner required to allow it to work
• there is no known mechanism to place life into non-life, even if the components could come together
Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10112,827 of randomly happening. [Archaeology and the Bible: The Best of BAR, Vol. 1] Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero. The reason for this improbability is that many things are necessary for the key components of DNA and protein chains to work properly. First, the chirality (molecular orientation) must be perfect for both. Second, only life-specific amino acids must be used. Third, the amino acids must be put in the proper place. Fourth, the correct material must be put in the right place for the DNA molecule. Fifth, the sequencing of genes must be correct for the DNA to function. All of these requirements must be fulfilled.
Further complicating the problem of proper assembly of the components of the first cell of life is the fact that time is limited….
Finally, even if everything miraculously came together, life would still need to be added to non-living matter. We have never seen this happen, nor do we know how to make it happen. (p 12-13)

The space probe also indicated that light separated from darkness approximately 0.00038 billion years after the creation event. This confirms the second stage of creation as indicated in Genesis 1:3… (p 86)

Muncaster continues to point out:
Once we understand that random chance evolution has no chance of explaining the origin of life…a reasonable question follows: What was the process of creation? Does it agree with the Bible?....
The Bible’s order of the events of creation agrees precisely with the order of events that scientists have confirmed:
1. Heavenly bodies were created (verse 1)….
2. “Let there be light” (verse 3)….
3. Development of the hydrologic cycle (verse 6)….
4. Formation of land and sea (verses 9-10)….
5. Creation of vegetation (verse 11)….
6. Atmospheric transparency (verse 14)….
7. Creation of small sea animals and birds (verse 20)….
8. Creation of land animals (verse 24)….
9. Creation of man (verse 26)---Final life-form created on earth.
10. No additional creation (2:2). No unique creation has occurred since.
Moses wrote the account of creation nearly 1500 years before Christ. At that time there was no scientific knowledge about how the universe was created---though there were many outlandish myths. (p 108-110)

Evolutionists cannot prove the theory of evolution by creating a new species from a creature that has a life span that is a fraction of our own in a laboratory experiment. Evolutionists also cannot produce life from a lifeless substance that possesses a metabolism, breathes, grows, reproduces itself, and responds to stimuli.

In short, the theory of evolution has major problems in the theory. At best the theory is science fiction.

Mary's virginal conception has more credibility than evolution. Parthenogenesis is a scientific fact in nature and the Biblical account of Mary virginally conceiving Jesus Christ is credible.

"Mary's virginal conception has more credibility than evolution."
Only to people who have a comic book understanding of science.

"Parthenogenesis is a scientific fact in nature"
Not among humans.

"and the Biblical account of Mary virginally conceiving Jesus Christ is credible. "
Only if Jesus was really a woman.

"In short, the theory of evolution has major problems in the theory. "
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Science can now assume that the random origin of life is impossible."
No. It can't and it doesn't. The origin of life is not something that evolution is intended to address. Nevertheless, scientists have not proved that abiogenesis is impossible - which explains why there are still very smart scientists who are trying to figure it out. The demise of abiogenesis is wishful thinking by religionists.

As Muncaster is not a science and has no background in science, it's easy to see how he could be readily confused.

Then perhaps evolutionist should drop that part from their agenda.

unless they can explain how life began they should back away from trying to disprove creation.

fact is they have nothing at all as evidence for evolution as they want it to be , and they have zilch to disprove creation.
what evolutionist want to put forth in evolution is nothing but changes due to environment.

and although they do have some old bones , they dont have old foot bones that show transition from ape to man or any reasonable proof of a common ancestor.



and any proof that they might find to the contrary would be / has been covered up or swept under the rug by hard core evolutionist.

I think that todays pig headed evolution should be retooled into a science that does not hide evidence.



but I thought you guys already knew everything.

I thought you already knew that creation was impossible.

it seems that evolution is more of a comic book than creation.

"Then perhaps evolutionist should drop that part from their agenda."
That's probably the silliest thing you've yet typed. There are many kinds of scientists who are studying many types of problems. Almost all practicing scientists accept evolution as fact. Only some of those scientists are actively engaged in studying evolution. There are others who are actively engaged in trying to understand abiogenesis. Those scientists also accept evolution, for the same reason that most scientists who study gravitation and chemistry accept evolution. They go on studying their own fields and doing so isn't part of any "evolutionist agenda."

"trying to disprove creation."
Scientists are not trying to disprove creation in any cosmic sense. They're trying to understand nature. Science - including evolution - is incapable of addressing god(s).

"fact is they have nothing at all as evidence for evolution"
Willful ignorance of science doesn't make it cease to exist.

"and any proof that they might find to the contrary"
So-called 'proofs' to the contrary invariable demonstrate the perpetrators have a comic book understanding of science.


"but I thought you guys already knew everything."
Never said or implied it. They just know more than creationists - which, after all, isn't such an amazing trick.

they as you call them , only know what they have learned.

and they have learned form partial exploration.

they have a thorough understanding of partial exploration not a thorough understanding of thorough exploration.

they have been excluded from things they could have learned from by people much like yourself , who have hidden things that would contridict evolution.



just like they accept their paycheck and the job they have.

you think that might have something to do with it?



LOL

So scientists accept evolution in order to be payed? That's your explanation? Scientists have an extraordinarily wide range of religious, political, and other opinions. Some of them experience extreme forms of manipulation for expressing themselves. And you think they're afraid to speak their minds or learn the truth with regards to evolution?

yea thats right.

I think that the peer pressure involved would endanger there economic situation and all the time and money that they put into their education.

they might become thought of as one of those CREATIONIST that do not comply with the norm.

Paul wrote:
"they might become thought of as one of those CREATIONIST that do not comply with the norm."

That is a silly thing to say. In order to be a creationist all you need to do is believe that there is a god who created the world and the living things inhabiting it, as outlined in Genesis. There is NO science involved. That's OK, if a little ridiculous-- but if that's someone's belief who am I to stop them.

Scientists on the other hand require proof, and the proof for the validity of the Theory of Evolution contiues to gather scientific strength. It is not merely scientists who have decided that this theory is helpful in deciding what is the origin of species that inhabit our planet. It is a view accepted by many people of diverse religions, or those without such beliefs, because it is able to answer the question of the origin of the variety of species and the variety within those species. Creationism does not do this. Instead it denies that humans have a place in the development of the living things on this planet, preferring to use only one ancient religious book as source material. By asserting that Man was made by God in his own image creationists deny the species Homo Sapiens, the right to evolve further- as the original blueprint was, necessarily, perfection!

"Creationism does not do this. Instead it denies that humans have a place in the development of the living things on this planet,"

You're right. Evolution does not "contradict" the existence of God(s). Here's a critical difference between the real scientists and the pretenders: The real scientists are trying to find out while the pretenders are trying to justify what they think they already know.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

The real scientists don't take loyalty oaths to defend their preconceived intellectual biases. They tend to actually do their homework before coming to their conclusions - and not spend their careers trying to justify what they want to believe is true. Real scientists don't credulously accept random religious screeds and then cavil to ignore the actual evidence.

I know , and any proof that might lessen its strenght has and will be ignored.

and through your own words "most PRACTICING scientist believe in evolution" not creation.


so its not like we have a democratic party and a republican party we just have a bunch of non-partisan scientist that all think the same way.

so any evidence that is found would be found by scientist that dont believe in creation and if they did find something that would lean in creations favor , well under the rug it would go.

what about the california gold mine tunnels?

have you looked into that covered up evidence?
have any "scientist" explored these tunnels?

or would it be too risky a venture for evolution?

read this about covering up evidence that conflicts with evolution

10 - 55 million year old HUMAN REMAINS covered up because of the theory ( THEORY ) of evolution.

Who the heck will ever believe evolution when evolutionist do this type of cover up.

Scientists look at evidence. They reject things that are silly. The people who say silly things get offended that THEIR silly thing has been rejected.

myriad manifestations of creationism
various relativity deniers
Electric sun
911 truthers
moon hoaxers
atomic bomb hoaxers
alien overlords

That's just some what has been purveyed in SAGG. It *never* ends. When their errors are pointed out to them, they invariably assert that the real scientists are dishonest or are too scared to speak out or are just stupid.

There is no end to "leads" all of which invariably show nothing except that the perpetrators don't understand basic science, don't have any reasonable skepticism towards their "data" and they accuse the scientists of producing and promulgating bad information! It's incredible. They think scientists have nothing better to do than track down every stupid thing they ever say - when it's a forgone conclusion that anything other than complete acceptance of their "evidence" just means that the scientists are lying.

This is pretty much par for the course for fundamentalist religionists. They are told from very early ages that the evil one is trying to mislead them. Any logic or science that leads them away from god is false to begin with.

and "silly things" being things that would discredit evolution no doubt.

I say that a silly thing is a science such as evolution that is built upon a foundation that is riddled with falseties and cover ups , one that choses its data as it deems necessary for its strenghts.

why have we not been given the oppurtunity to view the artifacts that were found in the california gold mine tunnels where million year old human skeletons and artifacts were discovered just around the time that evolution was TAKING hold.

read from page 266 from the above link I posted and see if you can find these million year old skeletons that were found in million year old riverbeds , enclosed inside mountains as tunnels were dug in the search for gold.

here is a link to more info

http://www.mcremo.com/california.html

and here also

Recent investigations bearing on the qu...e Sierra Nevada



you left out one very important one







I believe that par for the evolutionist course is one that skips a few holes in order to insure that evolution wins the game.
they are told from a very early age that truthfull people are trying to lead them away from evolution by using such thing as facts and ancient writtings , drawings and carvings that would discredit evolution.

Creation happened - yes it did.

However what right does that give creationists, to validate a bibles version of it. The bible has so many contridictions that it is surprising that it doesn't self-combust.

On what authority did Moses have to write 3000 years of history back to Adam & Eve. Be real with yourself. Not just the dogma of the bible. The bible has history - but it is history and ancient politics inspired by man. And man often gets things wrong.

What independent 3rd party authority did Moses have? Really? Himself - after all he wrote a lot of history. Did he have even one other person to validate his writings?

It is clearly understood from those that really learn about the evolution of religion that Moses borrowed stacks of material from the religions of the day.

I heard one idiot say the other day. "If the bible said Jonah swollowed the whale he would beieve it". What can I say??

Religion makes idiots of people who are actually quite smart and hides idiots that really are idiots. The bible is right - you have to 'believe' like a little child.

What happens when you grow up and start to think for yourself like an adult should. Many try for the rest of their days explaining in huge depth how the round peg is still going to fit in the square hole.

