~Agnostic~

Thanks much for your comments. I had actually formulated responses to your statements, but it's my guess that if we continue on like this, we're just going to have a conflict, if there isn't one already. We're merely exchanging negative energies at this point. Best wishes to you and your students.

I was merely responding to your concerns. It's not something that I normally care to post about. You seemed to be going through a certain amount of suffering if your posts were any indication. I am not certain if this is still the case for you. You seem a bit skeptical, and I don't wish to force my views. I've regularly engaged in trance through a modification of the eating and sleeping cycles. This opens up trance capacity. Trance is very different from magic however. Trance is merely a physiological capacity inherent within the body. Reverse methods are also available. Does this make any sense? I'm not one who practices magic, although some may mistakenly label supernatural trance as magic. There are higher spiritual realms and lower mystical realms. I don't practice rituals or incantations. Those things don't really interest me at all.

Yes, I see him, but he splatted onto one of the buildings.

What's this? Are you planning a skydiving event?

Oh, I just automatically object to anything given to me that's offered without substantiation, as I would only expect of others regarding anything that I say (just so long as it's not riddled with base accusations). Then I wait and see if any solid ground is given. This is entirely valid when measuring the 'known' laws of material physics, but will invariably be wrong most of the time when attempting to measure that which is above or beyond these laws. For example, gravity observably makes things fall down in our earthly atmosphere. However, not always. Sometimes things fall up, as in the case of supernatural levitation which has been observed by some, albeit not photographed. Very common in out-of-body experiences. No, it is not. It only seems such, insofar as a 'trick' has been placed on your senses. I'm using a bit of wordplay here. I'm not so much suggesting that what we physically percieve is not reality. Rather, I'm suggesting that this physical reality is not 'as real' as what we commonly observe it to be. We are like ants attempting to measure the macroverse with sticks and rulers, with our laws of physics and various scientific methods. Incorrect. In fact, I suggest that we are dominated by a greater reality of which we have little or often no awareness whatsoever. This is because you are only perceiving from 10% (or thereabouts) of your brain, while the rest of it is merely operating subconsciously. We are each as sleepwalkers in a stupor, percieving a 'reality' which is better likened to a dream. Again, I'm using a bit of word play here, which may offend some people's sense of intellectual security. However, contacts have been observed. The lapse is in the scientific equipment available. Cameras, clocks and rulers are not valid measuring devices when attempting to harness that which exists on another plane of physical frequency. However, the human brain itself, in isolation from scientific measuring devices, is sometimes capable of measuring extra- and/or inter-dimensional physical structures. Yes. Just read ancient books. Many of the oral traditions contained some extra-ordinary beliefs. Some interesting patterns begin to emerge within ancient belief systems that scientists typically miss. Now if you're looking for 'empirical' evidence that you can photograph (beyond the reading of ancient manuscripts), then you won't find it. We rather have patterns within countless ancient testimonies of a world which in many ways exceeded the understanding of scientists today. The ancent fall of human consciousness directly involves a laspe into 'materialistic' focus, as many, though not all, scientists get caught up in. Seeking to study our material dimension, many scientists typically overlook a vast plethora of ancient testimonies from those whose understanding exceeded their own in many ways. The reason that you see no need for metaphysical explanations is because you lack a knowledge of non-empirical data. Further, because you have not had the same experiences as 1-10% of the earth's population, you therefore deem such irrelevant. You are embracing the Occam's Razor principle, going with the simplist possible solution as simple minds often do, yet failing to observe all of the significant data, because you erringly believe it to be irrelevant. Simple is not always necessarily best. Simple is just perhaps the most comfortable. The Occam's Razor principle is often misapplied by the lazy mind, which has failed to evaluate non-empirical data. The shortcoming of empiricism is that you can't make a qualified assessment of a matter or claim, if it falls outside of your personal experience. Think of a complex court case, where you don't yet have all of the data. Then you are not familiar with evidence. Your interpretation becomes colored and sometimes even skewed immediately upon perceiving evidence. This is why two people can look at the exact same thing, and interpret it differently. Oh but it can. I may be using the metric system, while you're using old-fashioned feet and inches. The snake is the evidence. The measuring devices or units are not. In what context? Can you offer a specific example? You mentioned genes. Because it produces observable effects. The human brain has commonly even recorded these effects, albeit science lacks the capacity to play back a person's memories on a tv monitor. This is a lapse of science, not of the human brain, however. Your presupposition that these effects are not observable is false. It would be more accurate to say that you have not directly observed them. Yet others have. And the lapse of scientists rests within their incapacity to gather empirical evidence on such matters. Witnesses are unreliable? Always? You're making a wild presupposition now. If this is the case, then scientists would make inferior judgments to court judges, because they only look at half the data. They are strictly empirical. The scientist is basically saying that her/his personal experiences and/or observations are valid, and all others are false. Testimonies are no good to the scientist, because no world exists outside of the scientist's own directly empirical observations. If this is truly the case, (and I would have thought scientists to be smarter than this), then scientists simply toss most of the substantive data available to them directly in the garbage. This would constitute a flimsy example in a legal court. For example, in a legal court, the various testimonies would be cross-examined, with inconsistencies weeded out. Afterwhich, certain consistencies would still remain, and be deemed substantive. Just because people sometimes disagree in their testimonies does not make all testimonies on the face of the earth invalid. Patterns of consistency within testimonies are considered to be an 'evidence', albeit an 'evidence' which scientists overlook. No it is not. Rather, 'inconsistent' witness testimonies may be deemed as unreliable. Consistency, on the other hand, is another matter. This is why you are often incapable of interpreting empirical evidence without presuppositional skew. Why do you suppose this is? Are you smarter than the whole US legal court system? Are scientists smarter than court judges? I doubt it. In fact, I suggest that scientific observation is actually inferior to legal methods of observation in many ways. Of course, you're also assuming that the DNA tests are always correct. Do you have a basis for this? Scientific observations are often more flawed than testimonies, and any scientist's competence can be questioned and second-guessed by other professionals. You'd be making a vast leap to surmise that scientists don't make mistakes, whilst asserting that witnesses are always unreliable. Unverified presupposition on your part. You're simply countering my own unverified presupposition with your own unverified presupposition. Disagreeing with a statement does not inherently make that statement false. Not that you've observed in your personal experience. But empirical observation is inadequate to positively assess this. Sounds a bit legalistic. Then why did you respond? If you consider something to be a diversion from your world of safety, then simply don't respond. That's your job. I'm not into the legalistic constraints when we wander into unchartered waters. Please be aware that most threads characteristically evolve into new topics after a freeform approach. Creative learning is of greater importance than arriving at strict 'scientific' resolution at the end of a topic. This is because we don't know it all, and any honest person will admit that some questions may remain unanswered, thereby facilitating the potential for future learning on a topic. I'll carry on the discussion here according to it's freeform course, as long as there are responses. Afterwhich, I will begin a new thread when this thread has run it's course. Thanks much for your responses.

