---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Salyavin, I suppose like most of us, you'd like to have proof for some of the more far fetched theories about human evolution, ancient civilizations and the like. Yes, but I used to suffer from the "I don't know how they did it so it must have been aliens" thang myself. As I see it now I think it takes something away from our ancestors to think they needed help. Give them some credit! Same goes with evolution, to me the knowledge that everything got here under it's own steam is so much more awe inspiring than any divine intervention could be. it would make things so much more exciting. and yet there is a dearth of such evidence, or maybe the evidence is there in many cases, but just not pursued. obviously you have a higher threshold for buying into such events, or theories and I'd say you have thought through these things in a more thorough way than I have. my own forays into these areas leads me to believe that at least some of what we consider woo woo is actually true. but what is the use of staking a claim on it when there is scant evidence. Exactly. Our ancestors were clearly awesome in a lot of ways. so, yes, when you say these more evolved souls must have evolved, one can't really go any further without venturing farther into woo woo land. Exactly. Stick to what we know, if someone makes claims beyond what we know as normal it's wise to ask for greater evidence than usual. Any theories about super powers or ideas of a life beyond this one have to take into account how our normal experience or expectations made this jumping off into newer, unknown realms. How did that work? Are these realms waiting for us to discover them? Sounds unlikely to me, where did they come from? If god made them, how come he let us evolve the hard way? Siddhis too sound unlikely to me, as the mental faculties we have were evolved for a particular environment. That we can extend our minds beyond normal experiences begs the question of how evolution could have favoured using something that isn't already visible to us in everyday life. What type of thing would it make the mind if it could manipulate matter and explore the world telepathically, or even develop an opposition to gravity? This makes Darwinism one of the easiest theories to disprove - or at least suffer a seriously major rewrite - just demonstrate a siddhi and we're done... So, I'll just leave it at that. And, it's not that I really know how all of that has worked out. It's a work in progress for me, as well. Best way to be. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Help from more evolved souls at various points. Basically some of the woo woo stuff commonly dismissed. An example might be, pushing development from going in a more primate direction to a more human direction. Something along these lines. Well, the only comment I can make is that these more evolved souls must have, erm, evolved too! Um, no, I was not trying to slip in the notion of "God" with my comment. And it had nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality. I tend to believe that a various times an intervention occurred to push the progress of mankind in one direction or the other. An intervention from what then? I am intrigued... I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. Here's a thought for you to play with, the idea of an intervention implies a god right? If you are using the presence of homosexuality as proof that god intervened, wouldn't he have done so in the opposite direction? He isn't a notorious gay lover is he... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