Just believe. Aha - Creationists - be brave and grow up in your thinking.

sir's. people in general (American or otherwise)do believe in basic evolution. but as anybody who keeps up with developments knows evolution theory as postulated by Darwin and slavishly followed by most "scientists" is wrong in nearly all aspects i.e. Cambrian explosion, the dawk. generation changes. etc.etc.etc.
secondly most none thinking "scientists" and their groupie followers blindly dismiss some form of creation with all the none scientific rigor one would expect from religious fundamentalists. nobody with a degree or otherwise can in any way prove their was no creation, and evolution in any form does not invalidate this, as of course nothing can.
Classical mechanistic thinking has held back progress in all areas, from quantum theory to how/why are we here telepathy, healing, UFOs, NDE, OBE. the non thinking say they do not exist, the thinkers say they may exist let's find out we may learn something.
people not willing to look for and find the truth openly with out following their peers, need to search for what they themselves are afraid of.

george etc. wrote
'Their groupie followers blindly dismiss some form of creation with all the none scientific rigor one would expect from religious fundamentalists. nobody with a degree or otherwise can in any way prove their was no creation, '

George etc: I think that you have missed the point. Creationism states that the origin of life on earth occurred as it does in the book of Genesis in the bible. That is the man (and presumably when god got round to it woman) was created in the image of god. Humanity was thus different to any other living thing on the planet. In order to believe in the truth of this it is necessary to accept that an ancient text, written by some one thousands of years ago, is divine truth, and also that there is in fact a god for us to be the image of in the first place.

No one is denying creation, as in the existence of life. At some stage life developed on this planet. If you believe that a god (and remember george that there are many many creation myths referring to many gods in many many cultures,) created a man one day then that's fine for you. In my country the native people believed that a huge rainbow coloured serpent was the originator of life on the planet. Also fine. However evidence is against these ideas. In answering the question---what is the origin of species?---ie how did the earth manage to have so many living creatures (including humans) develop on it, evolution is providing many answers, more everyday.

Now I agree it is easier to say, "Well they are wrong and creationism is right so shut up and sit down", but that is not the answer that will enable us to unravel the question. george--you cannot stop people wanting to uncover truth, belief is not enough now.

Ellis,thank you,
I said "some form of creation". nobody can in any way show or prove that the ultimate source of "the" or any universe is not a thought of a god. Any form of creationism just gets back to who created god but the evidence is strongly in favour of some intelligent agent at work even if this is the universe it's self. The only credible alternative would be Everett's many world theorem leading to the anthropic principle.which still leaves the very beginning to account for.There are two kinds of scientists 1. I call scientists 2. I call real scientists. the scientist say ah Darwin that explains it all, the real scientist says that explains somethings, but as I pointed out the flaws in the theory are very large. Also the universe did not begin with life on earth (If the universe exists at all) which of course Darwin does not explain any more than the big bang theory or any other current or future theory. It only takes the problem back to the same point as any creation theory. (as above).
Scientists, religious people and anybody who just says my way is right because heres the proof or it says so in the bible, koran etc. logically are making no point at all.
Only people who genuinely have an experience, be that miracle, UFO, expanded consciousness etc. can believe something themselves which should not as scientist do be dismissed out of hand. it is solid evidence of something even if that something is just mundanely, evidence of how the mind works. It should be investigated as it is by real scientists.
The only lines of research of any use to forward our knowledge is the lines of real scientists, that is any paranormal, trans personal, quantum etc etc. research everything else is stamp collecting.

Aaah george--- that is a slightly different stance from the one which you argued earlier. Then you were insisting that evolution was WRONG. Now you are retreating to the idea that something created life on earth, what exactly you do not suggest, just some vague intelligence "maybe the universe itself". It is this point that enables many who are scientists and also religious to believe that evolution, as a suggestion, has much to contribute to the debate, because they can acknowledge the original creator. The really annoying thing about this Theory of Evolution is that as further knowledge is expanding the theory is also expanding becauses so many discoveries have supported the ideas which were merely speculation when I was a child.

Creationism on the other hand has insisted that the Genesis myth is the truth, and it must be believed. Science does not insist on belief. On the contrary scientists spend their lives examining belief, even a cherished one. The history of world religions is littered with the persecution of people who discovered truths that were against doctrinal law. Belief is not enough without truth!

Not just believed but known thru experience for its eternal and absolute Truth.
This is what separates the myths from inexperience and mixed belief systems that argue points of interest from relative truths.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image , in the image of God
created he him ; male and female created he them.

on the sixth day.

how do we know how long a day is for God?

a single day for God might be a thousand , a million , a billion years or longer.

there are life forms that live only a few seconds and in that time they live and multiply / breed and die.

so how long would 1 of our 24 hour days be to them when their entire life is only a few seconds?

George,
your type I scientist is a phantom made up by creationists to justify why they themselves almost universally don't do real science.

There are no "Darwinian" scientists who say that evolution explains everything. The great majority of scientists who work in evolution are trying to figure out the details. Of course the creationists and other pseudo-scientists establish yet another false criterion - that there are 'holes' so it can't be right.



All theories have holes. The criticism is asinine, but creationists tend to not have the slightest idea what they're talking about. They have about a third grade understanding of science, which explains why they are so confused by the real article. They know so little about how real science works that they don't even recognize that their criteria don't exist anywhere else in science.

Americans (and others) reject evolution for one reason - they have a comic book understanding of science and evolution.


Evolution doesn't say there is or isn't a god. neither evolution nor any other science is capable of addressing the subject of God. But the cultists can't handle that - they want to be able to claim that their cult is supported by science.

So what is real?

Thank you all. please excuse English spelling.

having different views on things is a very positive way of moving forward with any subject, but first any possible unmovable
axioms must be agreed.

1, We exist. (individual consciousness only certain) Descarte "I think therefor I am" etc.

2,For this discussion assume other people and this universe exists. Allowing for holographic universes etc. which in no way alters the discussion.

3, we can only look at things with the minds we have, any possibilities beyond our understanding are mute and can not help the discussion.

4,It follows that some thing made the universe exist to us.
(if that something has always been there or was in some way made by something else cannot be answered at present by science and is unimportant to the discussion)

5,There is either an intelligence involved in the universe or there is not.(this is not answerable by science and if one wants to do further research then you must move to the only possible clues to that answer. all of which are essential to try and answer the question. quantum, reincarnation, OBE,NDE UFO,miracles, healing all of which give clues to further possible understanding.

Anybody who does not wish to follow this course is saying I do not want an answer I am going to believe what I want with no evidence to support it of any kind. Of course they are free to do this and nobody should blame them as long as their beliefs do no harm to any one. but they should also accept that that point of view ends any useful further contribution they can make.

The human race in general has a strong archetype (Jung) belief in an afterlife and guiding influence. this is part of our makeup. We also have a very powerful conscience ethic. If you put these together you have "A good god" which many people rightly place there faith in. The benefits of believing in a good god are enormous both to the individual and society as a whole.

The problem always has been and still is that people also have a very strong following instinct (jungle days) that allows all kinds of religious manipulates, past and present to dupe good meaning people into following sects (mainline and obscure)into keeping religious leaders in an exulted position where they control people to there own ends.

The only religion anybody should follow is, never harm other people in any way, forgive as best you can. endeavor to increase wisdom. this covers everything all other rules and regulations are man made.

Because America and many other countries try to restrict access to the longing in people to move forward with there beliefs by ridiculing research into all metaphysical and meta personal research people are forced to follow the established religions which at least offer a feeling of peer acceptance. if all the areas described where opened to serious and accepted research, the only way of becoming wiser of the deep things in life would be opened and the world would be a much happier place.
people have an instinctive knowledge that Darwinism is of very minor concern to the overall picture and has no real bearing on the overall picture.

Scientist follow this head burying road for many reasons, peer pressure, financial backing which will not be given to those who try to follow an open path, arrogance. governments of nearly all colours try to keep people under there control by ridiculing any out of the norm research.

Darwinism and creationism (not the bible. creationism in any form) like most things is not a matter of one or the other Darwinism is a very minor side line to the matters being discussed and whether it is 10% correct or 20% correct is irrelevant.

It is the going round in circles arguing some minor topic (how many angels on a pin head) which keeps the human race from moving on to find out with every means possible, is there something more or not.(and not just blindly saying there is or there is not)

May I congratulate everybody for voting in your new president a forward looking seemingly not self serving man who if allowed can hopefully help better the entire world.

By AWT only gradients and changes are observable by human, by the same way, like you can see only density fluctuations from gas, not the gas itself. We are such fluctuation, too a and the appearance of Universe is given by geometry, by which one random fluctuation can interact with others.

"... quantum, reincarnation, OBE,NDE UFO,miracles, healing all of which give clues to further possible understanding. "

Obscurantists the world over have for centuries have attempted to lump together various non-scientific fancies with scientific ideas. Scientific-sounding words give legitimacy to their ideas and claims.

So they talk about energy and force and ether and the like. Of course the use they put to those words bears no relation to its scientific meaning, but their followers are not aware of this - and in fact do not care. Further, the promulgators of these ideas are very often unaware that their use of the terms is non-scientific.

Quantum mechanics is legitimate science and it yields many bizarre insights into how the universe may work - and therefore any bizarre thing that any crackpot postulates must be worth public recognition and investment. Well, that's the idea. However, in most of these cases - OBE, NDE, faith-healing, etc. - they not only aren't science, their primary evidences are thoroughly refuted. OTOH, no matter how much effort that real investigators invest in the subject,
1) a "nay" finding is ignored or outright rejected by the true-believers, and
2) there's always recourse to "Well, here's these other 10 guys you haven't tested! Maybe one of THEM is not a fake and, so, if you're REALLY HONEST, you HAVE to research them, too."

This is part of the comic book understanding of the scientific process where all ideas are assumed to have equal merit and scientists have an infinite amount of time and funding and they also have a strong moral aegis to disprove absolutely even the most absurd claim, before discounting it.

The ancient doctrine of the constant, eternal change of every atom from state to state, is founded upon, or rather grows out of, another which postulates that the is no such thing as dead matter.
At every conceivable point in the universe there are lives; nowhere can be found a spot that is dead; and each life is forever hastened onward to a higher evolution.
To admit this, we must of course grant that matter is never perceived by the eye or through any instrument. It is but the phenomena of matter that we recognize through the senses, and hence, say the sages, the thing denominated ("matter") by us is an illusion. Even the protoplasm of the schools is not the original matter; it is simply another of the phenomena.
The first original matter is called by Paracelsus and others primordial matter, the nearest approach to which in the Eastern school is found in the Sanskrit word mulaprakriti. This is the root of matter, invisible, not to be weighed, or measured, or tested with any instrument of human invention. And yet it is the only real matter underlying all phenomena to which we erroneously give its name. But it is not dead, but full of the lives first referred to.

Now, bearing this in mind, we consider the vast solar system, yet vast only when not compared with the still greater aggregation of stars and planets around it. The great sidereal year covered by the sun in going through the twelve signs of the zodiac includes over 25,000 mortal years of 365 days each. While this immense circuit is being traversed, the sun drags the whole solar system with him around his own tremendous orbit, and we may imagine-for there are no observations on this point-that, while 25,000 years of travel around the zodiac have been passing, the solar system as a whole has advanced along the sun's own orbit only a little distance. But after millions of years shall have been consumed in these progresses, the sun must bring his train of planets to stellar space where they have never been before; here other conditions and combinations of matter may very well obtain-conditions and states of which our scientists have never heard, of which there has never been recorded one single phenomenon; and the difference between planetary conditions then and now will be so great that no resemblance shall be observed.

