Personally, I feel that the evidence that species can change is obvious. We have actually seen this taking place on the scale of human history, via plants, small animals, and certainly on the biological level of what we call 'germs'.

To expect a large and sudden change on human time scales that will blow your socks off is probably an unrealistic expectation.




Gradually or suddenly compared to what?

On the scale of human lifetime experiences, or even over the lifetime of all of humanity thus far? We're probably not going to see major sudden species changes on those short time scales.

But on geological time scales I would say that evolution probably does work in relatively quick 'spurts'.

I think people just aren't truly grasping the time scales that we're talking about here. And evolution doesn't need to occur at all. It's not necessarily a constant thing. There are some very ancient species that have indeed survived from very primal times. Things don't need to necessarily evolve. But sometimes they do, in spurts.



The controversy isn't still raging within science. It's pretty much accepted as fact by the scientific community. The only objections come from religious people who are upset that it flies in the face of their religious beliefs.



Because they'd rather believe their myths. As far as I'm concerned the fact that life has become increasingly complex over millions of years on this planet is all the "proof" I need that evolution has occured. I don't need to explain precisely how one species developed into another to recognize that life on earth evolved in complexity.

But then I have no compelling reason to deny evolution.

Here is one fact that I would throw into the faces of the religious people who argue against evolution based on their 'religious doctine'.

Their religious doctrine claims that mankind is responsible for the imperfections in this world. That mankind's fall from grace from his creator is the cause of the world being 'dog-eat-dog' world, and that this action resulted in introducing death, disease, and all imperfections into this world.

That is necessarily hogwash whether evolution is true or not. It doesn't matter whether we actually 'evolved' from the lesser animals, the fact is clear that we were not the first, and that there was death, destruction and disease in the world long before man came onto the scene.

Therefore mankind cannot be responsible for having caused these imperfections in a supposedly otherwise 'perfect' creation.

Therefore, the people who are arguing against evolution based on 'religious doctine' are clearly using a doctrine that is full of untruths. Therefore why should it be given any weight at all?



Well, that's a pretty technical question. I think our DNA shows that we are extremely closely related to the great apes.

Clearly we are mammals. We have a lot more in common with rats than with snakes, for example.

I can't say how DNA might have diversifed, or whether all life began from a single occurance of DNA developing. I'm guessing that life is more likely to evolve than not.

I think the bottom line is that the chemistry and biology of living beings on earth is far too geared for evolution for evolution not to have occurred.

If we didn't evolve, then why are we constructed in such a way that would loan itself so easily to a process of evolution?

There's just so much evidence that suggest that evolution occurred and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.

The only people who are suggesting othewise are the same people who are trying to claim that we are the reason the world is imperfect! I don't buy that for one second. We are not the reason that animals eat each other! They've been doing that long before we ever came onto the scene (whether we evolved or not).

Sky


Nice play on words, made me laugh, but the thought is misguided.

You are trying to equate the way people view religion with the way people view science. To me, this is like trying to tell someone what a pineapple is by describing a coconut. Let me try to make some of the equations that you are surmising.

EQUAL TO SCIENCE??

Religion: ancient myths that describe gods and goddesses or a creator and are taken on faith as truth.

Science: ideas, that are formulated into theories, sometimes using presuppositions, sometimes deductive reasoning, sometimes inductive but never accepted on faith alone.

DOES NOT EQUATE


EQUAL TO SCIENCE??
Religion: If faith in a particular religious system fails a person, they can choose another, or make one up. What is learned from this?

Science: Ideas are tested and if they fail, they are re-evaluated, adjusted, redesigned. Usually something was learned along the way.

DOES NOT EQUATE

EQUAL TO SCIENCE??
Religions: Can not be, physically, disproved as their very nature is to exist outside of the physical realm.

Science: Can be disproved, or can pass enough tests to be considered valid information on which to make future postulates. Enough validity in a train of reasoning gives science a firm foundation from which to make these postulates. (thus, evolution has gained enough respect that those who cannot perform the tests themselves, have faith in those who have and agree with the findings based on the ‘proofs’.

DOES NOT EQUATE

EQUALITY OF RELIGION VS SCIENCE?

Religion can do nothing to adversely affect science.

Science can have enough proofs to adversely affect SOME religions.

DOES NOT EQUATE

Which is the pineapple and which is the coconut?

Bravo Redy. Excellent post. That is the first time I have seen someone line it up in quite that manner so to clearly illustrate the differences between the two. Bravo and a very interesting method of conceptualization being employed on your part.

Hi Krimsa,
very nice to see you. I'm suppose to be studying for an exam - but I needed a break.

Thank-you so much for the cheers too.

Have a great day.

Get back to work girl! Krimsa flashes her extended bull whip that she only brings out on special occasions. Waatcha!. Good luck on your upcoming exams.

Interesting question. But I think if everyone who had an out of body experience were to check themselves into a mental institution we would not have room for all of them and it would be a burden on our tax dollars.

On the other hand I know a few people who hear voices telling them to do horrible things and they also see monsters from some reality in their mind ~ if they don't take their meds.