I tend to be moreso the skeptic myself. However, you strike me as more accusatory than skeptical. That's entirely up to you. I care not whether you are receptive or not. I will sometimes consciously insert a few absurd claims into a discussion, so as to potentially isolate and weed out hotheads such as yourself, who are not solely focused on constructive learning and debate. Good for you. Although, I'm not aware that I've actually contradicted any actual evidence related to the theory of evolution. I require something a bit more practical than your ecstatic ruminations on theoretical beauty, in answer to my concerns and questions. Actually, your hostility began to manifest well prior to my identification of your adherence to scientific fundamentals. Sequencing is key here, but you've missed it. Such was my intent. As it is, you've merely dodged a very large number of questions which I had directed to you, and leveled attacks instead. This tells me that you are neither concerned with education or debate, but rather only harbor a penchant for conflict. My primary concern is with the psychic venom which you are spewing in the context of your accusations. Such to me exceeds the weight of mere unsubstantiated assertions on my part. I will remain to continue discussion with the other members of this forum. Actually, it doesn't matter in the slightest to me whether a person embraces my views or not. I have simply presented my views in the context of this thread, to see how they stack up in the light of evolutionary theories. Every other individual in this thread (other than yourself) responsed both elegantly and articulately in answer to my concerns. None but you have ventured to issue accusatory attacks in response to an alternate belief system which they have encountered. Your treatment of ideas is more accusatory than skeptical. And again, your failure to constructively address my questions and/or concerns evidences your lack of value regarding constructive education and/or debate. Accusatory retaliations on your part are anything but scientific, unless it merely be to verify a lapse in social communication responses between differently-minded individuals. Thanks for your unfounded psuedo-hypothesis, but you apparently lack a practical understanding of what metaphysics is. It grows quite complex, and I'm afraid that it has simply escaped you, as is evident with your inability to grasp these concepts, and the wholistic definition of metaphysics. I'm not convinced. You're still offended that someone has ventured to present alternate perspectives which are not fully pre-digestible to your stomach. Or more accurately, your narrowed perception. You are incorrect. You're suffering from an interpretive perceptual slant of readily available dictionary terms. For example, you've embraced definition 1 listed here, while simultaneously rejecting definition 2. This type of non-wholistic perceptual slant is perhaps most commonly termed 'dualism' or doublemindedness. You're viewing things dualistically. Let's take a look. metaphysical adjective Having no body, form, or substance: bodiless, discarnate, disembodied, immaterial, incorporeal, insubstantial, nonphysical, spiritual, unbodied, uncorporal, unsubstantial. See body. Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world: extramundane, extrasensory, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, supernatural, superphysical, supersensible, transcendental, unearthly. See supernatural. http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/m/m0974100.html Notice particularly the references to 'supernatural' and 'superphysical'. su·per·phys·i·cal Listen: [ spr-fz-kl ] adj. Exceeding or going beyond the purely physical. Not explained by known physical laws; preternatural or supernatural. http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0901600.html su·per·nat·u·ral Listen: [ spr-nchr-l ] adj. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. Of or relating to the miraculous. n. That which is supernatural.http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0900800.html Hence we see that superphysical is more physical than physical. And supernatural is more natural than natural. 'Meta' may commonly mean 'beyond' or 'greater than', and 'physical' simply means 'material'. This is incorrect. You're thinking dualistically here. Think relatively. Again, you've favored one definition over another definition, straining the dictionary content through your own presuppositionally colorized perception. In other words, you're just being narrow-minded, and have therefore bypassed what the text readily offers you. Did you even bother to look the word up? I suggest that these dimensions are numerically infinite, at least outside of the context of our own solar system. And many of them interlink as well. In the evolution of our multidimensional universe, these various dimensions divide and recombine again, thereby allowing for the infinite growth of a universe without macro- or micro- wall barriers. Our currently percieved physical dimension is merely like a speck of sand in comparison to the greater desert of our undiscovered multidimensional universe. If? That's a bit naive. I suggest a bigger ruler. No brain or computational device is large enough to cognize the scope of these dimensions. I realize that there is no 'need' for me to incorporate the metaphysical into our quasi-discussion. I did it because I could. You'll just have to deal with it. You're welcome to bring quantum gravity into the equation, but you're just veering onto a tangent at this point then, as far as I'm concerned. But be my guest. I'm waiting.

