Evolution, humanity and enlightenment

[James R]

Jan:

<i>It doesn't matter, the basic tenants are the same, evolution of the species. It still cannot be observed and therefore is non scientific at its core.</i>

Speciation has been directly observed under laboratory conditions.

<i>Are you saying that there are no fossils in the wrong order according to evolutionary time?</i>

Yes. At least, none have been found where the order couldn't be accounted for by some process for which there is other evidence.

It is true that some fossils are found in rock strata which seem to at first to be "out of sequence". Obviously, geologists have payed careful attention to such examples. There are numerous geological processes which can lift rock layers, turning them from horizontal to a vertical orientation, or even sometimes flipping them over. All you need to do is get a basic text on geology.

<i>If everything is product of matter, the body and all its functions also material, then the mind and body is just an elaborate machine. Right?</i>

Yes.

<i>So to bring a dead body back to life should be nothing more than fixing your car.</i>

No. When a living organism dies, decay starts immediately. This is particularly true of organisms as complex as the human body. If you starve cells of oxygen for even a short time, they start to die. They undergo practically irreversible processes of decay.

A car is a much much simpler thing than a human body. Sure, if we could replace all the dead cells with live ones, without upsetting other fundamental processes in the body, then perhaps we could revive a dead human being. However, that is currently far beyond the bounds of our current technology. We can build motor cars from scratch. Building a living thing from scratch (as opposed to growing one organically) is a much more difficult task.

<i>If a dead body could be brought back to life then the argument for evolution of the species will win hands down.</i>

I can't see why. Recussitation has nothing to do with evolution.

<i>It shouldn't be that hard, should it?</i>

At least read an introductory text on biology before you start making pronouncements like this one. Your lack of education in this area really shows.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Perhaps.

Why only perhaps?

Certainly consciousness has less affect upon survival than our ability to survive in an oxygen rich atmosphere, for instance.

Consciousness itself has nothing to do with survival. When our time comes, we die, end of story. It could be considered foolish to live our lives purely to survive.

Again, I suggest you read entire works and not just snippets that work to your advantage;

His wording is very clear, no matter what the context he affirms that 'evolution species' must necessarily have quite distinct bodily forms."

Perhaps you can be more specific. Seeing as evolution generally occurs on a timescale that is greater than the lifetime of any single individual I don't see where it would help.

Believe me....it would help.

Because it's a crucial question. All life needs sustenance. All life is either able to manufacture its sustenance by capturing and converting available energy (i.e. photosynthesis) or by consuming energy stored in another life form. Thus far, you have not provided an explanation; you have only claimed that none is needed. In that claim you are wrong.

I claimed no such thing. I said Lord Brahma was born on a lotus flower whose stem grew out of the abdomen of Lord Vishnu. Now try and work out where he got all his sustenance. I'm sure you are quite capable.

Religion has nothing to do with it at this point. We are talking about science.

Science is knowledge, therefore religion is a science, but not material science. If you could develop some patience you would find that all material science is explained perfectly in religious scripture, especially Vedic literature.

Why is my interest not enough to warrant an explanation?

If you had sincere interest, it would be my pleasure to go into deeper explanations.

You posited a hypothesis, either support it or admit that it is without factual support. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.

What is this...gun fight at the OK coral?
Whatever happened to people just talking, expressing views and ideas. This is not a debate, it is a discussion and as such you should chill and enjoy. :m:

Lets just live man!!!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Why only perhaps?

Because we still don't know exactly what consciousness is or how it works. It is therefore difficult to ascribe it particular qualities. Imagination may well be a quality that is specific to consciousness or perhaps it is a distinct and separate component of the mind.

Consciousness itself has nothing to do with survival. When our time comes, we die, end of story. It could be considered foolish to live our lives purely to survive.

As consciousness appears to be the component of the mind responsible for choice I find that it does indeed have some affect upon survival. But if it is not, how do you find that consciousness is involved in evolution?

