RE: Evolution of Man
The point to me is that it simply isn't science to proclaim, "It's delusional!" Boy, if all the great minds had reacted that way to new ideas, how would we ever have progressed? New frontiers in science must be approached in a scientific frame of mind, not in the emotional manner of one who finds it difficult to have his/her worldview challenged. Then it's sceince. Science gets the facts, and science looks at the facts clinically.
I am not very scientific, I have a slight interest in science. But I have to agree with V. When you read anything in print a question you have to ask yourself is 'Whose agenda is being met?' I believe that Nothing is a given and question everything. Science has its place but so too does spiritualism. We all originated from somewhere and we are all entitiled to or opinions. I prefer to believe that we did originate from the Big Bang. Thinking about it God said "let there be light" and BANG! there it was. Eventually science and spiritualism will meld like a jigsaw puzzle. I believe we already know or believe what scientist are yet to discover.
Science revolves around the 'seeing is believing' theory where as spiritualism is the leap of faith, 'Believing before seeing.
RE: Evolution of Man
David & Roger,
Sorry about the delay. I just got back. I am most certainly not a scholar of Vedic literature. I thought that was understood by everyone. Nor am I a student of Theosophy. I am a member of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research; I do periodically attend discussion groups at the Theosophical Society in Glasgow; I'm fifty years old and I have both read and heard quite a bit in my time about A.B. and her varied associates. None of which entitles me to claim expertise. And I don't.
What I do say is that in all I have heard and read of AB's life work, I see someone who changed her philosophies several times and produced no evidence, (though many words), to support any of it. I find her much more plausible on politics, particularly on womens' rights- an area which I regret has been lost on most later feminists, who seem rather more embarrassed by her than proud of her.
On prehistoric civilisations- again I really think we must distinguish between technological and non-. For instance, if the dates on the footprints in Mexico are upheld, it will definitely call into question other sites where dates have been rejected solely because they seemed too old. I assume we agree on that. That is how science self corrects. (Yes. It takes time.)
But this still presents no evidence at all for high technology. It just proves what everyone already knows- the data on human occupation of the Americas is sparse, because it's a big place and there were'nt many folk there. If there had been cities 40,000 years ago, (or 15,000) we would have found them long since. The Native Americans would have found them. The Anasazi would have found them. Russian satellites would have found (and possibly bombed) them!
On the (Asian) Indian claims to advanced prehistoric technology, I must ask you again, where is the evidence?
First I'll repeat what I just said above- I'm not a student of this literature. Life is too short. If there is hard evidence, I will be happy if you, who I understand have studied it, will point me at it.
Let me ask a question though;- Have you studied original sources in original languages, or only modern translations?
The reason I ask may seem simplistic, but bear with me, please. In 1900, there was no word in English for many terms now common in aerospace applications. (Ablation shield, escape velocity, freefall- a thousand others). Therefore, no translation of the Vedas into English in 1900 could contain those terms.
After, (let's say) 1970, many of those terms did exist.
So any translation of a book describing prehistoric spacecraft was impossible until the language which the book was translated INTO contained the necessary terms. Previous translations must have used non technical descriptions ( "winged chariot", meaning aircraft for example). My question is- did scholars of the literature in (say) the 1940s suggest this referred to advanced technology, or not? At what point, and by whom, were "flying chariots" reinterpreted as spacecraft?
If it does describe advanced (possibly alien) technology, it should also contain references to devices we don't yet have. Unless we have imagined them in SF, we will still be using pre-tech euphemism in translation. Have any such been used to suggest new areas (to us)of technology?
At the risk of being a bore, I feel I must ask again- where is the evidence? Where are the satellites or space debris which we might reasonably expect to be still in orbit after a few hundred millenia? Where are the oil wells? Where are the spent fission / fusion byproducts? Have these also been hidden or "lost" by archaeologists protecting perceived wisdom? This would imply a centuries old conspiracy, involving effective and secret communication between archaeologists of several nations, lasting at least 300 years.
Many ancient legends have some historical truth at heart, but some are just stories. The way to prove the difference is archaeological research. Finds. Artifacts. In the absence of actual high tech objects, my
RE: Evolution of Man
Hi Songstress,
I know that your posting goes back to May but the following link is very interesting about how we 'modern man' came into being. Hope you enjoy
Love & light
Publisher
[link= http://www.maitreya-edu.org/news_letters/news_letter_23.htm ]http://www.maitreya-edu.org/news_letters/news_letter_23.htm[/link]
RE: Evolution of Man
Enough is enough,,,
Songstress started out this thread with a scientific question. This thread has now been taken over by non-scientific deviations to an extent that goes beyond the 'Coffee Table Discourse' range.
I have therfore locked it as Songstress's point has long since been covered.
Furthermore, there being many other sections of these Forums where non scientific questions and opinions may be aired and discussed, a much more stringent watch will be kept on the content and progression of posts here.
Leonardo
Administrator and Moderator for 'Scientific Matters'
[url]Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 ...[/url]