I don't think we should discount that there can be a line drawn between normal out of body awareness and abnormal and dysfunctional perceptions of reality called mental illness.

Some "mentally ill" people who hear voices and sees things that aren't really there can still function in society and can be deemed harmless to themselves and others. Clearly they can be called "delusional" because their problem is uncommon.

These visions and experiences have their place in the spiritual side of our lives, but I suppose they can get thrown out of wack from time to time.

For the most part, I think an occasional out of body experience is very uplifting and enlightening.

JB

Could you direct me to a specific species change in evolution science that leads them to this conclusion so I can do some further research on this?

I saw a special on the History channel where hair and blood was recovered from a suspected big foot who had stepped on a board with a bunch of nails where a mountain dweller had set a trap for him. This show claimed that the DNA of the samples were not that of a primate and not that of a human, but exactly in between. They stated that there was only one sequence different from a human.

I wonder if this special was a crock. I have not seen anything on the news about this discovery. It seems to me it would be big news...if it were true.

jb

Well, I freely admit to presenting some specious arguments just for the sake of stimulating the discussion. And I guess I must take responsibility for allowing it to continue unchecked. (But all the discussion was so articulate and intelligent I didn't want it to stop! )

Your "rebuttal" is very articulate - for what it addresses.

But both you and Abra have taken off in a direction that I never indended to go. Not that I haven't enjoyed both your posts. But I never had any intention of trying to equate religion with science. If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize for misleading you and anyone else who got that impression.

So if I may try to get this back "on track", using OBE as an example...

1) Some people hold the opinion that OBE is a "delusion". (which appears to have been mislabeled "the scientific viewpoint")
2) Some people hold the opinion that OBE is an "enlightenment" (which appears to have been mislabeled "the religious viewpoint")
3) Why should one accept either opinion (regardless of the label applied to it) over the other?

Sky –

I extend my apologies for having misunderstood your topic. Thanks for the opportunity to see if I can fail again.


Science always proceeds from a deterministic point of view. The point of science is to connect every event to a cause. Nature MUST be consistent, have a dependable order. This is the ‘assumption’ from which all science begins. If you consider how far we’ve come in just a few thousand years by utilizing this ‘assumption’, it begins to make sense.

So Science begins with an assumption and if, what follows, can be tested and proven over and over again with like outcomes, then the assumption can be used again, Each time the assumption is made and the outcome is positive, the assumption gains validity. It continues to be used, because it works.

That is not to say it is truth, nor that we even have faith in it. We simply assume it to be correct until it no longer works.

That is the difference between your two topics. One requires faith in so much as what one believes is considered truth. But in the other one assumes something to be accurate, not truth.

Does that relate better to your topic?

That's a good question. I can only say that personal experience and developing a level of control is the only answer I can give.

Now if I was plagued with seeing little green men and hearing bothersome voices in my head or had ghost or gremlins following me around that nobody else could see, I might consider that I could be delusional.

But if I was gifted with second sight, telepathy, and remote viewing skills that I could learn to control, I would consider that a quite normal awareness function.

Just the other day I was in the kitchen at my Mom's house and out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw my sister pass by the window. It was just a flash in my mind's eye. A few seconds later, I saw it again. She was on the porch and passed by the window. It was just a flash, like one or two frames of film.

Not ten seconds later, she actually did appear on the porch and passed the window dressed the same as I had seen her with my mind's eye. Then she came into the house.

A premonition? Clairvoyance? Or was it just the second sight of a moment in time that had not yet manifested?

I don't know, but I'm not going to conclude that I was hallucinating.

JB

First off I wouldn't accept either opinion.

I don't believe that science can even say anything about OBE other than the fact that some people report having them and that there is no scientific explantion of how that could be possible.

I also doubt very much that the people who claim to have had these experiences could 'prove' them or verify them. On the contrary if they could then they'd have a scientific case.

There has been no reliable 'evidence' for them.

For example, if a religious person claims to be 'enlightened' to the point here they can have an OBE at will and even control it, then it should be quite easy to verify it.

Just put the person who can supposedly have the OBE at will in a room. In the next room over have someone else doing something. Anything, they could be reading a book, or playing a musical instrument, (assume soundproof rooms), or doing anything at all.

Then we ask the person who can have OBE at will to tell us what the person is doing in the next room over.

After all, if they can leave their body (i.e. become nonphysical and still receive sensory input from their surroundings then there's no reason why they can't pass through the wall and see what's going on in the next room over.

If you don't like this experiment, try it will just office cubicals. Just dividers in the same room. And ask the person who can have an OBE to get out of their body and look down on the other people in the other cubicals and then report what those people were doing.

If that can't be done Sky, then doesn't science at least have the right to say that so far, no one has come forward who has been able to demonstrate that OBE is anything more than either delusion or wishful thinking?

I think if someone wants to claim that something is possible they should at least be able to demonstrate it in a controlled experiment. Otherwise why should anyone believe that it is anything more than delusion.