The human appendix comes to mind as a now useless organ. Random genetic drift? I'm one to hold to some form of cause and effect, whether such cause and effect may be readily understood by us or not. This second possibility makes more sense. I generally have seen cowardly suppressionist tactics originating from fundamentalists from both sides of the debate. True. Okay, gotcha so far. Thanks. This type of worldwide elemental change is sometimes referred to as a 'cataclysm'. For example, an ice age or worldwide series of floods. Or perhaps volcanic eruptions which cover an entire planet simultaneously. Theoretically, 'cataclysms' transpire with all planets, as they age, change and evolve as the living organisms that they are. You're speaking of animal evolution, whereas I also hold to planetary evolution. I generally hold to the idea that the different species will again merge bloodlines as they undergo an 'evolutionary loop'. It is even theorized that the human species itself originated from a single skin color, subsequently subdivided into races and nations, and will again crossbreed into a single race, wherein all of the current skin colors will mix into one again. Hence, when blacks, whites, yellows and browns achieve full interracial mixture, the human species will enter into it's next evolutionary state. Species divide only to recombine again. If they do not again recombine, the speciation will have been for naught. This form of evolution is quite different from environmentally-induced speciation however. Animal cross-cloning functions as an acceleration of the remixing of the species which had formerly been divided. By genetically mixing similar animal types (lets say dogs with cats, or lions with tigers), the end results become a 'super-species' of animal. However, when the cross-cloning of species is vastly different (birds with fish, insects with reptiles), the new species tend to demonstrate a much higher mortality rate. I suggest that these metaphysical levels have been detected by eyewitnesses many millions of times throughout the earth's history. However, scientists have commonly lacked the competence or skill to record such phenomena, being limited to only scientific methods of evaluation, as the materialists that they are. In what way? Which serves as an evidence of scientific oversight. The differentiation here is that some experiences are scientifically observable and some are not. Please define 'observability' in the context that you are using the word. Oh but there is evidence. It's simply not observable through scientific methods, inherently limited as they are. Please define 'empirical observation' as you are using the term, in contrast to straight 'observation'. Except for one million eyewitness testimonies throughout the millennia. Sure they do. 1% to 10% of people report some form of metaphysical experience in their lifetimes, even though you may not. Again, you're operating by a false presupposition at this point. Which they have. No you don't. You're speaking ideally here. Why would you have to change things? But not enough unfortunately. You're bordering on metaphysics here. This example falls short. I suggest that science sometimes fails to correct itself, even if it still does so somewhat periodically. Although, this problem rests moreso with the scientists versus science itself. Please elaborate on radiometric dating. Not entirely correct. I suggest that you fail to understand what mythology is and why it exists. Basically, mythology is no more that ancient history which suffered corruptions in the recording process. Please check my previous posts where I elaborate on this. Mythology is quite a bit different from watching a science fiction movie. Again, I suggest that this requires a certain degree of presupposition, which runs contrary to other fields of study not limited to religion. The comparison seems a bit of a leap, but I'll try to follow. Okay. This would signify that there is a common ancestor somewhere, but I'm not aware that scientists have accurately and assuredly isolated this 'missing link' beyond the presuppositions of their own minds. I've not debated here against a shared common ancestry. This may be the dogma of the fundamentalist scientist, but legal courts do not limit themselves to this limited mode of learning. This method only works when their is testable physical material available. But this is not always the case. Legal courts often rely moreso on multiple eyewitness testimonies for example. You may refer to my previous posts where I expand on this. To negate experiences in the context of multiple eyewitness testimonies, for lack of scientifically verifiable evidence, simply lacks common sense. This is a fine example when referring to material phyical evidences as we more commonly percieve such to exist, but is absolutely worthless when assessing metaphysical experiences or events. It's my understanding that the bulk context of our discussion revolves moreso around biological speciation. In science perhaps, though not always in law courts. Facts are ascertained by the testimonies of multilple eyewitnesses, often with no shreds of evidence. Whereas theories tend to break down in court rooms. In what way may a 'tested confirmation' be rendered 'violate'? Evolution may serve as an evidence when observing shorter lived lifeforms (such as microscopic insects), but we have not been able to directly observe the speciation of longer lived lifeforms. Perhaps on a side note, it is theorized that the entire insect kingdom originally evolved from a microscopic size. Hence, many of the more dominant species of microscopic insects eventually got big enough to where we can see them with the naked eye. And the less dominant insects typically remained invisible, though some still multiplying at a rapid rate. Again, you're bordering on metaphysics. I checked a link and found it quite interesting. It's theorized that whales and dolphins actually originated as land animals. Again, animals with shorter term lifespans. Makes sense. Metaphysical evolution is very commonly known among those who are more familiarized with metaphysics. However, I suggest that standard scientific methods of observation create an inherent block within the minds of scientists, which cause them to miss many observed properties of the universe of metaphysical value. Scientists encounter a great deal of difficulty seeing past their commonly presupposed material world, on the basis of a fundamentally materialistic mindset. Okay. That's nice. I agree. Are you suggesting that I or anyone has ignored evidence in this thread? Such would constitute an assumption. And how is this relevant to our conversation? What specifically do you suggest has been ignored? Yet you've not observed the full speciation process of stickleback fish, and actually rely moreso on inferences as you suggest. Context please. Are you referring to the common ancestry of humans and apes? Don't tell this to many evolutionists. They will berate you. So? What has this got to do with me? I'm not a creationist. If someone (not you) takes crass potshots at me, I will strictly retaliate, unto permanent ban. I hope that I have made myself clear. And I now see that such may eventualy be the direction of this thread, insofar as someone (not you) has ventured to press a conflict. I hope that we can complete this discussion constructively prior to the lock of this thread, but I honestly don't see it going in that direction. Unfortunately, some of the attacks that I've recieved in the context of this thread will likely serve to derail this educational process. I will enjoin and bind the conflict with strict retaliation, and will thereafter resume our discussion unless the thread is perchance locked beforehand. Sorry, but I've grown quite closed with some of the condescending attacks that I've recieved in this thread thus far. So we'll have to put the education thing to the side for now, while I enjoin the conflict which has been leveled at me. It is my habit to respond to every post directed to me in sequential fashion, addressing all points to the best of my ability. Thanks much.

