PsiPog.net : View topic - Human Evolution?

# PsiPog.net

# View topic - Human Evolution?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » Human Evolution?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Human Evolution?

Poll: Do you think that psi is or will be the next stage of human evolution?

Yes

42%

[ 34 ]

No

22%

[ 18 ]

Maybe

23%

[ 19 ]

"Evolution?"

11%

[ 9 ]

Total Votes : 80

Author | Message
--- | ---
Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:36 am

### larryleisure

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 44

DanielH wrote:

Quote:
Another opinion: The next major step in "evolution" would be a spiritual revolution. As individuals, we all have our own religious/spiritual beliefs. But as a society, we are athiest. I would go into more detail on why I believe this, but that would require me to break my own rules, and I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite .

- Peebrain
Nah. We're going into alternate religions these days. More and more people are becoming atheist too. That's a good thing. Hopefully we'll all become atheist. The next step in evolution will hopefully be fully controlled by us.
I believe that the next "step" in evolution will be controlled by us humans with genetic engineering. Atheism, superior humans, interfacing with machines and computers, so on and so on. I can't wait for it.
I thought you didn't believe in evolution anyway.

not sure about the machine stuff and so on, although quite possible.
What I completely agree with is the fact we'll all become atheist, to me not in the sense that we'll stop believing in something, but more in a way that sooner or later we'll all believe in one same thing.

Back to top
Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:55 pm

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

I would say such a spiritual revolution would result in us being quite uniform in our beliefs not because of dogmatic orthodoxy but because we'll all simply come to the same conclusions about universal truths. I can say for sure that ultimately we won't become atheist because atheism is based on the fallacious assumption that what we currently can not percieve must not exist. We may well become atheist for a time but we'd never stay that way because our attention would be caught by our state of denial.

Back to top
Posted on Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:03 pm

### DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Quote:
I would say such a spiritual revolution would result in us being quite uniform in our beliefs not because of dogmatic orthodoxy but because we'll all simply come to the same conclusions about universal truths. I can say for sure that ultimately we won't become atheist because atheism is based on the fallacious assumption that what we currently can not percieve must not exist. We may well become atheist for a time but we'd never stay that way because our attention would be caught by our state of denial.

- Lightbringer
Haven't there already been a number of "spiritual revolutions" in the past? I'm sure there have.
I'm not atheist because I believe that what I cannot see is not real. I believe in a number of things that I cannot see. Things far in space, things long in the past, and so on.
Denial? Denial of what? Study the universe. The more you learn the more you see that science shows we are not a special creation. This universe changes a lot and we're just here by chance. Biology, physics, etc. There is a reason that so many scientists are atheist. Unlike priests and stupid people like that they actually study the universe.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:26 am

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

Quote:
Haven't there already been a number of "spiritual revolutions" in the past? I'm sure there have.

There certainly have been, but unless we've got some sort of spiritual revolution quota that we have already filled, why could another not be on the way?

Quote:
I'm not atheist because I believe that what I cannot see is not real. I believe in a number of things that I cannot see. Things far in space, things long in the past, and so on.

Certainly not, but that is the logical path atheists as a group use as justification. They are atheist for reasons other than pure logic though as you have said.

Quote:
Denial? Denial of what? Study the universe. The more you learn the more you see that science shows we are not a special creation. This universe changes a lot and we're just here by chance. Biology, physics, etc. There is a reason that so many scientists are atheist. Unlike priests and stupid people like that they actually study the universe.

Personally, I find it amusing how many atheists have no grasp of concepts like natural selection. Even while the knowledge about it is widespread, it seems to be slightly distorted in the minds of non-biologists who are atheists. I think it's indicative of atheists' subconscious desire to validate their beliefs so they twist what science says because natural selection says expressly that we are NOT here by chance. Moreover, I believe the striking similarity between the guiding hand of natural selection and the benevolent force of "Mother Nature" threatens the beliefs of atheists, thus the common misconception that we are creations of chance.
So, who here is stupid and who has studied the universe? Who is objectively coming to conclusions and who is twisting facts to validate their own inconsistent beliefs? Personally, I believe people such as your self (sub)consciously know they don't know and thus must lie to others and themselves to hold on to their beliefs. External validation obviously is a drug with a potent effect, however with a terribly short period of effectiveness thus a constant need to impose those beliefs on others...