I had an OBE myself, yet I can't say with certainty that it was anything mroe than just my imagination. It certainly seemed real to me at the time, but I can't prove that it was real. I can't even prove to myself that it was anything more than a delusion. And I certainly can't repeat the experience at will.

I think if a person wants to call it 'enlightenment' they should be able to induce that state of being.

However, if they can truly induce that state of being, then shouldn't they be able to step forward and demonstrate that power in a scientific experiment to show that it's more than just delusion and wishful thinking?

I would say that until you are able to control OBEs and verify clearly that they aren't just delusion then why should you believe otherwise?

I don't know why you would call it 'enlightenment' if you don't truly have control over it.

Because the experience, for me, showed me something. It was different from a dream. It showed me that I could see and hear things from a different perspective without the use of my physical body.

Control over it comes only with practice. Yes experiments have been done with remarkable success. Remote viewing is practiced (and even being taught) for purposes of spying.

One astral traveler (Robert Monroe) claimed that he did a projection to a place where the president was staying in his town. He claims to have been stopped by some sort of astral body guard. I will see if I can find that story again and post it. Of course you certainly don't have to believe it, because it can't be proven.

But the Monroe institute teaches controlled out of body experiences. I want to go. Anyone want to go with me?

JB

But you've got a contradiction in your claims here Jeannie.




You claim that it can be controlled.

You claim that experiments can be done.

You claim that it can be used for spying which is precisely the type of experiment I've suggested to make it a scientifically proven reality!



But then you go on to say that it can't be proven???

But wait a minute,.. that flies in the very face of the claim that you just made that it can be controlled and use for spying!

If it indeed can be controlled and used for spying then it can be proven!

All you need to do is get someone who can do this and have them tell the scientists what people are doing in other rooms (or other cubicals) and you've got a proven scientific FACT that it can be done!

This is having your cake and eat it too.

You want to claim simultaneously that it can be controlled and even taught! Yet it can't be proven?

Those are inconsistent claims.

If it can be controlled and even taught, then it can be proven to work!

Otherwise it's just a scam.

I'd be glad to go to one of his seminars, but I'm not about to pay a fee.

It's a scam if it can't be proven to work! It either works or it doesn't.

To say that it can't be proven is the same as saying that it doesn't work.

It's no scam, and they are not going to let people spend two weeks there for free just to prove something to a skeptic.

If it is used for spying by the CIA or the government, then obviously the government has been convinced that it works. If it works well, I suspect they don't care if a lot of people believe it and may prefer the opposite. That would only serve to ruin their spy operations.

Also proof is a matter of belief and people claim they have proof of evolution yet there are many who don't believe that.

Some people believe in out of body awareness it and some people don't. The best way to prove it is to yourself and that is to actually do it, document it, and verify what you see and then check it out for yourself.

That is what Robert Monroe did when he kept finding it happening to him.

Since you are dealing with both this reality and the astral counter part,(and who knows what else) not all details will be identical, only similar when traveling in the astral realm.

Remote viewing, however, may be different. It is more like just looking with your minds eye, not going there yourself in your astral form.

It is probably rare enough that it has not been done consistently enough to prove it to skeptics.

I can't prove it to you or anybody because I don't have control over it. In fact I have not practiced it for years.

(I wonder too, if they have found DNA of a big foot as I saw on the History channel documentary, why it has not been on the major news networks.)

It is the "minds eye" that sees these things. The only thing you are seeing are what is in the worlds of the universal mind. (There are many worlds there that are not physical worlds.) That is the collective conscious mind shared by all people. (The pineal gland does not function outside of the universal mind or in the higher spiritual worlds)

Now ask me to prove any of what I just said.
I can't. I'm sorry.

JB

Abracadabra said:I'm not going to argue the labels, but this is what I'm talking about: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/remote_perception.html

Abra,

When I said "It can't be proven," I was talking about Robert Monroes' story about running into an astral body guard of the President. I was not really talking about remote viewing or astral travel.

Of course proof is still a matter of belief.

Thanks for the link, nice website!

I agree with JB in principle here. For me, it was evidence that "I" truly am a non-physical entity that can exist and perceive independently of a body. That realization was very enlightening for me.

And to relate that to the thread topic, I see no reason to believe that the experience was anything other than exactly what I concluded.

Abracadabra said:Not to go off in a tangent, but this is a perfect example of what I had in mind with the "self-centric/other-centric" thread.

You seem to be saying that you need some outside agent to tell you what "the truth" is. In other words, "truth" is dependent upon somthing other than yourself. That is what I was referring to as the "other-centric belief system".

Whereas, in the "self-centric belief system", "the truth" is dependent only upon one's own decision.

Oversimplified: in the other-centric system, truth is "discovered". In the self-centric system, truth is decided.

So to bring this back to the current thread, one can accept the "truth" as put forth by the "scientific community", or by the "religious community" or by "self".

"Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer pick."

Wow that really does make more sense. I was not quite sure what that other thread was about with the self-centric or other-centric systems.

I have to say that I am very self-centric. I decide what is truth and what is real.

My truth, my reality.