Okay, thanks. True. They view it as contradictory to their scriptures. My impression is that many (if not most) evolutionists claim this as a fact. Namely that human beings had evolved from an earlier life form from whence apes had also evolved. Yet you are representing scientists as not claiming this as a fact. My own personal view is that both humanity and apes had descended from a superior lifeform, versus an inferior one. 'Celestial gods' so to speak. Although I don't hold to the classic definition of 'godhood', being primarily agnostic. I can easily embrace the concept of 'environmental adaptation' of species, but whether these species are evolving forward or devolving backward is where I have some dispute. Basically, I believe that a species can not only evolve, but can also devolve. Actually, there are many creationists who also embrace evolution, so not all creationists view this as a black and white issue. There are creative evolutionists who believe that their God got the whole evolution thing going. These creative evolutionists interpret the scriptures more allegorically versus literally. Hence, some evolutionists are also creationists and vice versa, extracting various portions of data from both the scientific and religious realms. In other words, some data is extracted from scientifically verifiable evidences, and other data is extracted from scientifically unverifiable eyewitness testimonies. Law courts today commonly accept multiple testimonies of people, so long as such testimonies agree with each other and are not outright disproven as false. Truly, legal courts accept the "It's true just because we said so, even though we lack proof" approach. People are commonly incarcerated for crimes lacking scientifically verified evidences, because most criminal cases actually lack outright evidence. Religionists use the same type of scientifically unverified testimonies that the legal courts rely on, when asserting the existence of divine miracles, for example. Others have asserted alien encounters and/or out-of-body experiences, on the mere basis of multiple testimonies (with no scientifically verifiable evidence). Legal courts quite commonly incarcerate criminals with no more than this. "We don't actually have any evidence, but we have the testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses. You haven't actually scientifically disproven these testimonies, so the testimonies will do well enough for us. We don't need any proof. It's true because we say so." I do not consider myself to be a creationist however. Agreed. But I've commonly seen many people go far beyond this. Many present their own theories as being factual, while simultaneously accusing an opponent of failing to present evidence for alternate theories. I've seen this occur on both sides of the creationist/evolutionist debate. Both sides are sometimes guilty, and many debates are caught in a catch-22. I believe that humanity is descended from earlier higher lifeforms, which was actually the predominant ancient view for millennia. My perspective (that humanity descended from 'celestial gods') was actually the most common view upon the face of the entire earth, up until the last century. Eventually scientists came on the scene and declared that the ancient mythologies contained no ounce of fact, due to a lack of any preserved evidences. Many people mistakenly believe ancient mythology to be fairy tales, when actually it is badly recorded history. This is because there were no alphabets in the most ancient of times. History was once strictly recorded in pictures (not words), and was passed on via oral tradition. A vastly ancient historian would sit with students and explain a series of historical pictures canvassed along the inside of a pyramid or cave, for example. Stones containing pictures (not words) constituted the most ancient history books. Hence, ancient mythology contains 1% truth and 99% error. However, the 1% truth is vital, even if scientists have ignorantly dismissed it due to lack of evidence. It has been my experience that both religionists and scientists, deists and atheists are often closed-minded. This is why they so hotly debate in the first place, each one affirming their own theories as fact, while placing the burden of proof upon their opponents. Again, not always however.