This is a branch of cyclic law with which the Eastern Sages are perfectly familiar. They have inquired into it, recorded their observations, and preserved them. Having watched the uncountable lives during cycles upon cycles past, and seen the behavior under different conditions in other stellar spaces long ago left behind, they have some basis to draw conclusions as to what will be the state of things in the ages to come.

This brings us to an interesting theory offered by Theosophy respecting life itself as exhibited by man, his death and sleep. It relates also to what is generally called "fatigue."
The most usual explanation for the phenomena of sleep is that the body becomes tired and more or less depleted of its vitality then seeks repose. This, says Theosophy, is just the opposite of truth, for, instead of suffering a loss of vitality, the body, at the conclusion of the day, has more life in it than when it was wakened. During the waking state the life-waves rush into the body with greater intensity every hour, and, we being unable to resist them any longer than the period usually observed, they overpower us and we fall asleep. While sleeping, the life waves adjust themselves to the molecules of the body; and when equilibrium is complete we again wake to continue the contest with life.
If this periodical adjustment did not occur, the life current would destroy us. Any derangement of the body that tends to inhibit this adjustment is the cause of sleeplessness and perhaps death. Finally, death of the body is due to the inequality of the contest with the life force; it at last overcomes us, and we are compelled to sink into the grave. Disease, the common property of the human race, only reduces the power of the body to adjust and resist. Children, (say the Adepts) sleep more than adults and need earlier repose, because the bodily machine, being young and tender, is easily overcome by life and made to sleep.

Adepts relate not only to the birth and death of planets in this solar system, but also to the evolution and development of man, through the various kingdoms of nature, until he reaches the most perfect condition which can be imagined. The evolution of the human being includes not only the genesis of his mortal frame, but, as well, the history of the inner man, whom they are accustomed to calling the real one.

This, then, brings us to a very interesting claim put forward for the Wisdom religion, that it pretends to throw light not only upon man's emotions and mental faculties, but also upon his pre-natal and post-mortem states, both of which are of the highest interest and importance. Such questions as, "Where have I come from?" and "What shall be my condition after death?" trouble and confuse the minds of all men, cultured and ignorant.

Priests and thinkers have, from time to time, formulated theories, more or less absurd, as to those pre-natal and post-mortem states, while Science today laughs in derision at the idea of making any inquire into the matter whatever.
Theologians have offered explanations, all of which relate only to what they suppose will happen to us after death, leaving entirely out of view and wholly un-answered the natural question,
"What were we before we were born here?" And, taking them on their own ground, they are in the most illogical position, because, having once postulated immortality for the soul-the real man-they cannot deny immortality in either direction. If man is immortal, the immortality could never have had a beginning, or else it would have an end. Hence their only escape from the dilemma is to declare that each soul is a special creation. But this doctrine of a special creation for each soul born upon earth, is not dwelt upon or expounded by the priests, inasmuch as it is deemed better to keep it discretely in the background.

The Wisdom Religion, on the other hand, remains logical from beginning to end. It declares that man is a spiritual being, and allows no break in the chain of anything once declared immortal. The Ego of each man is immortal; "always was existent, always will be, and never can be non-existent"; appearing now and again, and reappearing, clothed in bodies on each occasion different, it only appears to be mortal; it always remains the substratum and support for the personality acting upon the stage of life. And in those appearances as mortal, the questions mooted above-as to the pre-natal and post-mortem states-are of vital interest, because mans knowledge or ignorance concerning them alters man's thought and action while an actor on the stage, and it is necessary for him to know in order that he may so live as to aid in the grand upward sweep of the evolutionary wave.

Now the Adepts have for ages pursued scientific experimentation and investigation upon those lines. Seers themselves of the highest order, they have recorded not only with their own actual experiences beyond the veil of matter, on both sides, but have collected, compared, analyzed and preserved the records of experiences of the same sort by hundreds of thousands of lesser seers, their own disciples; and the process has been going on from time immemorial.
Let science laugh as it may, the Adepts are true scientists, for they take into account every factor in the question, whereas Science is limited by brain-power, by circumstance, by imperfection of instrumentation, and by a total inability to perceive anything deeper than the mere phenomena presented by matter. The records of the visions and experiences of the greater and lesser seers, through the ages, are extant today.
Of their mass, nothing has been accepted except that which has been checked and verified by millions of independent observations; and therefore the Adepts stand in the position of those who possess actual experiential knowledge of what precedes the birth of the ego in human form, and what succeeds when the "mortal coil" is cast away.
This recording of experiences still goes on; for the infinity of the changes of Nature in its evolution permits no stoppage, no "last word" no final declaration. As the earth sweeps around the sun. it not only passes through new places in orbit, but, dragged as it is by the sun through its greater orbit, involving millions of millions of years, it must in that larger circle enter upon new fields in space and unprecedented conditions. Hence the Adepts go further yet, and state that as the phenomena presented by matter today are different from those presented a million years ago, so matter will a million years from now show different phenomena still.
Indeed, if we could translate our sight to that time, far back in the past of our globe, we could see conditions and phenomena of the material world so different from those now surrounding us that it would be almost impossible to believe we had never been in such a state as that prevailing. And the changes toward the conditions that will prevail at a point equally remote in advance of us, in time, and which will be not less than those that have occurred, are in progress now. Nothing in the material world endures absolutely unchanged in itself or its conditions even for the smallest conceivable portion of time. All that is, is forever in process of becoming something else. This is not mere transcendentalism, but is an old established doctrine called, in the East "the doctrine of the constant, eternal change of atoms from one state into another."

Theosophy is not science. Also, if you're going to quote text from somewhere, you should provide a link:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/echoes/echoes4.htm

And real men don't eat quiche..


No, I don't think so..

"And real men don't eat quiche.."
Science is a mystery to some people, which is why they resort to the obscurantism of religion.

"No, I don't think so.."
Etiquette is also a mystery to some.

What some believe to be obscure is a label applied to everything that doesn't fit within their own interpretations of reality.

Mystery and intuition is the primary drive that inspires one to seek truth. Those that have become dependent on qualified statements by personal attachment to authority have given their sensibility away long ago, with their ability to know truth.

Claiming to know the truth is not the same thing as actually knowing the truth. Many people claim to know mutually exclusive truths. This brings us to a fundamental difference between real and pretend science - the actual search for truth as opposed to an attempt to confirm one's obscurantist prejudices.

Many people claim to label science as exclusive to those ideals that can only be proven within the current technology relegated to mainstream interests.
The spiritual side of the universe and its properties exceed the current technological limits and scientists tend to call those who know and experience the spiritual, obscurantists, because the idea and experience cannot be contained within the quart jar science wants to put it in.
The individual personality sees what it can see due to the properties of individualism. Many can see the same thing and experience it differently.
What never changes within the universe and is underlying all realities of personal opinions and beliefs is absolute. That is the Science of Yoga.
So making general statements to the effects of ones personal belief lay on both sides of the tracks, and I find few willing to stretch their imagination or will beyond what they can currently taste, touch, smell and hear.

The evolution of man is destined to integrate what it does not now experience but will when his capabilities to comprehend allow. There is obviously no predetermined mechanism that subjects the human to evolve as a whole. I think most basic of comprehension is aware of this.
One is only limited by their own beliefs.

Those that have become dependent on qualified statements by personal attachment to authority have given their sensibility away long ago.... [/quote]
It has nothing to do with ethical imperative not to steal intellectual fruits of previous people. Everyone has right to know, who originated the claims stealed by you. You're pretending, you've something to say about subject, while you can only parotte foreign ideas. Are you coming from East Asia or some collectivistic country?

"It has nothing to do with ethical imperative not to steal intellectual fruits of previous people. "

Is the world about to end? We actually agree on something.

"Many people claim to label science as exclusive ..."
Namely, the actual scientists.

No and authority has nothing to do with previous ideas. It has to do with levels of perception that are taught from one generation to another and blind acceptance of reality without using the potential of ones own faculties.

A while back Dateline had a special on the power of Authority.

They started the show by showing an old clip from Candid Camera. In this clip the victim of the show entered an elevator with about six other people in it. The funny thing was that the other six (who worked with Candid Camera) were told to face different directions at different times.

Normally when you are in an elevator you face the door, but this group all faced the inside panel with their backs toward the door. Even though this was very odd, the victim did not want to be different so he turned with his back toward the door. Then they showed several clips of the people in the elevator and every time the group turned, the victim turned with them.

It seemed kind of funny and I'm sure the Candid Camera audience got a good laugh out of it, but the reality behind this is the scariest human trait we possess. That is, most of mankind will follow the leader or group even if it makes no sense or if it goes against every moral teaching they have ever been taught.

The second part of the feature had an experiment done with college students. Again they had an unsuspecting victim participating with a group of about a half dozen that knew what was going on. The group was shown a set of four lines and of the four there were two of equal length. They were then asked to pick the two lines that were equal. They showed the lines on TV and it was obvious which two were the correct match.

The next thing they did was to have the planted students all give the same wrong match. Then when it became the victim's turn you could tell he began to doubt what his eyes and reasoning were telling him. Some of the victims gave the right answer for a round or two but one by one each victim gave in and started giving the wrong answer as the right answer, even though he knew within himself that it was wrong.

The interesting thing about watching their faces on TV was that they all looked a little depressed when they started knowingly giving the wrong answers as right answers. It was almost like the poor kids were selling their souls.

Finally they showed the most alarming experiment of all authority which was conducted by Stanley Milgram way back in the sixties.

Milgram was curious about how a group of apparently normal people like the Germans could have participated in the Nazi atrocities which was against every moral teaching that they ever believed in. Their excuse was always the same: "I was just following orders."

Below is a description of the experiment:

When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue. Sixty-five percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

What was interesting about watching this on Dateline was that when the subject hit the high voltage the pretended victim screamed like crazy and even said he had a bad heart and that the experiment was killing him.

The subject then turned to the authority as if asking what to do and the authority told him to continue. If the subject seemed to doubt the authority told him that he would take responsibility.

Then the subject continued to shock the supposed victim past 300 volts until he went silent. This indicated the victim was either unconscious or dead. Still the subject did not cease. He continued to increase the voltage clear up to 450 which would mean that if the victim was not dead yet this would surely kill him.

The interesting thing is that if this was a real happening, the subject would not only have killed another human being which was against every teaching that he believed in, but he would have also been brought up on murder charges. It is scary that even that possibility did not deter the subject from following authority.

