---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : I believe the concept of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof helps a bit. I believe it is also important to resist the tendency to fill in gaps. It is perfectly reasonable to say that you saw an object in the sky you could not identify, a UFO, but you don't have an reason to bring in the aliens without more evidence. You see that kind of cognitive jump by the crop circle dudes. "We don't know how these were made" is a world apart from "It could only be aliens!"
The hardest part is facing how much work it takes to be able to say we have a true anomaly. I believe that is a bigger factor than comfort zones in knowledge. Most of us would love to discover something new and unique, especially scientists. But many events require a high level of commitment before the evidence is worked out and scientists go with what they consider higher probability questions. Sure, we have to stay in our comfort zones. I guess there's a fine line between staying with what seems likely and logical, and being willing to venture into what we can't explain through conventional means. As I said, previously, there are enough anomalies that can't be explained with our present understanding of physical laws that would make one, or at least me, be open to possibilities that violate these physical laws at least as we presently understand them. And in many cases the only way to discount those anomalies is to dismiss them as the result of some undetected fraud. In other words, instead of acknowledging that there may be something behind the pale, we resort to this more comfortable explanation. 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