Back to top
Posted on Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:24 am

### DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Quote:

There certainly have been, but unless we've got some sort of spiritual revolution quota that we have already filled, why could another not be on the way?
Certainly not, but that is the logical path atheists as a group use as justification. They are atheist for reasons other than pure logic though as you have said.
Personally, I find it amusing how many atheists have no grasp of concepts like natural selection. Even while the knowledge about it is widespread, it seems to be slightly distorted in the minds of non-biologists who are atheists. I think it's indicative of atheists' subconscious desire to validate their beliefs so they twist what science says because natural selection says expressly that we are NOT here by chance. Moreover, I believe the striking similarity between the guiding hand of natural selection and the benevolent force of "Mother Nature" threatens the beliefs of atheists, thus the common misconception that we are creations of chance.
So, who here is stupid and who has studied the universe? Who is objectively coming to conclusions and who is twisting facts to validate their own inconsistent beliefs? Personally, I believe people such as your self (sub)consciously know they don't know and thus must lie to others and themselves to hold on to their beliefs. External validation obviously is a drug with a potent effect, however with a terribly short period of effectiveness thus a constant need to impose those beliefs on others...

- Lightbringer
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that although we've had multiple spiritual revolutions in the past none have resulted in "us being quite uniform in our beliefs". Not that we won't have any/many more.
Are you insulting atheists en masse? The majority of atheist are probably stupid just like the majority of creationists are stupid. Can we agree on that?
Yeah, well most people don't really pay attention in their science classes. Yes... we have massive diversity before specialization... yes... we have niches are filled... yes... diversity dwindles a bit when those niches are filled... yes... those unable to reproduce go extinct... and yes... it's not chance, just the ability to survive and reproduce... oh, and yes... this is a _HIGHLY_ simplified explanation of natural selection (with parts missing), but I think it works for this purpose. My question is... how many people actually know about any of that stuff though? Not too many atheist, creationists, or whoever else you want to mix there. It's not just atheist that don't know about science so don't make it sound like that.
By the way, natural selection does not say we were created. I see it as probably saying that we're not created... The whole chance thing doesn't come so much in the evolution thing so much as in the origins of life. For example: Say the universe restarts itself over and over again (infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches for example). Each time it comes around the universe is different in some way. That means that the universe can have come around 9999999999999^9999999999999 times. Now, even with the terrible chances we have for life to occur eventually everything that has to happen would happen. All those fancy elements coming together and forming PNA, DNA, RNA, amino acids, whatever you want would eventually come together.
See where the chance thing comes in? I know those two articles are shitty, but I can clean them up and add more if you want. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to understand what I said though.
I know what I believe may not be true. My belief system is full of theories and "facts" that change all the time. I don't deny that. I believe in science... and well, that's what science is. What I believe is backed up by science though. But hey, I'll continue to study the universe as will other people.
What facts do you think I've twisted (or may have twisted) to come to my conclusions anyway? I'd love to hear what you think is wrong about my belief system.
I don't always trust my feelings. My brain is not perfect. It can make msitakes. Just because I see something one way doesn't mean I'll think it's perfect. When other people can back it up and get the same exact results with a reasonable explanation then I'll believe it. I won't believe there is a dinosaur behind me just because I see one though.
Well, I want to get rid of fluff. Don't you? Wouldn't you like to teach everyone the truth? Yes, I want to get rid of religion. Until there is evidence suggesting that god is real I'll do my best to fight off all religion. Hopefully one day it'll die off or it will come up with all the evidence it needs to prove (or whatever word you'd like to use) itself.
Once again... I didn't really write very clearly here. Just ask and I'll expand and clarify what I wrote.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:23 pm

### northstar_223

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 28

I wonder if it would be a tremendous blow to people's ego's in the psi community if we found out that psi abilities are not the result of a more evolved brain, but of a less evolved one.
What if Psi is some primal sense leftover from days when humans had to use it for survival in a harsh environment, and people not being able to use psi or not choosing to use it is the next step in evolution.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:38 pm

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

DanielH wrote:
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that although we've had multiple spiritual revolutions in the past none have resulted in "us being quite uniform in our beliefs". Not that we won't have any/many more.