His wording is very clear, no matter what the context he affirms that 'evolution species' must necessarily have quite distinct bodily forms."

I still disagree; what the heck are 'evolution species'? The term doesn't even make grammatical sense. Nor does this quote conform to what the term speciation means in current evolutionary science. It's either out of date, quoted incorrectly, or he has defined the term to mean something specific but this definition is not included. Or maybe it's not Normal Newell but someone else. Perhaps it's Bob Newell who came up with a theory of spontaneous composition in his garage. Without a proper reference the quotation is worthless. We have no basis for determining exactly what is meant or the authority of the person making it.

Believe me....it would help.

I don't believe unsupported claims Jan, so I'll ask again. Can you explain how it would help?

I claimed no such thing. I said Lord Brahma was born on a lotus flower whose stem grew out of the abdomen of Lord Vishnu. Now try and work out where he got all his sustenance. I'm sure you are quite capable.

No you did not. You said this:

"The vedic evolutionary process differs from the Darwinian in that the common ancestor is a super intellignt humanoid, not a single-celled bacterium. In addition, all species of life evolve from a complex form to the simple structure, not the other way round as Darwin suggested. Genes of a complex species contain all the necessary genetic information to build genes of simpler species, not vice-versa."

It's not my claim so I'm not obliged to support it.
Your new assertion simply sounds to me like a fairy-tale.

If you could develop some patience you would find that all material science is explained perfectly in religious scripture, especially Vedic literature.

Jan, I have spent the past 20+ years of my life studying religion, science, and basically anything that piques my interest or that I can wrap my greedy little mind around. I have all the patience necessary to read, listen, learn, discuss, and debate. I am entirely open to new ideas and am even willing to work within a paradigm, continuing to entertain and discuss its concepts after I have rejected the veracity of their arguments.

What I do not have patience for are people like you who make assertions and then run around dodging my questions regarding those assertions. People who avoid answering either don't know what they are talking about or have something to hide. In any case, I find them to be particular wastes of my time.

Vedic literature does not perfectly describe 'material' science. It can however, in many cases, be interpreted to conform to what 'material' science has discovered. Other religious texts make the same assertions. The problem is that this proclaimed 'knowledge' is almost never defined before the scientific discovery. If these texts contained such knowledge then why were the claims non-existent before the discovery? Why weren't Hindus proclaiming the quantum nature of existence prior to the scientific theory? Why weren't they decrying the theories of Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein as incorrect or incomplete? No, it is almost utterly in retrospect that one religion or another proclaims that science has verified the accuracy of the text. It's an obvious ploy that only convinces the ignorant and those unwilling to honestly assess the claim.

If you had sincere interest, it would be my pleasure to go into deeper explanations.

So you question my sincerity now?

Whatever happened to people just talking, expressing views and ideas. This is not a debate, it is a discussion and as such you should chill and enjoy.

Actually, most of what goes on here is indeed debate although it does not necessarily need to be. But it depends upon how you go about it, Jan. You made a statement to which James and I had a few questions and comments. You could have replied that you were just providing information as to the Hindu, or Vedic, interpretation and not positing it as an assertion. But you did not. You chose to engage in a discussion about it and we have progressed from there. If you wish to stop discussing it just say so but don't ask me to simply accept baseless assertions because I won't.

Not to worry though, I am thoroughly enjoying myself.

~Raithere

 

[spookz]

It can however, in many cases, be interpreted to conform to what 'material' science has discovered.

for instance...

1998, there were Sanskritists who "deconstructed" aspects of the Ramayana: one professor, wearing a ring in his left ear, speculated that when Hanuman "grew large" and lifted a mountain and transported it across the sea, it was merely a metaphor for Hanuman getting an erection after watching the many semi-clad and/or naked beautiful women in the gardens and palaces of Ravana.