Yes, I believe that our five senses wil eventually detect metaphysical realms and portions of a multidimensional universe which we never knew existed. I believe that this will come about after a form of evolution which may be considered to be very different from your own belief system, although similar in many ways. In other words, I believe that the human species itself will 'evolve' into a race of beings which is literally physically immortal. The metaphysical and the physical will become one. The only real difference between the metaphysical and the physical is that our five senses are not currently honed to percieve the one, even if they percieve the other. The metaphysical is as fully physical (if not moreso physical) than the physical realm which we currently percieve with our five senses. The metaphysical realm exists on a frequency of physicality which scientists have not yet been able to percieve, even with the most sophisticated equipment. Correct. Scientists will eventually be able to detect greater portions of the metaphysical realm, and will at that time declare such portions to be physical. In fact, this has already happened to some degree. The concepts of atoms and molecules may be classed as having once been mere metaphysical theory by ancient scientists, until scientists verifiably discovered them. But when scientists discovered them, they could no longer be considered metaphysical, because they were then declared to be physical. The metaphysical realm is that realm which is well beyond what scientists can percieve or test with scientific methods. Angelic or alien visitations fall into the metaphysical category for example. This is not the stance that I am taking. I suggest that my stance is not purely solipsistic, although it may appear as such. In fact, there is another method which is entirely valid in the context of legal court prosecutions, even if many scientists may reject it as 'unscientific'. Legal courts accept the 'testimony of two or three witnesses' as legally binding, when scientifically-based evidences may lack. Whether two or three witnesses observe the adduction and murder of a small child (with no scientific evidences available whatsoever), or whether they observe the miraculous visitation of an 'angelic space alien' (again with no scientific evidences), the exact same methods of evaluation are used, despite lack of scientifically observable evidences (insofar as most child abductions and/or visits by 'angelic space aliens' lack scientifically observable evidences). Two or three witnesses made some scientifically unverifiable claims, so we just go with that, unless it be substantially proven false, beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. Hence, legal courts will often say "You damn scientists didn't prove nuthin' in this court case, so we're just gonna go with the testimonies of the witnesses, because no scientists or lawyers were there with cameras and such". The religionists and advocates of space aliens use this same method of evaluation. "Who cares about scientific evidence? Multiple agreed testimonies are well good enough. We don't need no physical proof." Our courts have sentenced many people to prison with no evidence whatsoever. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Well good. What specific basics are you referring to? We may declare all physical matter to be 'metaphysical' prior to the time that scientists may be able to verifiably observe it. The metaphysical is that physical realm which exists beyond the capacity of scientists to currently percieve, either with the five senses or perception-enhancing equipment. Correct. However, I suggest that there are frequencies of physical matter (in fact, entire physical dimensions) which exist beyond the current level of attunement of the five senses of our human species. Matter is firstly composed of energy. Energy exists on frequencies, and therefore so does physical matter. Hence the concept of a multidimensional universe, solar system and world. Metaphysical. Scientists can't see it, hear it or touch it. Yet it exists. But a few have rendered unverifiable testimonies that they had momentarily glimpsed such things. Technically, I suggest that the five senses also exist metaphysically (and not merely physically as we commonly observe physicality). We each possess these senses inherently, but they are not necessarily always honed and attuned to higher and more qualitative frequencies of physical matter. What may be metaphysical to one person may sometimes be physical to another and vice versa.