Spiritual revolutions as I've seen them have not had the same goal of unification of all peoples. I would say, for example, that the creation of mystery religions such as Christianity would be a revolution as opposed to the more primitive pagan religions which focused more on keeping gods happy rather than benefitting the individuals in metaphysical ways. The next evolution in spirituality as I see it would result in unification, that's all .

DanielH wrote:
Are you insulting atheists en masse? The majority of atheist are probably stupid just like the majority of creationists are stupid. Can we agree on that?

We can agree that there are many misinformed people on both sides but I don't intend to insult, I'm merely pointing out a trend I've noticed.

DanielH wrote:
Yeah, well most people don't really pay attention in their science classes. Yes... we have massive diversity before specialization... yes... we have niches are filled... yes... diversity dwindles a bit when those niches are filled... yes... those unable to reproduce go extinct... and yes... it's not chance, just the ability to survive and reproduce... oh, and yes... this is a _HIGHLY_ simplified explanation of natural selection (with parts missing), but I think it works for this purpose. My question is... how many people actually know about any of that stuff though? Not too many atheist, creationists, or whoever else you want to mix there. It's not just atheist that don't know about science so don't make it sound like that.

It can be put even more simply with one phrase that is one of the few scientific phrases/formulae as famous as E=mc^2: Survival of the Fittest. Everyone knows it and it obviously demonstrates the less-than-random force behind our evolution. Yet they ignore it in favour of holding on to their illusions of randomness.

DanielH wrote:

By the way, natural selection does not say we were created. I see it as probably saying that we're not created... The whole chance thing doesn't come so much in the evolution thing so much as in the origins of life. For example: Say the universe restarts itself over and over again (infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches for example). Each time it comes around the universe is different in some way. That means that the universe can have come around 9999999999999^9999999999999 times. Now, even with the terrible chances we have for life to occur eventually everything that has to happen would happen. All those fancy elements coming together and forming PNA, DNA, RNA, amino acids, whatever you want would eventually come together.
See where the chance thing comes in? I know those two articles are shitty, but I can clean them up and add more if you want. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to understand what I said though.

Actually, the latest research being done (as published in Scientific American) indicates that the mathematical constants of the universe (like the gravitational constant) are not truly constant in OUR universe either. So no, the universe would not be radically different due to slight changes in constants as has been shown experimentally. Scientists have no idea why this is, but it is true.

DanielH wrote:

I know what I believe may not be true. My belief system is full of theories and "facts" that change all the time. I don't deny that. I believe in science... and well, that's what science is. What I believe is backed up by science though. But hey, I'll continue to study the universe as will other people.
What facts do you think I've twisted (or may have twisted) to come to my conclusions anyway? I'd love to hear what you think is wrong about my belief system.

You've simply expanded your knowledge to the point where you have found a convenient place that you believe randomness lies. Like all atheists, the assumption that something you don't understand is random is what fuels your belief in atheism. The fact that this falsification exists so prevelantly is what leads me to believe atheists are deluding themselves out of fear of having to change their beliefs.
That is not all I would say is incorrect with your beliefs, but I'm not going to preach, simply discuss this particular matter.

DanielH wrote:

I don't always trust my feelings. My brain is not perfect. It can make mistakes. Just because I see something one way doesn't mean I'll think it's perfect. When other people can back it up and get the same exact results with a reasonable explanation then I'll believe it. I won't believe there is a dinosaur behind me just because I see one though.
Well, I want to get rid of fluff. Don't you? Wouldn't you like to teach everyone the truth? Yes, I want to get rid of religion. Until there is evidence suggesting that god is real I'll do my best to fight off all religion. Hopefully one day it'll die off or it will come up with all the evidence it needs to prove (or whatever word you'd like to use) itself.