The funny thing about these experiments is that the scientists predicted that only one out of a thousand would follow an authority to shock up to 450 volts, but 65% went that far and 100% of the subjects went up to 300 volts, which is still enough to kill.

Thus we have a great example of the willingness to follow blind authority no matter what the consequences.

The interesting thing is that very few people know themselves well enough to know whether or not they would administer the 300 or more volts to an innocent brother. Most would think that they would never do such a thing, but are they right? Remember, 100% of those in the experiment yielded to the authority.

People will easily accept things as scientific just as they accept what is God, in religion and spirituality. If it sounds good to them they will accept for themselves without any experience of a subject, relative truths, as fact. The world was once flat and that was the scientific belief.

To make generalizations against spiritual insights and endeavors as without merit is to deny the questioning of who we are, where we come from before physical birth and were we go afterward.
Science does not have the means to defeat the belief in God by proving God does not exist. And science has its own specializations as do the various religious affiliations.

The scientific approach to the underlying reality of matter is as old as man and tho western sciences do not accept the human experience as the means of measure, it does accept the experience of blind obedience to the approach of reality within borders. It is taught to every child in every school. The meaning of life is often bound by western sciences evolving attitude and discoveries pertaining to belief and opinions of the perceptions of man in its current state of evolution. Ego attaches itself to the idea that we are born and die and that is all there is to life.
The complexities of design within the universe that allow its unfolding is part and parcel to mans evolution physically and psychologically.
It wasn't that long ago we were burning people for being witches because they thought and acted independently of the superstitions of the day.
It would be nice if man could thru science overcome his own disparities of fear and superstition, but that would mean the loss of free will.
Consciousness creates all worlds for perception of the Self, and until one begins to discover the potential within consciousness itself, the world often becomes the authority of life.

I don't think anyone wants to believe the destructive tendencies of the world and the inability to feed and house humanity or to heal the diseases we incur is the reality of who we are. We created the world thru our beliefs, we are not a victim to it. Yet Science has not the means to discover what is in the heart of Man and why he will let his brother suffer and die.

People absorbed with identity are not infallible, and those who label themselves as an exclusive party to a process of definition, thinking that their definitions of themselves, life, and beliefs aren't subject to change, are deluded.

The Quantum Theory as it is in spiritual science.(not exclusive to any belief, but inclusive to all of creation)

Principles of physics are involved in the study of the Quantum Theory. It is the theory of distribution of energy throughout nature. It was developed in the Berlin University as an outcome of investigation into radiation from black objects. This research resulted in the conclusion that all forms radiate a definite energy and that there is nothing in the world of form that is an inert mass. Every Form has within itself some degree of energy and this energy is a distinct emanation of the energy that fills infinite space. The amount of energy that each particular form radiates is in direct proportion to the relationship which it has with the Universal energy.

Just as a pendulum swings in a long or short arc according to the amount of force exerted to start it swinging, just so all forms retain the amount of active energy required in sending it forth. This energy is retained by the form just to the degree that it retains its relation to the energy which sent forth. If the pendulum stops, it is because the impelling force has ceased to exert influence upon it. Matter becomes less and less active as it loses some of its contact with the original impelling force which started it into motion. When the energy ceases to act within the form, the form disintegrates.

The lesson to be found in this explanation of the Quantum Theory offers unusual opportunity to impress upon the mind of the individual that fact that all of his lack is due to separating himself from the original first cause. Just as an electric motor stops when it is disconnected from an electrical current or a light goes out when the switch is turned off, so does man cease to function in just that degree when he separates himself from the spirit of God.

Metaphysically, this has much of vital importance to those of the Western world. The movement in the United States came under the depression and all that means is that there was no foundation in fact. That is, it was founded on only a half truth. There is fact as a basis for our metaphysics but that fact was overlooked and misunderstood by most of its exponents in the U.S.

When it comes to a matter of merely manipulating the world with thought, trying to demonstrate by the use of affirmation, man sooner or later exhausts his ability to achieve.
Only through deep meditation upon the oneness of all things, mans Unity with God, is his power revived so that he again returns to the position of power that is rightfully his. Man of himself can do nothing. It is the Spirit that quickens and, when his mind and nature are reanimated with the Spirit, his words and acts become alive and then only does he move with power.

The Eastern World, those of higher thought, have known the facts propounded in the Quantum Theory. They deal in brief, with one fact, that of the universality of all things and, consequently, in dealing with that one fact they have a definite basis for both science and metaphysics. The psychology of the Western world is mere childs play.
It is based to a great extent upon theory.
Whenever you deal with divisions of mental, material, and physical you are bound to base at least 75% of your calculations on theory.
Division is not Unity and Unity is not Division and the basis of all creation is that it is a unit. "I am that I am and beside me there is no other," is an eternal declaration of fact, which is the unity of all things. The direct violation of this fundamental unity is in considering the mind as having phases or faculties, when, in reality, the mind is a single unit, not only as within the individual but as existing in and of the universe. Material form is not something isolated from and independent of the universe but is one in and with the Universal substance. The physical body is not an isolated phase of the created scheme but is in and one with the Universal energy. To violate this fundamental unity is to isolate yourself in a hypnotic state where you seem to be a separate being and, therefore, you cut yourself off, devitalize yourself, and ultimately destroy your ability to further manifest in this plane. To deny the relationship of the visible with the invisible is to push yourself right out of your body into the invisible.

Eastern philosophy is not based upon theory at all. It is based upon a definite scientific fact or principle. That is the same idea that Einstein has brought out in the Quantum Theory. He has brought it out in greater evidence than has any other scientist in the Western world in his time. Many are saying that it is the gap between Science or Physics and true Religious thought.

The Easterner does not approach the matter of religious thought as theory at all. In fact, he proves that it is not theory. Thereby, he accomplishes that very fact and the possibilities involved in that fact. You do not see the Eastern philosophers pass out a theory of anything. Their basis is always in fact. It, of course, is not fact simply because they pronounce it so but because it has a scientific basis in fact. The fact was clearly revealed by Christ when he said, "I and my Father are ONE," preserving the unity of himself within the whole. That is the basis from which all successful living must evolve and it is only to the degree that this oneness is maintained by the individual that he begins to radiate the energy that sent him into being. This is the basis of the Quantum Theory as applied from the viewpoint of pure religion or pure metaphysics. And that is why the Eastern philosophers give so much attention to the Quantum Theory. They see the scientists of the world returning to the basis of their own religious thought held for thousands of years.

Einstein did not come right out and say that it is all Spirit. Consequently, it was urged that the physical or material was not a fact, but showed that it is based upon one point determination. He put it as one general Principle, co-relating all physics, as he said, under one head. That is exactly what those of higher Eastern thought had determined long ago-- that there is but ONE Principle, One scientific basis, and that basis one of Being.

It makes a vast difference to man whether he proceeds from a true or from an assumed or false hypothesis. The conclusions at which he arrives in his calculations depend upon the foundation or principle from which he moves. If that foundation is false, the conclusion must be false. As creation began in the great Universal Whole, man can find no substantial starting point for his own activities except from that same basis. One cannot adapt a principle to his own thought but he must adapt himself to the movement of principle and his thoughts must be evolved from that principle. In turn, his action must conform to that same principle and then, only, can he hope to have results forthcoming that are consistent with the fundamental nature.

Now the Western world does not go back and reason from that Principle. They work through to that Principle from the external, consequently it is not necessarily a true form of reasoning; that is, their form of reason is not truly scientific reason. All true reason works out from the Principle to its manifestation and not from the manifestation back to principle. Imagine trying to work a problem by reasoning back or trying to reason back to Principle by studying the size, shape, form and general construction of an accumulation of figures. The people of the Western world, in their attempt to solve the riddle of life, are doing that very thing. By this process they become highly mental or, as we put it, intellectual. And as we already know, their intellectual knowledge is always subject to revision for it does not prove itself. That is why one of our modern scientists has said that all written books on science prior to the last ten years should be burned. The Eastern is carried beyond the intellectual or the ordinary intellectual. Of course, true principle and reason from the basis of the One Fact is the highest form of intellect. But the hypothesis that the Eastern world takes puts it wholly on a true intellectual basis in carrying it to a clear conception.

The intellect of the Western world covers a wide range but comes to no absolute conclusion in its hypothesis or theories. All of the science of the Western world has been based upon that hypothesis or theory. The people of the Western world have progressed to the point where they know the existence of certain determining factors but they never go directly to the simple denominator of One Principle when handling fact. The Eastern philosophers have always based their premises upon one Natural Fact. And there you have the basis of the Quantum Theory. One Universal Fact from which all form emanates and operates as the animating force of the created form-the Universal distribution of energy.

These paragraphs involve the difference between true and false reason, between intelligent logic and false logic. We get our minds completely reversed when we work from the external or when we work merely for external results that we imagine will suit our own idea of things. There is an established order in the Universe and only through aligning ourselves with that natural order of things can we hope for satisfactory results.

The difference between the Adepts conception and the theory of Monism is that the latter eliminated all but the blind force of nature or creation. The spiritual scientists always considered it an active, intelligent force that knew what it was doing, an energetic force, and a force that did accomplish an intelligent creation that moved toward an intelligent purpose and that anyone who would work with the intelligence of that force could accomplish all things through it.

The force which designed and created the Universe could not be considered an unintelligent force or blind force moving without conscious direction. Electricity must be governed by intelligence in our everyday affairs, else we could not have light, heat and power resulting from it. Electricity by itself is a blind force but, subjected to the control of intelligence, it produces constructive results. So all creative force of the Universe must be subjected to the direction of intelligence, else there never could have been orderly creation.

The crux of the whole matter is therefore right knowledge. What we have called knowledge is past.
The True knowledge is outside of the senses.
The True basis of knowledge is to know the motivating force and the ends toward which it moves, as it is this motivating sense or the inward sense of the trend of the motivating force of the Universe that brought all things into existence in the beginning and will bring all things into being through that individual who senses and works in harmony with its purpose.

The True knowledge comes through samadhi or silence. It comes through an inner feeling or intuitive knowing. This is rightly what we call understanding. With all your getting, get understanding. When we obey what we inwardly feel, the accomplishment is achieved and then we have correct knowledge for it is based on the outworking of principle (the Absolute constant). This is the manner in which all true knowledge comes, not only in things spiritual, but in relation to the principles we use everyday. We discover certain principles, apply those principles, results are forthcoming, and from these results we formulate our knowledge.

When you take that knowledge completely out of the realm of hypnosis you get down to the fundamental fact or truth. Knowledge does not necessarily exist in the fundamental fact. The fact exists prior to and is greater than knowledge. Knowledge as the spiritual scientist puts it, comes directly from the expression of the fundamental fact.