This is not entirely true. Rather, it may be logically consistent with everything that you've ever personally and directly experienced. But this does not hold true for perhaps about 1-10% of the human population. Even though you may assume that it does. In part, but something more also. Do you understand Kant? How do you know that the associations are entirely correct? I suggest that they are most often off to some large degree. Correct. But I suggest that much of this deception lies in the assumed physicality of this 'material' world. But many have indeed experienced inconsistencies. And, breaking through those inconsistencies, have since come to a greater understanding of the logical consistency of the universe. Albeit, they have not been relegated to the same existential conclusions which you have come to. The reason that this line of reasoning seems absurd to you is because it is diametrically opposed to your belief system. You may even view this line of reasoning to be inferior to your own, but I suggest any such notion is merely based on an ignorance of metaphysical concepts. Now you're jumping to assumed conclusions. I suggest that I have a healthier respect for the logical consistency of the universe than you do yourself. I view your knowledge as very incomplete, and therefore littered with interpretational error. According to what criteria? According to what criteria? You're projecting. You have an animosity for non-string theorists, I see. Although you have yourself somehow assumed that I should be studied in string theory. You have merely subjectively confused string theory with some of the perspectives which I have presented. This is because you have jumped to conclusions within the context of limited observations. Now that's just a stupid thing for you to say, insofar as it conveys an ignorance of the cyclical expansion of consciousness inherent within the human species over several millennia. Much of the ancient knowledge had been lost from the earth due to weaknesses in historical recording methods. Subsequent to this ancient loss of knowledge, the human species went into a downsurge of consciousness, with a more recent super-compensatory upsurge within the technological era. I'm speaking of knowledge which was entertained prior to well-recorded history. However, the knowledge of the present day scientist, as precious as it is, represents a certain amount of ignorance of the metaphysical consciousness, which was formerly possessed by ancients prior to commonly-accepted recorded history. Eventually, scientists will relearn what was lost from ancient times, but they have a way to go. Currently however, scientists simply don't have all of the facts. Not because they don't exist, but because they were lost from ancients times, and are merely waiting to be rediscovered. I have not referenced astrology. You're again projecting mis-associations. Your observation falls short. It is. But I am persuaded that you have never actually seen the evidence. I further doubt your willingness and/or capacity to observe such evidence without prejudice, if in fact you ever had the privilege of becoming exposed to it. For your presuppositions would likely mar your interpretation of it, if ever you directly encountered such evidences. In what way do you believe that string theory has anything to do with what I have presented? How specifically is this relevant to our conversation? Only if first strained through narrow-minded presupposition. Evidence please, if any. Or at least a theory? Is your statement strictly referring to technological advances? Or something else? You're projecting your presuppositions again. Firstly, from your statement here, you believe metaphysics to be 'bullshit' as you term it. I interpret your stance as quite similar to that narrow-mindedness which is also common among creationist fundamentalists. Every realm of study has individuals whom we may term to be 'orthodox fundamentalists', whether in religious or scientific realms. These individuals convert theory into doctrine, and doctrine into law. Then, if such doctrines and/or laws become resisted by new and/or ancient thought (for the new and the ancient are often each incomplete without the other), then retaliations often ensue against the alternate thought system upon it's mere presentation. Because alternate thought systems are different, it is therefore often falsely assumed that they are oppository to the fundamentalist's own belief system. I also stand quite assured that we are not communicating. Your prejudices will amplify this. You're expressing narrow-minded fundamentalism. I'm guessing that you're simply polarized against creationists, and have therefore merely duplicated their rigidness in your own way. And have subsequently become like them in rigidness, on the basis of such polarization. And now you're using that same rigidness against someone who is not even a creationist. Actually, I suggest that many scientifically-minded people are also quite open-minded to investigating unfamiliar theories. This is because they are not all rigidly fundamentalist as you demonstrate yourself to be.