You believe that, because the parting of a sea or the existence of a benevolent God is unlikely, religion as a whole must be fluff and a pack of lies? Sure, fight off religion when God's existence has been disproved but disproving God is as difficult as proving him. Accept your ignorance and let others work their way out of theirs. The saying "take everything with a grain of salt" does not only mean that one should not believe everything they hear, but also that they should not discount everything from a particular source just because that source has a poor track record as far as providing truthful information goes. Religious books are not archives of perfect truths, but that does not mean they are lies and only lies. Many of the truths in religions are quite useful and wise.
By the way, things like religion don't die because of diehard resistance, they die because those who believe in it study closer and closer until they are no longer convinced. Or they become more and more arrogant to protect their beliefs which are under fire from the knowledge they've gained and that arrogance becomes apparent to later generations...which is what's happening now; A sort of overcompensation because our parents have seen the narrowmindedness of earlier generations. Thus the popularity of atheism which is slowly being replaced by self-discovery as a spiritual practice (as things like Yoga, Tai chi and other "new agey" things gain popularity).

Back to top
Posted on Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:10 pm

### DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Quote:
Actually, the latest research being done (as published in Scientific American) indicates that the mathematical constants of the universe (like the gravitational constant) are not truly constant in OUR universe either. So no, the universe would not be radically different due to slight changes in constants as has been shown experimentally. Scientists have no idea why this is, but it is true.

Yeah, we've talked about that before in the chat room. Many times actually. How slight a change are you talking about exactly? I don't know we're talking about the same thing when we say "slight."

Quote:

You've simply expanded your knowledge to the point where you have found a convenient place that you believe randomness lies. Like all atheists, the assumption that something you don't understand is random is what fuels your belief in atheism. The fact that this falsification exists so prevelantly is what leads me to believe atheists are deluding themselves out of fear of having to change their beliefs.
That is not all I would say is incorrect with your beliefs, but I'm not going to preach, simply discuss this particular matter.

Are you saying randomness doesn't apply to this? Tell me then... do you believe some guiding force led all the elements required for life together? You do not believe that they just came together by chance? That's what I see you saying... that something guided everything needed for life together.
You keep assuming things. I don't believe that because I don't understand something it must be random. Me not understanding it just means I don't understand it. I simply do not believe that something guided the elements needed for life though. Do you?
You sure do like putting words in my mouth, huh? I'm not sure if this is the right term... but I think you're attempting a straw man argument. Ask me why I believe stuff, but don't claim to know why I do.

Quote:
You believe that, because the parting of a sea or the existence of a benevolent God is unlikely, religion as a whole must be fluff and a pack of lies? Sure, fight off religion when God's existence has been disproved but disproving God is as difficult as proving him. Accept your ignorance and let others work their way out of theirs. The saying "take everything with a grain of salt" does not only mean that one should not believe everything they hear, but also that they should not discount everything from a particular source just because that source has a poor track record as far as providing truthful information goes. Religious books are not archives of perfect truths, but that does not mean they are lies and only lies. Many of the truths in religions are quite useful and wise.

I believe that religion is fluff because all religions I've seen to date lack much evidence supporting their assertions. No need to call me ignorant when you are ignorant, right?
What truths in religion are quire useful and wise anyway? I'd love to hear about them.

Quote:
By the way, things like religion don't die because of diehard resistance, they die because those who believe in it study closer and closer until they are no longer convinced. Or they become more and more arrogant to protect their beliefs which are under fire from the knowledge they've gained and that arrogance becomes apparent to later generations...which is what's happening now; A sort of overcompensation because our parents have seen the narrowmindedness of earlier generations. Thus the popularity of atheism which is slowly being replaced by self-discovery as a spiritual practice (as things like Yoga, Tai chi and other "new agey" things gain popularity).

eh, religion dies because of various reasons. Invasion and assimilation, death or blow to a leader, and so on.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf
Religious trends. There might be a newer study out there. Look one up for me. "Self-discovery" doesn't mean belief in god by the way. Just to make that clear to anyone who is reading this.[/quote]

Back to top
Posted on Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:24 pm

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

DanielH wrote:
Yeah, we've talked about that before in the chat room. Many times actually. How slight a change are you talking about exactly? I don't know we're talking about the same thing when we say "slight."

Well all constants can be reduced down to one constant (I forget the name, but it relates to light and time as I recall). This constant has been found to have changed a few percent within certain nebulae and other astronomical phenomena by telescopes on Earth as well as by Hubble.