Right knowledge comes through becoming so still that one feels within himself the movement of Universal Forces, "The Spirit of God." Its activity not only becomes a vitalizing influence but it awakens an understanding in the mind of man.
"The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding."
Just as you must first understand the operation of the principle of mathematics through quiet submission to the rule, so must you contemplate the action of Divine Principle until you understand its operations. Knowledge is the accumulation of ideas, and true knowledge would be the result of seeing the spirit of God made Manifest. Knowledge comes in the completion of a process. Understanding discerns the way towards results. (Guidance provides direction from understanding)


When the Bible says that "the flesh profiteth nothing" it does not say that the flesh is nothing. It has no reality except that which is of the Spirit which produced it. The flesh is not a producer; it does not produce anything for it is the thing produced. It is the Spirit which produces. Flesh is Spirit in form, as we put it. We do not make any distinction between flesh and Spirit or material and spiritual. Consequently it is all one and the same to the spiritual scientist and that is where we accomplish. The Word made flesh is the true spiritual form.

Faith is the active principle of the mind. The mind acting upon inner knowing or understanding ripens into knowledge or becomes absolute knowledge. Spiritual intuition is direct knowing; it is tapping the infinite consciousness directly at its source. This power of direct knowing is born in every individual. Some manifest it earlier in life, chiefly because they are less hypnotized. That is, the less one is subjected to the supposed knowledge of the race, which is really ignorance, the more readily does that one follow what he instinctively knows and feels to be true. It is within the individual always and must be brought out.

Faith is the means through which principle is discerned and applied. First, faith is resting the mind of its own activities to gain new impetus. Secondly, it is relying on that impetus until it produces results. Faith is a sort of mental transformer whereby unaccomplished things or un-manifest powers are brought to manifestation.

Jesus said, "I have nothing save that which comes in the name and through the power of Christ," putting himself in direct receptivity to spiritual intuition at all times. What Jesus did was really a lesson in how each man should proceed in every phase of life. That you might be one with the Father even as he was one with the Father, and his contact was always through the Christ, The Word of God, that is the inner fact of all men. "Christ is all and in all" and Christ is the inner reality of each individual. (Hence all are Adepts {Christed} when Self realized)

The secret of Jesus' power was in his complete reliance upon what he felt moving in his deepest nature and which he called the Father within. The law of God is written in your inward parts, and to outwardly obey what is moving within is to bring the inner capacity into outer manifestation. That which moves in the deepest side of mans nature is the inward action of the Universal Principal.

There is only one kind of intuition just as there is only one kind of physical sight. You can, through your eyes, look toward and discover anything you wish. You may look for beauty and ugliness and use the same sight. One is desirable and the other undesirable. You may train your intuition to search out the determining principle and its operations; you can train it into psychic planes and find out what is going on there; or you can train in on your neighbor and discover his secret thought and motives. Bit, intuition turned in any other direction than to discover the operations of the Principle itself is perversion of this sense back of all senses and hypnosis is the result, for it clouds the clear perception of the individual.
The only way to escape any degree of hypnosis is to train the intuition into channels of direct knowing. This is the path of light and any perversion of the intuitive sense is the path of darkness.

Intuition is only another avenue through which consciousness may be increased. Through intuition one gains the inner facts of life. Trained to the Omniscience of God or the all-enfolding intelligence (Absolute), man can understand anything or any situation from the viewpoint of absolute knowing.

The old theory of occultism that the senses must be destroyed or killed or reversed is not in accordance with teachings of the pure scientific philosophy. We say that all is Spirit, that the senses are Spirit but must be so used and their true spiritual significance preserved. They become avenues of expression of that which the intuition learns as coming from the Spirit. This direct knowing is also direct manifestation. If we would accept that fact which is revealed in Principle, that fact would be immediately manifest to us. It is just that easy. The Western intellect has simply submerged it in its complexities.

The outer senses are avenues or outlets through which we express inward knowledge to the outward world. The outer senses should not be condemned or destroyed. In doing so you would destroy your outlets into the world. See to it that the function of your whole being lines up with the innermost tendencies of your nature until you express what you are in the sight of God

When you rightly understand the nature of what you call matter as pure Spirit substance, then you can see just why this is true. The spiritual scientists say "compress the cube and you have a different substance. Expand it and you have a different substance." You do not define this as material or physical substance, as in the compression or expansion you do not change its nature, but only the relative position of the atoms. Water or ice is just as much H2O, regardless of its form, and this power of expansion and contraction is the fourth dimension of it. Likewise, the power of extending anything from one magnitude to another by the simple rearrangement of the atoms is its fourth dimension and does not change its inherent character. If all things are made of spiritual substance, there is no dividing line between what we have called Spirit and its manifestation. Only when man is under a state of hypnosis does he imagine that there is something besides the unity of all things and the oneness of all things. Through this state of hypnosis he imposes false influences into form and these distortions are the fabrications of his own ignorance.

To know the true nature of all things, not as separated or isolated divisions, but as one and the same thing in different stages of progression, is to be possessed of the power and dominion that belongs to you as a product of One First Cause(To inherit your Birthright)

Rejection of "authority" as an excuse to use scientific terminology in non-scientific ways. Well, that's certainly never been tried before.

Blathering nonsense is easier than doing real science, and to the person who doesn't understand anything of consequence about the actual science, for example, legitimate discussions about quantum mechanics are probably indistinguishable from their own inane ramblings.

Rejection of authority?... Now that's dramatic. I suppose I could expect that.
Blathering nonsense regarding boundaries of exclusivity, when detailing science and non science is easily distinguishable in regards to expanded awareness and experience of reality.

Obviously you can't force the intellect to expand beyond its boundaries.

Those with the eyes to see... and the ears to hear....

Zephir wrote:
"You're pretending, you've something to say about subject, while you can only parotte foreign ideas. Are you coming from East Asia or some collectivistic country?"


Am I alone in finding this a very offensive statement and question?

"Rejection of authority?... Now that's dramatic"
Apparently you do not actually read the screeds that you cut-n-paste.

I read and I comprehend what is behind the script and the direction and intention of the message.
In order to understand the attachment to authority one does not try to reject the dysfunctional behavior because that only rubs the wound. When you understand the dysfunctional tendency to believe everything you hear or read from some source that is democratically proposed as truth you give up the refined cognitive functions of intuition in the awareness of reality.
Or simply put, accepting something as truth without the extended experience, mindless interpretation and belief.
There is no thing, good or bad that is not of interpretation and belief. Separating good from evil or visa versa, perpetuates illusion and you become part of the problem you identify with.

You aren't really understanding the read....Understanding comes with evolving consciousness.
Hence the term evolution has a spiritual side in that what we see as change in the outer world is relevant, or reflected by the change that is realized in the inner awareness of self and reality.

"You aren't really understanding the read....Understanding comes with evolving consciousness."
Yea. It's completely obvious that your, like, advanced intelligence puts you on a completely different plane of existence and consciousness.

Claiming to know the truth is not the same thing as actually knowing the truth. Many people claim to know mutually exclusive truths. This brings us to a fundamental difference between real and pretend knowledge - the actual search for truth as opposed to an attempt to confirm one's Ego.

"...attempt to confirm one's Ego."
The same prodigious humility that makes you assert that you have truth is what allows you to 'write' that sentence with a straight face.

No that would be an attempt to degrade the truth by making it personal and exclusive. Tho the truth is exclusive to those that Know the Truth rather than pretend to know thru relative idealism....
And Truth is non invasive. It doesn't force its way through free will and the choice to be ignorant of it. It is realized thru the humility of a conscious return to awareness of awareness.
Consciousness recognizing consciousness or God recognizing God.

I met this woman online who insisted she was Mary, Mother of God. She was adamant. Her incoherent babbling didn't make any less sense than your messages - and she was just as convinced she had the truth. OTOH, her conviction produced as much value to society as theosophy (both decidedly less than actual science).

Some people look at television snow and see alien messages. Others look at theosophical texts and discern truth. They're equally correct.

I've been visited by the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both claimed to speak of the truth and their exclusivity in the knowledge of God and religion. Not unlike your speeches toward science and the exclusivity of it in its definition by what you call a scientist. You and they are alot alike. They don't make sense to me either.
It would seem we are at loggerheads..

Not by what *I* call a scientist. What the vast majority of practicing scientists mean by the term. Why not just call your philosophy "theosophy." That way people won't be confuse it with what everyone else means by the term.

Theosophy hasn't contributed to the understanding of the genome, of the development of treatments for AIDS or an understanding of the universe. But it must have contributed *something* besides babble; otherwise, you wouldn't be so insistent that it's all scientific and such. If you are clear that you're talking theosophy then other people will recognize the inherent truth of the thing and won't confuse it with feeble science.

The "I" that has no flexibility to incorporate the many ideas surrounding an experience, isolates its self and its ideas from all other self's and their ideas.

There is a story about three blind men who would get together once a week when their families would travel into town to shop for their supplies. The families would gather in the center of town where they would leave their blind relatives to visit with each other as they went about their business.
The three would be busy chatting about whatever was of interest to them personally during the course of the previous week, sharing their experiences and catching up on the latest gossip.

One day a traveler passed through town on an elephant. The event was something to speak of since not many elephants passed through their part of the country.
The town instantly came alive with the excitement of the event. The three old men were wondering what all the excitement was about and asked some boys they heard passing by what was making everyone excited.
"“There’s an elephant passing thru the town,” one of the boys replied."

“"I'’ve never seen an elephant, nor do I know what it might look like",” said the blind man. "“Neither have we" said the other two together.”

The boys, somewhat amused that the three blind men didn’'t know what an elephant looked like immediately offered to take them to the elephant, to let them experience for themselves what an elephant might look like.
The boys being somewhat mischievous thought it might be fun to play a trick on the three men when they arrived, so when they came to the elephant they took them each to a different part of the elephant to feel the elephant and experience it.

The first was led to the Leg where he felt around the rough skin, and upward to what seemed a gigantic immovable object firmly planted in the ground.
He was then led back to his friends who listened to his description of a beast, “"So big and solid, it was like a Tree standing firmly in the ground."
”
The second man was then led up to the front of the elephant where he began exploring the long trunk of the beast, the elephant being uncomfortable with the grasping hands of the man twitched his trunk sending the man flying to the ground. When the boy led him back to his friend he gasped in exasperation, “"This elephant is a wild snake, most unpredictable and dangerous."” The first man said to them, “"This cannot be, you cannot have touched the same beast as I."
”
Finally the third man was led to climb upon some stacked crates at the side of the elephants head and his hands guided to the ear. As he explored the huge ear he exclaimed, "“Finally, I have solved this mystery, neither of my two friends have accurately described this elephant for it is like a giant living carpet."
”
The boys thoroughly amused with themselves led the men back to the square where they argued over which description and experience was the correct one.

For the next few weeks the men relentlessly argued over the differences in their experience of the elephant.

Then one day, a man who had a reputation of being a wise sage and a great healer happened to be passing thru town and caught wind of the arguing blind men.
He listened to their arguments of the elephant, each describing the different experiences and refusing to acknowledge any truth in either of their friend’s experience.