If these texts contained such knowledge then why were the claims non-existent before the discovery?

claims in accordance to what? if the discoveries by the scientific method have not been made, what claims could be made? how would one attempt to verify texts that appear to have a mystical origin? insights contained in these texts were hardly made by "state of the art" tech and "cutting edge" theories. the hindus, as we do now, separate the scientific and religious domains. i doubt if a hindu scientist would buy into rig-veda stuff even in the old days

Why weren't Hindus proclaiming the quantum nature of existence prior to the scientific theory?

to whom? westerners? when? 4000/2000/100 yrs ago? who would listen? skeptics? would they not demand to hit it with a hammer? there are debates within hindu philosophies as to the nature of reality, there are different cosmologies propounded by various schools of thought. hindu philosopy is hardly monolithic and perhaps the expectation of a unified face or presentation to outsiders is unrealistic.

Why weren't they decrying the theories of Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein as incorrect or incomplete?

with some quasi religious text? you claim to know instances of east/west contact? expound on the copernicus and newton period. who were the players on either side? how would they go about this anyway. brandish the rig-veda wildly at euros and yell at the top of their voices?

No, it is almost utterly in retrospect that one religion or another proclaims that science has verified the accuracy of the text.

you appear to give equal weight to historical and scientific texts. you want the same degree of accuracy in millenium old texts when compared to modern stuff. why?

It's an obvious ploy that only convinces the ignorant and those unwilling to honestly assess the claim

personnally i think when old texts motivate an investigation, it is a cause for celebration. to be subsequently found to be factual in its assertion is the grand prize. there have been many instances of this. i see no need to emphasize the failures and cases of fraud

i think quantum physics has made religions a little less bogus

*pardon me. i am just ramblin

 

[spookz]

Roy is aware of the argument by skeptics that the attempts at finding scientific meanings in scriptures is that they are made only after the discovery of those scientific facts. But the importance of his work is that he has tried to show how the scientific meaning contained in the Vedas is in many ways different from what modern scientists/physicists have put forward. Let us look at the difference. I will just summarize a few major points.

VEDIC PHYSICS: Scientific Origin of Hinduism

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Because we still don't know exactly what consciousness is or how it works.

So for all we know, you and i communicating and having basic understanding of each others communication, may not even be consciousness!
Oooooh!!!!! Scary.

As consciousness appears to be the component of the mind responsible for choice I find that it does indeed have some affect upon survival.

So you're basing everything on how it appears huh?
While at the same time you do not even know exactly what it is.
This is hard work.

But if it is not, how do you find that consciousness is involved in evolution?

I don't know anymore. I'm all confused.

I still disagree; what the heck are 'evolution species'?

Species that evolve from other species i.e. monkey-man.

No you did not. You said this:

"The vedic evolutionary process differs from the Darwinian in that the common ancestor is a super intellignt humanoid, not a single-celled bacterium. In addition, all species of life evolve from a complex form to the simple structure, not the other way round as Darwin suggested. Genes of a complex species contain all the necessary genetic information to build genes of simpler species, not vice-versa."

1) Where exactly, is the claim that no explanation is needed?
2) And did i happen to mention the name of this super-intelligent humanoid and the process of his birth?

Your new assertion simply sounds to me like a fairy-tale.

And your problem with that is...............????????

I am entirely open to new ideas and am even willing to work within a paradigm, continuing to entertain and discuss its concepts after I have rejected the veracity of their arguments.

I don't thinks so. I wish it were so because i think we could have some good dialougues. This is part of your otherwise sharp and intelligent self, which is lacking.

Vedic literature does not perfectly describe 'material' science. It can however, in many cases, be interpreted to conform to what 'material' science has discovered.

I am not of that opinion.

Not to worry though, I am thoroughly enjoying myself.

At the end of the day Rait, that's what counts.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by spookz
claims in accordance to what? if the discoveries by the scientific method have not been made, what claims could be made? how would one attempt to verify texts that appear to have a mystical origin?