Quote:
Are you saying randomness doesn't apply to this? Tell me then... do you believe some guiding force led all the elements required for life together? You do not believe that they just came together by chance? That's what I see you saying... that something guided everything needed for life together.

Well we don't know how much the constants can actually fluctuate before the universe changes too radically for us because it's already fluctuating more than we thought possible. But if just those few percent are the limits of tolerable fluctuation, then the existence of HUMAN life has quite a high probability (and that's ignoring the possibility for life resulting from universes with different "constants"). I won't throw in any unnecessary beliefs of mine into this but when I see every aspect of our existence hinging on a few rolls of the die and that we have a relatively good chance of making those rolls, it strikes me as odd that something as complicated as human life is in fact not resulting from beating the odds.

Quote:
You keep assuming things. I don't believe that because I don't understand something it must be random. Me not understanding it just means I don't understand it.

You'd be surprised how predictable people are at their most basic psychological level. What you've demonstrated is that the behaviour that controls even your most intellectual and "logical" thought is a very basic one that is behind the motives of so many others as well. So if it seems like I'm assuming things, it's simply because I've seen it all before. And that includes you making excuses for your illogical beliefs as quoted above.

Quote:
You sure do like putting words in my mouth, huh? I'm not sure if this is the right term... but I think you're attempting a straw man argument. Ask me why I believe stuff, but don't claim to know why I do.

This quote in particular really interests me because of it's illogical nature. See if I told you that you had 3 legs and 12 eyes, you'd just laugh, call me crazy and be on your way. But when I say that I know why you believe what you do and tell you an answer that you know is true, it really pushes your buttons. So don't blame me that you have buttons to be pushed because you created them and they are indicators of the flaws you know you have.

Quote:
I believe that religion is fluff because all religions I've seen to date lack much evidence supporting their assertions. No need to call me ignorant when you are ignorant, right? What truths in religion are quire useful and wise anyway? I'd love to hear about them.

You're far too caught up in the scientific aspect of things. I don't believe any more than you do that a guy who lived hundreds of years made an ark to hold 2 of every animal in preparation for a flood. But how does that falsehood invalidate teachings like "Love thy neighbour"? (I'm using Christianity for examples here by the way simply because I doubt people will get Hindu or Buddhist references...)

Quote:
eh, religion dies because of various reasons. Invasion and assimilation, death or blow to a leader, and so on.

Not in today's world. Sure, when a neanderthal cult was destroyed by Cro Magnum, their religion died with them, but killing a Mullah or occupying all Muslim countries will result in the end of Islam no more than destroying India will end Hinduism or Buddhism. You can not invade religion with an army, nor kill a religious leader and be done with it because another will tkae his place.

Quote:
"Self-discovery" doesn't mean belief in god by the way. Just to make that clear to anyone who is reading this.

Who are you to talk about self discovery? You have less understanding of yourself than some anonymous person on the net and you KNOW it or else it wouldn't be eating you up inside enough that you would constantly have to rebutt my points. And should that fail and your "logic" is defeated, you'll find new semantic flaws in my argument that you will exploit further to take your own and others' focus away from this fact.
Self-discovery doesn't mean belief in God but understanding of the concepts of God and the Self.

Back to top
Posted on Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:01 pm

### DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

[quote]Well all constants can be reduced down to one constant (I forget the name, but it relates to light and time as I recall). This constant has been found to have changed a few percent within certain nebulae and other astronomical phenomena by telescopes on Earth as well as by Hubble. [/quote
Alpha? Bravo? 1? 2?

Quote:
Well we don't know how much the constants can actually fluctuate before the universe changes too radically for us because it's already fluctuating more than we thought possible. But if just those few percent are the limits of tolerable fluctuation, then the existence of HUMAN life has quite a high probability (and that's ignoring the possibility for life resulting from universes with different "constants"). I won't throw in any unnecessary beliefs of mine into this but when I see every aspect of our existence hinging on a few rolls of the die and that we have a relatively good chance of making those rolls, it strikes me as odd that something as complicated as human life is in fact not resulting from beating the odds.