The sage then stepped into the conversation and introduced himself. The three friends having heard of the sage asked if he could settle this dispute once and for all.
He then said to them, "”Your blindness far exceeds your physical senses, it is not your eyes that do not see but your beliefs in the separation of your experiences. If you were to work together to discover the truth of the elephant I would heal your eyes that you may truly see this elephant for yourselves."
”
The sage promised to return the following month to see if they could come to any new conclusions regarding their experiences of the elephant.

Again in the weeks to follow, much to the irritation of their respective families, they talked incessantly about their experiences of the elephant, trying to solve the mystery of their differences.
Finally one of the three men remembering the snickering boys as they were each led to the elephant, suggested that maybe they had been misled to experience different parts of the elephant and neither had quite grasped the entirety of the elephant at all.
This started the men to thinking about incorporating their experiences, and to piece together the mystery of this beast.
The first man said, “Perhaps this tree that I had wrapped myself around was only a leg of this huge beast, and the snake one of many tentacles of this hideous creature, and the huge living carpet, a wing or some other appendage.”
And so the contemplation continued until the sage would arrive.

At the end of the month the sage returned with an elephant and to see if the three blind men had come to any conclusions in their quest for truth.
He went to the square where the men were waiting anxiously for his return and greeted them on his approach.

"Have you come to a conclusion regarding the argument of what the elephant looks like?" he asked.

"We have come to the conclusion that each of our experiences is valid. Even though our experiences and descriptions are different we have come to think that we have each a piece of the puzzle. We think we were misled by the boys who led us to different parts of this huge beast to deliberately set us apart in our experiences of the elephant. Together we think we can get closer to the truth rather than separately, but unfortunately we have only had one brief experience of the beast and without further examination would not be able to accurately solve the puzzle."”

“"Very good,"” said the sage, "“If you would please follow me I think we can put an end to this mystery.”" He then led the three blind me to the elephant.
There he stopped and produced a salve which he administered to the eyes of each of the three blind men.
Within a few short minutes they each exclaimed that they were beginning to see shadow and light. Following that, the vision of the elephant became clear to each of them and they saw for the first time the huge leg that the first man had described as a tree, the long twisting trunk which was first thought to be a snake, and the third man exclaimed, "“Look, look, the carpet is the beasts ear!"
”
The sage turned to each of them and said, "“Each man is born with the senses to experience life, yet we each will experience it as we wish to experience it. God and his creation are not set in any stone or single experience but lives in all experiences. To fully understand God's creation one must not exclude any part, or the experience of someone who does not see or experience the same as another, one must integrate all of the experiences or parts of the whole in everyone’s experience to see the whole more clearly."


If you insist on boxing the universe up into definitions, or if you insist on taking the infinite possibilities of discovery and isolate them from you because you don't like what others see or say. You will miss something that might show you the way.

There is a another story a Doctor once told me.
Years ago there was a medical convention. A large group of doctors got together to discuss new discoveries from all around the world. One man spoke up and said he had some ideas regarding the prevention of cervical cancer. By taking cell samples and applying a certain process one might recognize characteristics within the cells that would eventually develop into cancer.
The man was laughed out of the convention by his peers.
That man was George Papanicolaou (1883-1962), a Greek-born physician and scientist who moved to the U.S. In 1923. He developed the pap smear which is used by doctors all over the world today to detect cancerous cells in the uterus.

Just 'cause you don't like the name or idea someone else comes up with, don't mean it's not gonna fit into your experiences or answer your questions.
Prejudice deludes the greatest of thinkers.

. Scientific Research Demonstrates the Supremacy of the Mind.

How does our mind make us sick? There has been some fascinating research over the past fifteen years which shows just how closely connected our minds are to our bodies: our habitual thoughts determine the state of our health and even our longevity.

One of the earliest and most interesting studies was performed on some rabbits at Ohio University in the seventies.
The scientists were attempting to prove the relationship between a toxic, high cholesterol diet and hardening of the arteries.
They thought that if they fed the rabbits' high cholesterol food, they should logically develop high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries and the other symptoms we have learned to associate with heart disease, which is still the largest killer in the Western world.
The experiment was going along very well, with most of the bunnies developing the expected symptoms, except for one group of rabbits that were not having the expected results. The scientists just couldn't understand it -- they were feeding the rabbits in this group the same high cholesterol food, but the rabbits just weren't developing any of the predicted symptoms. No high blood pressure. No hardening of the arteries. No hypertension. Nothing.
Fortunately for the study, and unfortunately for the rabbits, the technician who was feeding that particular group of rabbits fell ill. Almost immediately, her rabbits started developing the expected symptoms! Naturally the scientists were curious as to why and asked her what she had done differently.
"Why nothing," she said, "I fed the rabbits the food as you told me to. I took them out of their cages, held them, stroked them, and sang to them, fed them. Wasn't this right?"
It was the same food, but the rabbits' minds turned the high cholesterol food into other channels, which protected their health! The scientists were amazed. They thought they were studying hardening of the arteries; they were really studying the effects of love. They tried this over and over again and found that rabbits that were loved simply wouldn't fall ill as readily.
Isn't this amazing? And this was just rabbits, not even people! How can love change the effect of food?

So the moral is: if you're going to eat Big Macs, sit on your boyfriend's lap or if you are a boy, have your girlfriend sit on your lap while you're eating it.

Our minds control affect our bodies. You've probably heard of the placebo effect? 30% of patients can be given a chalk tablet and told that they will get well and they do get well. There is also a nocebo effect. A physician tells a patient, "I'm very sorry to tell you, Mrs. Jones, but your breast cancer has metastasized throughout your internal organs; you'll be dead in six weeks." If Mrs. Jones believes her doctor, her body will respond and kill her.

For decades, surgeons assumed that if you were unconscious during surgery, it didn't matter what was said in the operating room. But it was found that what is said affects the likelihood of recovery! If they open you up and say, "Oh, look at that, it's worse than we thought -- " then your chance of recovery goes way down. The more positive the surgeon's remarks, the greater the chance of recovery. The power of the mind is awesome.

In a study of four hundred spontaneous remissions of cancer interpreted by Elmer and Alyce Green of the Menninger Clinic there was only one factor in common -- every person changed his or her attitude before the remission occurred, fundamentally changed his or her way of thinking, became more hopeful, courageous, positive. They somehow broke through the collective consciousness, through their self-destructive beliefs and programs and changed their minds on a fundamental level, deep inside. And so they were "miraculously" cured.

The collective belief system extends deeply into our minds. Did you know that our society has even given us a standard time to die? I'm not kidding! There is a day and a time when it is more likely you will die than any other? Do you know when that is?
9 AM on Monday morning. Why is that? It just seems easier to die than face another week of this horrible job! This is a truly remarkable achievement of our species. Presumably no other species recognizes which day Monday is. The power of the mind is everything.

Some scientists at the University of Miami a few years ago heard of the rabbit study in Ohio and decided to do an experiment to see if this effect might also hold true for humans. They decided to do a study on preemies -- premature babies -- because in intensive care, they are very expensive and the rate of survival is not that high. What are we, seventeenth in the world for infant mortality? Not so hot. So three times a day for fifteen minutes, wearing rubber gloves, the technicians stroked the tiny babies inside their intensive care units. They didn't call it "stroking," of course; they called it "tactile kinesthetic stimulation," which is the Orwellian term for stroking. God forbid we should call it love!
These scientists concluded that tactile kinesthetic stimulation is cost effective, for these preemies gained an average of 49% more weight per day, which meant that they were discharged from intensive care an average of five days earlier for a saving of $3,000 per admission. The amazing thing to me about this study is that it ever had to be done! How could our doctors and scientists have become so absurdly divorced from common sense to have to do a study to prove this, a fact that any mother knows? My heart especially grieves for the preemies in the control group at the University of Miami who didn't have the good fortune to experience tactile kinesthetic stimulation. But the good news is that most hospitals are embracing this information and are permitting more contact with newborns. Physical contact for newborns is vital to ensure proper development and growth.

Dr. Herbert Specter at the National Institute performed another study that illustrates this mind-body connection even more graphically for Health -- this one on some mice. Dr. Specter divided the mice into two groups. One group was the control group; he gave a potent immune-system-stimulating drug called Poly I-C to the other. Poly I-C increases the number of killer T-cells in the immune system. When he gave the drug to the mice, he also exposed them to the smell of camphor. It is a pungent-smelling material that most drug stores sell in the form of little white cubes. People think it helps with congestion and breathing problems. It is impossible to forget the scent once you've smelled it. It's the active ingredient in Campho-Phenique. Dr. Specter treated the mice for a few weeks with the Poly I-C and the camphor, and then took the drug away and just let them smell the camphor. Do you know what happened? Their immune systems were still stimulated -- they had become mighty mice -- no bacteria could make them sick, no tumors would develop if they were exposed to cancer- causing agents.
Another group tried this the opposite way at the University of Rochester. They took rats and administered a potent immune-system-destroying drug, cyclophosphamide -- cyclophosphamide is used in organ transplants, it keeps the body from rejecting the new organ -- and at the same time gave them a taste of saccharine-sweetened water, substituting this for camphor as a neutral agent. After doing this, a number of times, they took the drug away and just allowed the rats to taste the water. With just the smallest taste of the sweetened water, they would fall sick, develop tuberculosis or pneumonia from the slightest intrusion of bacteria or develop cancer from a very slight exposure to a carcinogen. Do you see what's going on here? The two groups were interpreting a completely neutral agent differently.
This shows how much our interpretation of reality influences our experience of reality. If we have learned to associate bad health or unhappiness with our experience of life, it becomes a very difficult habit to break.

Think of a set of twins. Both have identical backgrounds, both have the same parents, the same heredity, the same environment; they are treated virtually the same. What happens? One grows up to be successful and happy, has a wonderful family, lives to a ripe old age. The other becomes an alcoholic and is dead by thirty-six. What causes the difference? The interpretation of reality. Our society may have deeply programmed condemnation and judgment into us, and we may have learned to look at all of life and say, "Oh, bad, the glass is half empty." But it is just as easy to say, "Oh, good, the glass is half full." And that is completely within our power.

It is the mind that is dominant. In Massachusetts, a group of scientists were studying the risk factors for heart disease because about 50% of those who contract this fatal killer didn't fit any of the known profiles: they didn't smoke, they didn't have a high cholesterol diet, they didn't even have hypertension, and yet they had a myocardial infarction, a heart attack, and died. Why?

These scientists found that they could ask two very simple questions to determine whether a person was likely to have heart problems. Do you know what these two questions were? First, "Do you like your job?" If you could say, "Yes," to this, your risk of heart attack falls by 50%. And second, "Are you happy?" And again a, "Yes," answer drops your risk of heart attack by another 50%. What is the difference between health and disease? It seems more and more it is determined by our thoughts, our beliefs, the way we use our minds.
Another study showed that if you do happen to have a heart attack, your chance of recovery is virtually 100% if you are happily married. This was found much more important than diet, exercise or smoking. The mind controls the body, not the other way around. The old thinking was that the body was dominant and the mind was a ghost in the machine, a fantasy. But if you take the body away, the mind remains! This was confirmed by Karl Lashley, a pioneer in neurophysiology. He trained rats to run in a maze, and then began to systematically remove their brain tissue. He kept taking out more and more and found that their brains worked just fine. He took out as much as 90% and the rats still could run the maze!

