RE: Evolution of Man
Hi Sam and all,
Well, this is the science forum so I may be outnumbered here. 😀 Though time was I was as hard-headed a material-science thinker as they come, and scoffed at 'the unseen'. So I appreciate the perspective.
Yes, Songstress was kinda right in that we both, Sam and I, accept there's evolution. But I don't see it as the whole explanation. I don't know if I've ever considered this before - these posts brought it home to me - but it seems logical (to me) that if there is a 'non-physical' arena of existence, call it souls, God, or the astral plane, or all of those, yet if this interacts with the physical if only subtly (otherwise we couldn't even know of it and it might as well not exist) then this may preclude evolution as a pure and complete explanation for the genesis of species or species-change.
What I mean is, if there is any unseen reality interacting with this world then by definition it affects this world. Of course, religious people believe this implicitly as do those accepting the paranormal. If anything is affecting us in the material world, then it could influence the course develpment takes. That isn't, then, 'pure' evolution as a material-science theory would have it.
Of course this is all pretty obvious. But what I'm getting at is that it may be a contradiction for religious people, or those believing in spirits, life-after-death, etc, to accept evolution as the whole explanation for species-development. Seems to me that only a materialist reductionist can accept evolution wholesale. It can only be a purely material process if the non-material (but impacting the material) doesn't exist. Have I got my logic right?
Sam, you ask what is meant by devolution. Cremo actually means, following the Hindu scriptures, that 'devolution' is the descent of non-material or para-material beings into physical bodies. I disagree as I wouldn't call that devolution, but rather a God-intended process. My 'devolution' would be the idea that humanity has been advanced intellectually and in civilisation before, but actually may have devolved at least once to the more primitive man the record shows. That for me is where Cremo's Forbidden Archeology comes in: that any evidence of incredibly old civilisations is filtered out.
V
RE: Evolution of Man
Two or three points D.
Please do not think that I am a 'Scientist' with a Capital S, scornful of all things faith; I am not, if push comes to shove, I believe in a Universal/Cosmos/Mulitidimensional 'IT' that somehow, totally beyond our comprehension, looks over, but not after, Its creation, rocks, bugs and Little Green Men. When a rock, bug or LGM develops, or tom use that horrid word 'evolves' to a certain mental level, it becomes aware, not only of itself, and its death, but of the possiblity of a 'God'. It is this awareness of one's own mortality and a microscopic insight into the scale of things, that we call souls. I would also like to think that 'God' seeks to see this insight in Its creations, and this gives It joy - it must be a very lonely job, being 'God'.
As for the idea that a technologically advanced race of men evolved many millions of years ago, I always cite the 'ring-pull' theory. It is impossible to conceive of a technological civilization relying on rocks!! Hard metal and non-rusting metal at that, must have figured in billions of tons in their lives.... So where are they, the Earth should be littered with Billion year old ring-pulls. I know that tectonic plate movement may have shifted surfaces then habitable, thousands of feet below the ground, but to argue that EVERY non perishable artifact has so vanished, is a ploy too far, IMHO.
Leo
RE: Evolution of Man
Hi Leo,
Yes I have sussed that you are not a materialist-type. 😉
The supposedly missing artefacts. Of course virtually all would be either gone or very deep. But as Sam said the fossil record is so incomplete, and likewise for ancient artefacts. Myths tend to indicate that ancient civilisations were not for some reason global as today - the sinking of an island could account for a lot. I also once had a neighbour, a strange eccentric guy who never entered his garden for 8 years. In just 8 years it turned literally (almost literally!) into a jungle, in the middle of London. High and thick trees where there had been only lawn. Impenatrable! It made me realise how very quickly civilisation and all signs of it disappear if untended.
Further, it is once more the thesis of Forbidden Archeology, the unadbridged version running I think to 900 pages packed with anomalous data from archeology. An unbelievable amount of anomalous data. It's also interesting to see how the 'scientists' rounded on Cremo and actually tried to get TV stations to refuse to air his views! Yes, censorship. So it's a viable thesis I'd say. After wading through maybe 900 pages or so, maybe it's 800, you really do start to feel that where there's smoke, there's fire. Some of those pages have several such datums per page. It's a great piece of research. In some cases Cremo has now tracked down the artefacts and, yes, they exist, though often hidden away and not on show as museums don't know what to call them or what to make of them.
Somewhere on one of his sites there's info on ancient rock, laid down long before homo sapiens is supposed to have been around, from which, years ago, many crafted artefacts were uncovered - in mine-workings if I recall. He's visited the place and is trying to get work going again, this in the USA.
Ancient cities supposed to by myth were discovered underwater off the coast of India just a few years ago. Two of them are the size of greater London! The myths which mention them, and the geological record, puts them at something like 7-8,000 BC. So the data keeps coming in...
On God in relation to evolution, if God exists and interacts with us at all (whatever our concept of the One is), then it may be that His/Her influence is to prod certain species in certain directions irrespective of physical evolution. In other words, 'below' or the physical world, like iron filings on a paper with a magnet underneath, will tend to get shaped into conformity with the realms Above. That's how many esotericists see it anyway.
V
RE: Evolution of Man
Scientists are no different from other professionals, some are pioneers crossing new frontiers and others follow like sheep.
The only thing that blocks new discoveries is when they try to fit the new into an old model and paradigm. Cutting edge scientists are doing some amazing work and I applaud their efforts in a majority of cases. One cannot separate consciousness and the rising thereof from the astrological Aeons.
Blessings in abundance
Kim xx
RE: Evolution of Man
Hi Guys,
This has been a really interesting conversation/discussion and I’ve found it very informative (especially the informed exchanges - so thank you guys) – I don’t know anything about this subject, but am very intrigued by it.
I suppose I’m looking for simplified answers really, as frankly I view the ‘question’ in a simplified way too.
So (and I would like this confirmed please, because if this bit is wrong, then all the rest won’t matter :)) – I thought the basic premise of the whole of the ‘Evolution’ theory - is hung on the ‘peg’ marked “spontaneous random chance origin” – and everything else from ‘it’ is then deemed to ‘evolve’. Although I rather see it as ‘mutate’ (as evolve makes it sound as if it’s always getting better – and yet we know certain species have walked straight into an existence cul-de-sac[:-]) – so I perceive it as ‘survival orientated mutations’.
Alternatively the counter argument to the ‘Evolution Theory’ is that in order to create life, there was some sort of expression of ‘will’ by an already existent ‘conscious’ or (in someway) ‘aware’ entity.
The fact that DNA is found in all life, contains both dormant and active attributes, has the ability to change and/or has evolved or mutated over the millennia, does not, for me actually prove that ‘something’ did not ‘will’ life into existence, and DNA only further strengthens the argument as I see it – a universal operating system running a modular, self(willed) upgradeable, choice driven, (& one language) applications software… sounds like a plan to me? Otherwise we’d surely have a very strong possibility of all sorts of ‘random breakouts’ of life… or at least one other type by now - no?
See this is where my difficulty is, evolution to me is just a different way of saying mutation - it doesn’t prove (or hasn’t yet I think) that life did (or can be) started with a ‘spark’ into a pond of chemical goo.:eek:
Conversely, if I were going to (and had the power to) create life – I sure as hell would not want to design every living thing separately -
Instead, it would make far more sense to create a ‘vehicle’ that would allow all sorts of life to grow and change itself according to the impact of it’s environment, will & desires.
That makes more sense to me!
Guys’ don’t rip into me OK, these are my thoughts right now, based on the very little I know, so if I’ve missed something important, got it horribly wrong or made a ridiculous & fundamental error… be gentle as you put me right OK? 🙂
Rgds,
roger