In part, though not entirely. I don't believe that we're communicating. Fully agreed.

I'd have to agree with all of your points here in this particular post. I'm not so much here to debate as I'm here to learn. Although I may present alternate perspectives which some may feel a need to attack or debate. I prefer constructive discussion, however. I often find both the fundamentalist and the scientific communites to be very narrow-minded. They often have the same temperament as far as I'm concerned, if one voices an alternate perspective which is not consistent with their own.

Was there a specific question or statement of mine that got you so hot here? Or are you just carrying over a bad experience from another thread somewhere? I hope you don't mind if I press strict and critical observation of the evidences.

One or two examples, please? Something digestible. One or two examples, please? Something digestible. I suggest that there are many presently existing theories that do not take into account the theory of evolution, or vice versa. Nothing new actually needed in many cases. Humanity hasn't fully meshed together the different fields of knowledge as it is. And what specifically constitutes 'valid' evidence? How do you know if a piece of evidence is, in fact, valid?

And precisely what is the 'scientific method' as you define it? I suggest that you do not have all of the evidence for any theory whatsoever. Please elaborate. Please define 'evolution' as you are using the term. You seem to have had a disagreement just a few posts prior about what evolution actually is. Evolution is a theory. Theories are not observed. They are postulated. Rather, evidences are observed. How do you know? Yikes, did you read the opening post? I appreciate the info and the links (one link is disconnected and two others require private account access which I don't have), but I would much prefer if you would prioritize two or three of the most important items and reprint them here. And then please tell me how you're interpreting the specific data. Thanks much but this is a bit much for now. Prioritize and condense please.

It is my general belief that all knowledge which exists is first tainted by various existential presuppositions. I suggest that our 'knowledge' of the existence of physical matter is first based upon a certain level of presupposition. For example: I believe the table and the chair around me to be physical. And why do I believe this? I believe this because this is what my five physical senses tell me. However, my observations nonetheless are first tainted by the presupposition of a physical universe around me. The fact is that none of my observations are purely free of presupposition. I will only come to the conclusion that there is a physical universe around me if I am willing to rely on my five senses to instruct me in this. However, my five senses may actually be off, contrary to what I have 'learned' from youth. Now this line of reasoning may sound absurd to you, but I suggest that it has a basis which you simply may or may not have deeply explored. I suggest that the universe is not so physical as we may have entertained. The five senses have 'tricked' us, and there are many things which exist within the context of a multidimensional universe that our five senses have not yet existentially noticed. This is quite exactly what I am saying, except that I am not referring to green cheese. Rather, I am referring to the existence of a multidimensional universe, which upon more deeply glimpsing it's metaphysical nature, will render many of our physical 'evidences' void, or at least altered. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with radioactive half-lives. Are you deeming this an accurate method of longterm fossil dating? Okay. This leaves a certain amount of room for the theory that human beings did not actually evolve from apes. For example, when we track back history to it's earliest recorded stages, a strange phenomenon occurs. There is a point where ancient history actually converts into mythology. And in the ancient mythologies, it was more commonly believed that both apes and humans had descended from 'celestial gods', and that both apes and humans are currently in a mere state of mortal infancy. It is my theory that both humans and apes are more closely descended from 'celestial gods', as is accorded in ancient mythology. This again may seem absurd to a scientist, but I nonetheless suggest that metaphysical advancements will make these things more clear to our species in the future, thereby rendering our current interpretations of various 'evidences' null and void, or at least altered. I could go on further, but I first wish to ascertain if we are communicating at this point. Does any of this make sense to you thus far? I'm delving into metaphysical realms to be sure. I'm not attempting to be condescending, and I may even sound naive. I'm simply not aware if you value or have explored some of these other realms.