The average lifespan of a Doctor is about 57 years, yet we have given these doctors the authority over our health.

Theosophy has been called many things. Within those many things are known the above basics of the influence of belief, opinion and idealism of the ego.
Science is responsible for every mechanical and medical advancement within civilization that has contributed to the poisoning of the mind and the earth. With every question that is answered so does it also create a dozen more questions.

Science without a heart is like a mind without conscience. Science without religion is the same thing.
There is dogma in religion and science.

Examples of self proclaimed deities and generalization regarding theosophy are all based on prejudice and small thinking. People taste a bad apple once and give up apples for life because of the limited perceptions of one idea they follow.
It is good to be wise about the choices we make to avoid stamping prejudice and narrow mindedness into our belief systems.

The odds that you're going to show anyone the way, except by way of negative example, are infinitesimal.

"Science is responsible for every mechanical and medical advancement within civilization that has contributed to the poisoning of the mind and the earth. "

Good. It's pompous crock, but we've at least established your personal opinion of science. Wonder if you'll feel the same way when your kid needs an antibiotic.

Despite your comic book understanding of science that drives you to hate the genuine article, you nevertheless want to associate your cult with science, because most people know that science is successful. Down deep, even you know it. But doing real science is too hard. You have to like, learn math and stuff. Blathering obscurantist bullcrap is a lot easier.

The reasons you give, in exemplifying science as greater than Theosphical exploration is, and has been, by negative example of anything other than your beliefs and opinion.

No, you've decidedly established my personal opinion of science. I'm talking about the reality that man is not infallable, and science is tainted by the beliefs, inadequacies, opinions and shortfalls of mans conscious morality.
For all of the great medical discoveries, there has been a by-product of medical waste created by the industry. For all of the chemicals and discoveries in chemical applications for convenience, there is pollution of groundwater, food and air that we as humans depend on for life. Man has not shown the ability to yet create itself without equally proving that it can destroy itself in the process. Science within your terms has not shown that it can instill moral character or conscious awareness.

I think we can all thank human invention and scientific endeavor for the steady flow of antibiotics that come from out of our tap water. And as more of us piss out the antibiotics we take, the more we can guarantee our children a prescription ready made in their food and water.

Taking into consideration the need of the ego to be infallible and the fear of being wrong, I can understand your rant, as well as the lack of comprehension in this discussion.
It is common to emotionally react, often easier to lose perspective in personal defense than it is to think and be objective in a conversation when you are emotionally attached to a belief.

"No, you've decidedly established my personal opinion of science."

"I'm talking about the reality that man is not infallable, and science is tainted by the beliefs, inadequacies, opinions and shortfalls of mans conscious morality."
Actually, you said a lot more than that. You did indeed state your opinion of science, but have tried to state it as if it were some objective truth.

"Taking into consideration the need of the ego to be infallible and the fear of being wrong,"
I relish finding out that I'm wrong - hence my user name. I look forward to being educated by people who know more than I do, who are smarter than I am, who have worked on some particular problem or some general problem for extended periods of time. I experience this very often - nearly every day of my life. Sometimes I experience it on this forum, but not so much of late.

There's a lot more to being objective than simply talking in third person. There's a lot more to understanding than simply spewing intricate nonsense. There is a thing called modern science. And you could actually learn some of it, if you were to pick up a few books. Pick a branch - any branch. Drink deeply. Eschew the shallow draughts.

I made reference to the notion that science is linked to mans idea of humanity. Within the extremist point of view where dogma takes over sensibility and religion is created with a label, pasted on a point of view.
Your point of view regarding science would fit comfortably into that idea.
There is a lot more to learning than decidedly denying everything that is not of the mainstream democratic authority. Stretching the mind in a visionary fashion, learning something that cannot be learned from a book, and experiencing something within yourself that is so diverse that it could be twisted by any level of the imagination but still relevant to all of life. The kind of thing that books are written about and interpreted as intricate nonsense by those who wish to remain complacent and within the box of belief, be they scientific or religious.

Rather than sipping only from the shallow draughts of belief in a constantly evolving point of view in theory and application, one could drink deeply from the unbounded absolute, which is constantly supporting everything in creation, including scientific/religious belief.
There, one discovers ones Self, and the meaning of life. From that foundation of experience science becomes supportive of evolution with a greater sense of being a part of all life rather than outside of it. Every thought feeling and action is always in accord with every one, and every belief, rather than distracted by the concerns in the differences and judgments of personal opinion and egoic bigotry.

"There is a lot more to learning than decidedly denying everything that is not of the mainstream democratic authority."

There is a lot more to science that just criticizing without understanding. If all of science were proven wrong tomorrow, theosophy would still be religion and not science, and your posts would still be nonsense.

Better to knowledgeably agree with the majority than to disagree in ignorance. None of your rambling rants, to include the theosophy ads, indicate even a remote understanding of science.

The majority once thought the world was flat. Today the majority is lost/hidden within the voice of the media, which professes to speak for the majority along with the few like yourself, educated within the system who would like to represent themselves as that authoritative majority.

None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science, that would not be possible for you to know since we haven't really discussed scientific knowledge. What we have discussed is the label of science, and theosophy.
So far we haven't gotten much further than discussing your feelings for either label and by doing so, demonstrating what an opinion is.

"The majority once thought the world was flat. "
It has been a very long time since any person of science thought the world was flat. In fact, it was scientists and mathematicians who showed otherwise - and the religionists who insisted otherwise.

The majority also once thought that most people have legs. In this, the majority was and is right. Statements aren't true or false based on what the majority maintain - especially when the majority includes people with firm convictions about things of which they are entirely ignorant.

"None of my posts were to indicate a distinctive measure of my knowledge of science,"
And yet your lack of knowledge was revealed!

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
There are the facts and laws and theories of science and then there is the process of science - the principles upon which it operates. What is science is not determined by the former, but by the latter - the principles. And that is what determines whether something gets the label of science. The fact that you ignore this or are unaware of it or just plain don't see the relevance is unimportant. Despite your best attempts to conceal the source and motive of your convictions, your contempt of actual science has been revealed.

Obscurantists despise the respect that science has rightfully earned in society and they envy it. As I have said in this forum several times before. They use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their cults:

The first is to show how, after all, their own cultish beliefs are supported by science - indeed their beliefs augment and improve upon science.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of science.

"What we have discussed is the label of science"
You can't establish the correct label of a thing without determining whether the label is correctly applied. You don't understand what the label means - and so you don't have any problem at all applying it to your cult.

TT



I believe that you hit upon something here , your "educated within the system" seems to cover most Practicing scientist
view concerning the subject !!

in my opinion evoloution is no more a science than computer science is a science , in computer science - programming .. is no more than a set of instructions that are fed into a computers memory by a program and the computer runs the set of instructions to perform certain desired opperations.

basicaly computers and the programming of computers and their peripherials are no more than a few machines that you need to know how to communicate with and how to let them communicate with each other ...

computer science is more of a language not a science.

evolution likewise is a set of instructions that define how
the species have changed over the milenia.

the only problem is that evolution seems to think the computer
evolved from a grain of silicone that just appeared all over the world back in the cambrian explosion and it programed itself to perform the different task needed ... LOL

But the theosophists (Adepts) knew, even before the scientists discovered it wasn't flat, all while the religionists were arguing with the scientists over issues of definition and belief.


And based on your comments made previously in another thread: ...errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.
There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong. We might agree that science as you would like to define it, is not a majority but a system living within a majority. Self correcting in that what it applies itself to incorrectly, it may be ignorant of. Such might be the case regarding any application to something that cannot be disproved by science, regardless of whether scientists decide to distance themselves from it because it doesn't fit in to their scientific box.


In your mind, you determined I don't qualify to belong to your definition of ideals, that is clear.

Good at least we have narrowed your determination to a personal opinion rather than any truth in whether I agree with the principles and how I see them apply to both science and theosophy.


I have no contempt for science.. that'd be your delusion not mine.




Those that would like to dogmatically isolate science from inquiry, despise the social interest that Theosophy reflects in society, and they envy it. After all when you think about the idea that over 90% of the population believes there is a God of some sort, by your determination science should without proof that God does not exist listen to the majority.

Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists, use two paradoxical approaches in their attempts to raise the awareness of their scientific beliefs against spiritual inquiry:

The first is to show how, their own cultish beliefs are scientific - indeed their beliefs attempt to nullify any experience one might have of their God by testimony that there is no scientific process or instrument that can prove a God of any experience exists or does not exist.

In the other, they attempt to portray, amply, and exaggerate the failings of Theosophy.




by the very definition of Science:
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Theosophy as I know and experience it, regardless of your input in the form of sweeping generalities applied to superstition and projection, is a science.

Dictionaries supply very generic definitions of terms. That's why specialists use subject specific dictionaries - medical dictionaries, law dictionaries, science dictionaries, etc.

On the other hand, if one's motive is to confuse rather than to elucidate, it makes a lot of sense to use as broad a definition as possible in the hopes that some prospective subject of indoctrination might conflate the various definitions.

"Fanatic isolationalists who call themselves scientists,"
You incorrectly apply the term "isolationist" here. Most scientists recognize there is a relationship between science and society and many scientists, philosophers, and historians try to understand and clarify that relationship. The isolationism that you refer to is one where someone from outside of science is attempting to confuse the subject matter by changing the definition of science so that it might include a support for their particular cult.

So labeling self inquiry as a cult, a scientist wishing to leave the broad spectrum and write his own dictionary describing himself and his personal ideals, would wish to make his prejudice specifically known by taking liberties in including his emotional deficiencies and label a person or a persons ideas as being specific to his determined category..I get your drift.
No, I believe I applied it quite correctly.
You say: most scientists recognize there is a relationship between science and society and many scientists, philosophers, and historians try to understand and clarify that relationship.

A good scientist then would be intelligent enough and without prejudice to include history and philosophy within their field rather than to operate without the influence and to isolate themselves from those influences labeling them cults.

"So labeling self inquiry as a cult, a scientist wishing to leave the broad spectrum and write his own dictionary describing himself and his personal ideals"
Nonsense. Didn't say that. Can't be reasonably inferred from what I said.


"A good scientist then would be intelligent enough and without prejudice to include history and philosophy"
A good scientist would know the limitations of actual science. The opinion of people who are not remotely engaged in actual science regarding what is or what is not "good science" isn't relevant.

"isolate themselves "
A central method of theosophy appears to be the practiced, systematic, and meticulous abuse of language.

