Fair point. But you are assuming Earth is the only basin off life which you cannot do as science says that is unlikely. Plus you cannot talk about time as a factor of population increase as science currently says the dimension of time is an illusion (aspect's experiment on photon communication).
Time is'nt an illusion, they cant stop themselves from dieing. They cant go back in time. Time may not exist as it does here, if we do surivive and turn into spirits. But it will still be there.
You can measure time as the space between each thought. The question is, is time as importent to us once dead, as it is when we are alive. I highly doubt it is, because our physical reality is based on time being a key factor in our survival.
Comparing the Celts with Egypt is like comparing us with the Celts, it does not make sense. It would make more sence to compare the Egyptions with these guys :-
7000 BC -- Emergence of Catal Huyuk, Jarmo and Alosh cultures in the Middle East. The destruction of lush forests may have given rise to myths about the Garden of Eden. (O'Brien, 1985)
You said, different people developed spirituality at the same time. i used celts and eygptions because they are 2 different people - and they both developed there own version at different times, aka 5000 year gaps. Both developed spirituality when they started forming close nit groups.
I agree with the possiblity of us a community based species producing these concepts. However science has no evidence yet its acceptable because it suits the religion of science.Besides we are not the only community based species and surely this is a pacifist idea, Evolution is survival of the fittest so surely a culture based on pure reproduction and destruction should have prevailed centuries ago?
Survival of the fittest, dont refer to who can run 500 meters to find food. It is the combination of inteligence, physical fitness, resliance. Immune reposnse.
Humans are not natural born killers, we dont seek out others to kill just because they aint in our community.
You give humans space, a source of food and co-existance is far more peaceful, then it is when you pack humans into community's were others apply there rules upon an individual.
So are the results of scientific experiments, result tolerance is allowed and the experiment is repeated until consistent factors seem to occur. Look at NDE's, death bed visions and peoples who explore the human OBE's. There are consistent themes that even scientists have agreed on. In fact many scientists have accepted that there are recurring themes and are now busy trying to reproduce conditions that take all of these factors into account (They aint doing too great )
It's true people can have nde's/obe's and can experience "the light". But it does'nt mean it's paranormal. Everyone dreams, but thats not the afterlife. Yet they exist.
Enough with the Humanzie's already, Im still crying with laughter at the article you posted. How can you continue to say that and yet the article stats that science has proven that the chimp had no "un chimp" factors . Show me another article
*sigh*....re-read my post, did i say oliver was a humanzie? no i did not. so you should laugh at yourself, for making such a stupid mistake.
If you even bothered to look, theres even a patent out for a humanzee.
They have enfused our cells with many many animals, so they can carve them up for organ transplants.
Dont worry though....im sure you can find something in the bible which says...on the 6 zillionith day....god created the humanzee....
I understand the experiments I study. I often am rubbish with exact numbers, peoples names, dates etc. But I come away with the the overall purpose and result of an experiment. If it seems really interesting (Aspects experiment, Sheldrakes experiments) I will tend to look more thoroughly at them.
Your assumption is wrong(IMHO) about people wanting to know there is something. Like I said some people abuse science and many have produced a religion out of it. You can see that when you listen or read what some skeptics have to say.I think some people are more afraid of an open mind than a closed mind and if they can use "modern science belief" as their mind closing mechanism they will do so. If i talked to the catholic church 300 years ago about 6000BC cultures do you think they would accept me? no. If i talked to "Modern science" about string theories, alternative realities and a "god particle" 100 years ago do you think there religion would accept me?no (can you see the similarities?
Science is the search for the "truth" what ever that may be. Scientists are stuck in there ways, until an experiment/claim can be verified by a number of scientists thus adding to it's credability.
What the hell does IMHO mean?.... and people always want to expand there knowledge, it's what makes us human.
Exactly, I thought that. But take a look at Sheldrakes work(if you havent already) and consider your dogs behaviour again. I am in the middle of observing my cat and am not sure either way but I am willing to look at he's behaviour from another perspective and see which has more merits
I hav'nt read any of his work, but i'll look him up.
I dont know you well enough to comment, so go by the experience of reading your posts. So far the majority I see comes back with an initial statement which is absolute and opposing of the OP. That is not the true job of a skeptic.
My views, change when im presented with good, viable evidence which i can verifiy myself. It's unfortunate that not many people value evidence the same wasy i do.
Pure randomness is truly the only way someone can "believe" in no god as it is the only option that does contains no intelligent design. Sit back and think about people winning crazy bets, the construction of our universe, the taste of a good meal, the colour of the sky, the position of our moon and it control over the tides, the smell of a flower, a good book or film. Now you have to have pure randomness to account for all that if you believe in no God. The more you consider that, the harder it becomes.
Nothing random about it, knowledge = reaction = result.
Our knowledge, not gods or anything else's.
We are merely constructed to live in our surroundings. we are part of the universe therefore we survive in it.
Peices of rock hit each other, and form a planet. Our cells hit each other, caused a basic lifeform that lead to us.
We are self evolving/self sustaining. As knowledge increase's so does our ability to control the matter around us.
God aint got nothing to do with it.
Home
Pages: 1 