That's near to my point actually. These assertions are generally offered in such a way as to make it seem as if science is only verifying what religion had previously revealed. The problem is that upon examination one will find that in most cases the religious text was reinterpreted to conform to the scientific discoveries. Prior to scientific discovery the text was interpreted in a different way.

you appear to give equal weight to historical and scientific texts. you want the same degree of accuracy in millenium old texts when compared to modern stuff. why?

It's not a matter of what I desire but claim that is being made. We might, for instance, take a look at the interpretation of the Quran that indicates that the Universe is expanding. Yet upon researching this claim I found that this particular interpretation is only quite recent, it was established only after science had made the discovery. Prior to the discovery it was interpreted differently. Yet some would claim it as proof of scientific veracity within the Quran.

i think quantum physics has made religions a little less bogus

I don't see where.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So for all we know, you and i communicating and having basic understanding of each others communication, may not even be consciousness!

Consciousness is essentially a gestalt experience. When we attempt to reduce it into its constituent components it disintegrates or remains elusive. If we attempt to examine imagination we find that we can design computer programs that perform a function very similar to, if not in actuality, imagination. Yet we still would not consider a machine that performs such a function conscious.

So you're basing everything on how it appears huh?

I don't have any other facilities for examining the world other than my senses. Do you? One makes a hypothesis and then compares it to one's experience of the world.

This is hard work.
I don't know anymore. I'm all confused.

It is hard work and it's confusing as hell. But honestly, I enjoy the challenge. It's why I come here to test my own ideas and expose myself to the ideas of others.

Species that evolve from other species i.e. monkey-man.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced without more of the article to go on.

1) Where exactly, is the claim that no explanation is needed?

My bad, you didn't say that none was needed only that the question was insignificant.

2) And did i happen to mention the name of this super-intelligent humanoid and the process of his birth?

More recently, yes. I don't see how it's relevant.

And your problem with that is

Only that fairy tales are rarely factually accurate.

I don't thinks so. I wish it were so because i think we could have some good dialougues.

Try me some time. Just let me know because if you come at me with assertions of literal truth I'll have at them. Actually, I'd love to understand more because I am not fluent with Hindu philosophy.

I am not of that opinion.

Fair enough. But I retain the right to challenge your assertions.

At the end of the day Rait, that's what counts.

Indeed it is. However we came to be, we are here to experience life and take enjoyment from that experience.

~Raithere

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Humans became divine sometime in a possible future that won't necessarily happen.

Fountainhed, are you saying the theory of evolution needs to be revised to incorporate what some chinese guys said?
As though they made a real life discovery instead of just talked a lil shit about what they think one day?
Hmmm bizarre.

"humans evolved from beasts, but are now humans" is the same as saying "giraffes evolved from beasts, but are now giraffes".
I guess its correct, but a giraffe is just a beast that grew a longer neck to reach higher leaves.
Its kind of weird to put them in one category and everything else in another, sure they branched off, but so did everything else.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Humans became divine sometime in a possible future that won't necessarily happen.
-----------
M*W: Sounds like an episode on Star Trek. At some point during our evolution from the apes until now, the human race became divine. How this happened, I won't go into here. It's anybody's guess. Let's just say we acquired "genetic memory" and created a concept of "god" with our minds.
----------
Fountainhed, are you saying the theory of evolution needs to be revised to incorporate what some chinese guys said?
As though they made a real life discovery instead of just talked a lil shit about what they think one day?
Hmmm bizarre.

"humans evolved from beasts, but are now humans" is the same as saying "giraffes evolved from beasts, but are now giraffes".
I guess its correct, but a giraffe is just a beast that grew a longer neck to reach higher leaves.
Its kind of weird to put them in one category and everything else in another, sure they branched off, but so did everything else.
----------
M*W: There will come a time in our human evolution where they will say "Homo spiritus evolved from beasts, but we are now spirit."