I would think a scientist wouldn't reasonably infer that someone who is motivated toward self inquiry would be labeled as cultist and make sweeping generalities towards self inquiry as being limited to superstition and delusions the way you have.


If you never really understood the nature of self exploration and the thousands of years of documentation toward that endeavor I would call you a man of limitation. If that is the limitation you refer to in science I can relate.

Ah, the appearance of being a victim rather than a creator of your own world experience is the hallmark of ignorance in theosophy. Ignorance is the meticulous abuse of labels and identity due to the mis-comprehension of reality or the inability to see and hear with a clear intellect. It always separates ones self from everything.

Science.. "...errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.
There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong."

Perhaps your interpretations are just plain wrong.. Self correction would require some small amount of humility with the ability to recognize the truth in contrast to error. You seem intent on proving a point of view regarding how specialized and righteous science is, while labeling anything other, (in this particular conversation) that would fit within your scientific determination, as cult-ish.

"I would think a scientist wouldn't reasonably infer that someone who is motivated toward self inquiry would be labeled as cultist "
1. not everyone who says they are "motivated towards self inquiry" is in reality.
2. even if it were true, that's not the reason you are referred to as a cultist.

"If you never really understood the nature of self exploration and the thousands of years of documentation toward that endeavor I would call you a man of limitation."
Once again you demonstrate a profound ignorance of science. The limitations of modern science are those things which delimit the scope of what can adequately be addressed by it. The rest of the stuff might actually be unknowable. (Pretending to know things counts in theosophy, but not in science.)

"the appearance of being a victim rather than a creator of your own world experience "
Change of subject. Never said anything about being a victim. Never hinted at it. Nor can it be reasonably inferred from any post I have made.

"Ignorance is the meticulous abuse of labels"
There is no end of your abuse of language. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Abuse is intentional misrepresentation, which is the fundamental mode of operation of theosophy.

"Self correction would require some small amount of humility"
Humility would require someone actually know something about a subject (science) before trying to hijack a forum dedicated to its discussion.

Oh? Please enlighten me by splitting more hair.



Pretending to know things in theosophy is still pretending to know.



Can so. I'm speaking of levels of consciousness and how one comprehends reality. The idea and experience of what one can see with the developed faculties of the physical senses, and what one can't see when the senses are underdeveloped. The evolutionary ascent of man into awareness of reality.



I remain convinced you have no knowledge of extrasensory perception, and no knowledge of theosophy, and as such all indications of judgment without knowledge an abusive and misrepresentation of said subject. I.E. ignorance.


The knowledge required to know truth and the ability to be correct would require mastery of a subject rather than some knowledge. You haven't demonstrated you have any mastery in the subject of theosophy but have hinted toward the idea that science in your opinion has with the presentation of some knowledge or idea of theosophy, determines it to be of a non scientific nature and that my approach has hijacked the thread.

Sheesh. You're a blinding light of intellectual and spiritual inspiration.

"Pretending to know things in theosophy"
Knowing is such a vague term when applied by people who abuse language. Still, inowing about is not the same as knowing in.

"I remain convinced you have no knowledge of extrasensory perception"

"Knowledge of" is ambiguous. Back in the day I did quite a bit of reading in ESP - a sufficient amount to convince me that it's mostly fraud and self-deception.


I do not claim to have mastery of the subject of theosophy. Nor does one need to have mastery of it to state with reasonable certainty that it is incompatible with the practice of actual science.

"Sheesh. You're a blinding light of intellectual and spiritual inspiration."
Playing tinlike may make you feel good, but it doesn't do anything to increase actual understanding - yours or anyone else's.

You mean knowing of and knowing? You haven't yet convinced me you know anything about theology let alone decidedly established a knowing in. By the way some think spelling incorrectly is abusive to language..just a thought..



I see..... reading a book or books on ESP is like reading a book or books on brain surgery. You suppose it would make you a brain surgeon?
You convinced yourself after reading a book, or books....now that is something, if not at least.. entertaining.




OK. I can like a person who can make a claim toward something he has an opinion of. I have met quite a few. Nice people, who live their lives and die happy.



Its all a matter of perspective ain't it. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

I have read books on ESP and I have read numerous scientific articles and I have witnessed alleged ESP events. In fact, I got to do a bit of debunking of some of them. I might relate one story in particular some time - not that you're interested, but someone who is genuinely open-minded, inquisitive and humble might be able to learn something important.

Also, I took a course in college called esoteric psychology in which we studied the psychology of belief (systems). A large part of the course was the study of religious experience, ESP, etc. Of course, actually studying under a real scientist doesn't count in the world of tinlike, but there you have it.

The comparison to neurosurgery is utterly ridiculous and dishonest. We know that brains exist. We do not know that ESP exists. When actual scientists get involved the alleged abilities vaporize.


"Have you looked in the mirror lately?"
Some people never get out of third grade.

Conversing with you is a complete waste of time. I could actually be reading something interesting and informative rather than reading your tripe. I could be learning and teaching from people who actually display humility and knowledge instead of talking about it.

Just go on living your arrogant, unintelligent delusion and excreting your pearls of distilled stupidity across the net.

The idea that you read books and took classes from/with naysayers, skeptics and disbelievers doesn't impress me. The history of the world is full of examples of disbelief and the evolution of awareness in which humanity takes a 180 degree turn to discover something they only ignored rather than could not see.
Card tricks and fortune telling comprises the majority of the superstitious thinking mind when it comes to the study of the enhanced senses, and since one who does not study the self hasn't the experience another has in the inward meditative process of enhanced perception, there is no comparison and no machine that can translate thought and experience into facts and data.
Such is the loss that takes place in mans narrow minded approach to those experiences he has not had nor will have as long as he decidedly rejects what he does not understand.

I agree this conversation has not produced anything in the way of change in your ability to accept your own prejudice. But never is planting seeds a waste of time. It's unfortunate but also typical of the evolving soul in that your mind is so set on a course of disbelief, and the authority for you is someone's opinion written and idealized in a book and authenticated by a group in belief. Such is the downfall of the awareness of reality that has occurred in religion and the church. Science from your descriptions and your beliefs is described much like a church made up of beliefs and thought patterns taken in a direction and limited by the minds inability to comprehend such as those things that have not been experienced or tagged by peer groups of belief and approved of.

C'est la vie.

"The idea that you read books and took classes from/with naysayers, skeptics and disbelievers doesn't impress me"

Impressing anyone is my a goal. I merely corrected your incorrect assertions. Impressing you is no more to be desired than impressing the drunks down at the local pub.

"...one who does not study the self ..."
There is a difference between actually studying and claiming to or believing that one studies a thing. Actual scientists are aware of the tendency of humans towards delusion and fraud and when actual scientific methods account for these things, the positive outcomes have a curious tendency to disappear. Your claims to study "the self" are comical.

"your own prejudice. "
Also comical.

Your slavish devotion to your cult prevents you from accepting that a person could carefully examine alleged claims and come to a negative conclusion. Anyone who rejects the inane claims of theosophy etc. is just accepting authority. This is a pretext for your not actually studying the subject, but in pretending to study the subject. Lots of people claim to "study" things or to have "done research" while their every word belies a gross misunderstanding of even the basics.

Evolution is a case in point. Not quite, but almost, universally, when we find a person who rejects evolution, we find a person who asserts he "has studied the subject" but who makes assertions that demonstrate unequivocally that he has not. Generally this is because of the comic book understanding of science, combined with the person's completely mistaken notion of what constitutes "research." It's as if you're trying to explain to a child the difference between reading and "reading critically" and the child stamps his feet down and says, "I AM READING CRITICALLY!" or "I AM STUDYING!"

Still waiting for you to say one intelligent thing on the subject of evolution (or anything else for that matter, but since this thread is about evolution, you could start there).

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.

People aren't simply convinced of evolution by the same way, like scientists aren't convinced concerning Aether hypothesis - despite of many logical reasons and evidences. The stance of both sides is equivalent and scientists have no right to criticize the others for their stance.

Everyone has the right to participate in reality to become self observant. Those that speak their mind from an emotionally attached position don't always recognize an objective point of view and aren't capable of taking in any perspectives that might clash with personal beliefs. This is the ego fearing the invalidation of ones ideals and the possibility that all of the idntification one has placed on ones beliefs and actions toward some meaning in life is less valuable than they thought.
Those that are attached to their ideals become less and less flexible, and unable to blend within the potential of the universe as their opinions narrow the walls of belief around them.
Everyone should have the ability to express themselves and everyone should, without being affected by differing opinions, develop the art of listening so that all can be seen and heard.
(better to be the eyes of three blind men than just one) Then one can take what they will without some sort of prejudice or fear that their world will be diluted by the fears and projections of the personal hell one creates within their own mind.

The universe is ultimately flexible enough to support all beliefs and opinions. Man however chooses to become thru his own free will, observant of the nature of the Universe, or thru belief and opinion label it, and narrow it, within his personal opinions, and to grasp on to the fear of losing ones identity within such a perception of space and time. To lose such an identity means death to the ego.
Man has from such a limited scope of vision as the ego, killed and fought to the death in order to maintain a position of identity.

It would appear that the ego which fears its own demise, will by its own principles of being, self destruct to preserve its identity.

As man evolves into greater awareness he finds less and less of a need to attach himself to ideals and beliefs which will change and evolve within the relative nature of self prescribed purpose and meaning that he projects upon reality.

In such a state of awareness man becomes less reactive and less likely turn to violence, and in such an awareness become more effective in creating solutions to problems created at the lesser state of awareness where the ego is self absorbed in personal gratification.

Perhaps evolved man will not need a science that can create a mechanism that can destroy the planet many times over, but rather in greater purpose, do away with the politics that attempt to preserve the ideals of the privileged at a cost that undermines the health and well being of the rest of humanity.

If you do google on some evolution related topic, a crap-load of non-science links pop up. Same thing in YouTube. On YT, the posts by people with an actual science background are swamped by those from people who don't know anything and are just spouting stupidity.

A good thing about the net is that there's a lot of *really* good stuff, both facts and ideas; a bad thing is that a huge amount of it is just crap, making the good stuff difficult to find. Of course lots of people present themselves as experts. No law against lying, being an idiot, or just cut-n-pasting stupidity.

Bending the topic slightly, it's not only evolution...

"Universe's age erased from Texas school science standards"

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/03/universes-age-erased-from-texa.html

red,
you may find the following video interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq4oA&feature=channel_page

He's from TX and has a strong interest in evolution education.

You're right - the same thing is common in other subjects - global warming, for example.

Fortunately God loves stupid people too.

Since there are so many opinions on what something should look like, (and that applies to any subject) it should stand to reason as the intellect evolves..that the subjectivity of any belief is going to be stretched and compacted over and over again so that the mind can narrow in on something greater than just the personal opinion and belief. Obviously dogma is not just limited to religious beliefs, nor is religion a package of idealism tagged to the morality of God.