So then I may more accurately interpret 'evolution' as being 'environmentally-stimulated adaptation'? Is this correct? A species is not necessarily any greater than what it was before, but merely different. In an extreme sense then, a fish may 'evolve' into a bird, or a bird may 'evolve' into a fish. Wings turn into fins or vise versa. Please forgive me if I'm skewing some of the information here.

When I refer to degeneration, I'm referring to 'atrophy' versus adaptation. For example, is it possible for a species to become dumber, weaker, uglier, etc. if there be a lack of environmental modifiers? In other words, if a harsh environment will cause a species to adapt, will that same species devolve if placed back into a plush environment that offers no adaptive rigor? Sort of like when an athlete stops training at the gym, or a scholar ceases from their studies for many long years. I may be sounding ridiculous with my ideas and questions, but I'm honestly trying to learn. I've been told bad things about evolution by religionists for many years, but then I found major problems with religious doctrines also since then. And now I just want the truth. Religionists have misrepresented evolution to me in order to debunk it. Then I'm not understanding evolution properly. Okay. So it's all environment-specific adaptation. And some environments are harsher while others are softer. The species is simply rebalancing itself after a cyclical fashion then perhaps?

Please excuse my aggressive questioning, but I like to learn. And one of the ways that I learn is by disagreeing with everything that I'm told, lolol, while desiring non-presuppositonal proofs. I'm not intending to try to make people feel stupid, as I have much to learn myself, nor do I claim to know all of the answers. So I may ask a question, and then immediately disagree with the answer I'm given as a way of intense cross-examination. This doesn't mean that I have all of the facts myself, but I'm trying intensely to locate them. How do we know that these dating methods are accurate? These look like fine instances of 'theoretical mapping', but how do we know that these things are actually true? It's still merely presuppositional theory, is it not? If we first hold to the presuppositional theory, we will interpret the 'evidence' as confirming the validity of evolution. Similarly, if a person holds to a presuppositional theory that a god created the universe, one will then look at the 'evidence' of our planet, and they will confidently exclaim "Behold, the evidence of God!!" However, if neither of these presuppositional theories are first believed, then the 'evidence' will not drive one to the same interpreted conclusions. For example, how do I know that hind toes are not actually more evolved than hooves? Aren't toes better than hooves? Toes are more agile than hooves. What stops me from reversing the sequence of the pictures? How do we know that the sequencing of these skulls is actually accurate? If someone does not first hold to your theory of evolution, they may actually sequence the skulls in a different fashion. For example, what prevents me from placing skull E before skull D? I believe that all of the animal species (including humans) are interrelated. I just count the number of the limbs that the animal has, and I say "Ah, these are relatives". Then I may look for skin types (soft-skinned versus scaled, etc), as well as carnivore/herbivore shaped teeth, claws versus hoofs (aren't claws more evolved than hoofs? Or is it the reverse?), horns or tails, etc. These genetic similarities would clearly indicate to me that all of these related species came from the same source. But how do we know that the sourcelines are tracked correctly? For example, how do I know that apes haven't actually descended from ancient humans? Apes are far superior to humans in both physical strength and agility, and are therefore more evolved than humans in certain ways. Or perhaps they had both originated from a more distant source. There may potentially exist greater similarities much deeper in the genetic patterns than what we have yet been able to discern via modern observation devices. Again, please excuse my aggressive questioning. I will automatically disagree with someone in whatever they say (in talking theory versus personal experiences anyway), and offer a counter presupposition, just to see what hashes out and what doesn't in the long run. That's not intended to make anyone feel incompetent or anything like that, as any of my own presuppositions can also be vigorously questioned.

How do we know that it is correct? Might not another greater theory eventually come along? Perhaps a metaphysical one? How might metaphysics possibly come into play, if indeed they would? Are metaphysics valid as pertaining to the theory of evolution? Sorry. I'm not familiar with these terms, but I'd like to learn. Is it possible that the universe or the human species may in fact devolve/degenerate at times? May evolution be routinely cycled with devolution/degeneration? I've not actually seen evolution everywhere around me. Rather, I've seen a great deal of decay and degeneration. This is partially why I ask these questions. It sounds like a race between the evolution of the human species and the 'evolution' of viruses.

Does this negate creationism? If so, then how? Where specifically is this evidence? And how do we know that it is interpreted properly? Thank you.

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis? In your own words please. I prefer if you do not provide lengthy links. If you wish to quote something from another source, please reprint just a brief portion here in this thread, and interpret it for me in your own words. Like just a paragraph or two versus pages and pages. Otherwise I may not understand it. Thank you.