How many universes do we think exist these days? Well, it seems that you think because something happened it must mean that we have a purpose... as I like to say... the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning. With all the universes we expect to exist... with all the times that the big bang could have repeated itself... with all these "constants" changing... with all these imperfections in biological machines... so on and so on... well, I think people just start connecting dots that don't exist.
I'm sure not all of those universes that exist follow the same physical laws ours does. Fine-tuned universe? Ha! The lack of logic in that astounds me!

Quote:
You'd be surprised how predictable people are at their most basic psychological level. What you've demonstrated is that the behaviour that controls even your most intellectual and "logical" thought is a very basic one that is behind the motives of so many others as well. So if it seems like I'm assuming things, it's simply because I've seen it all before. And that includes you making excuses for your illogical beliefs as quoted above.

See, that's the thing. You haven't really shown yourself to know what I believe in why. You keep making false assumptions. Should I get some for you? I believe I will.

Quote:
Like all atheists, the assumption that something you don't understand is random is what fuels your belief in atheism.

Quote:
You believe that, because the parting of a sea or the existence of a benevolent God is unlikely, religion as a whole must be fluff and a pack of lies?

Quote:
You've simply expanded your knowledge to the point where you have found a convenient place that you believe randomness lies.

Those are just three of the ones that you've made. You were incorrect about me in all three. You shouldn't make assumptions unless you know what you're talking about; so far it seems as if you don't. My suggestion is stop before you get even more wrong.

Quote:
And that includes you making excuses for your illogical beliefs as quoted above.

Quote:
You keep assuming things. I don't believe that because I don't understand something it must be random. Me not understanding it just means I don't understand it.

What about that is illogical? Mind explaining your "logic" here?

Quote:
This quote in particular really interests me because of it's illogical nature. See if I told you that you had 3 legs and 12 eyes, you'd just laugh, call me crazy and be on your way. But when I say that I know why you believe what you do and tell you an answer that you know is true, it really pushes your buttons. So don't blame me that you have buttons to be pushed because you created them and they are indicators of the flaws you know you have.

More incorrect assumptions. I respond because talking about this is fun. I respond because I'm a mod. I respond because I have lots of free time. If you say that god is real I'll laugh at you and I'll ask you for proof BECAUSE I think talking about these things is fun. Not because you bother me. I'm mostly a calm guy... very few people actually know how to bother me. I'm assuming you're not much of an empath .

Quote:
You're far too caught up in the scientific aspect of things. I don't believe any more than you do that a guy who lived hundreds of years made an ark to hold 2 of every animal in preparation for a flood. But how does that falsehood invalidate teachings like "Love thy neighbour"? (I'm using Christianity for examples here by the way simply because I doubt people will get Hindu or Buddhist references...)

See, I don't believe in god. I do not believe in any "truths" like "Love thy neighbor". I do not care about my neighbors. I do not love them. Why should I? Seems like a waste of time and energy. What is moral and immoral is not written somewhere that actually matters. It's dependant on the individual. Who's to say that Hitler was a bad guy? Sure, I think he was... but was he? There is no universal code so he might not have been.

Quote:
Not in today's world. Sure, when a neanderthal cult was destroyed by Cro Magnum, their religion died with them, but killing a Mullah or occupying all Muslim countries will result in the end of Islam no more than destroying India will end Hinduism or Buddhism. You can not invade religion with an army, nor kill a religious leader and be done with it because another will tkae his place.

So you do not believe that any of todays religions have been killed by brute force? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

Who are you to talk about self discovery? You have less understanding of yourself than some anonymous person on the net and you KNOW it or else it wouldn't be eating you up inside enough that you would constantly have to rebutt my points. And should that fail and your "logic" is defeated, you'll find new semantic flaws in my argument that you will exploit further to take your own and others' focus away from this fact.
Self-discovery doesn't mean belief in God but understanding of the concepts of God and the Self.

Who are you? I meditate one to two hours a day at least. I know myself very well. Do you know much about me? Doubted. Like I said... this is fun for me. It's not bothering me.
I'm wondering... is my responding bothering you? You keep responding to what I say. Is it that maybe you feel like this is eating you up inside? You think I'm crazy/stupid/whatever, so why don't you just go away and laugh? Perhaps your responding here is more than just a bit illogical, huh?
I sure do you hope you were setting me up somewhere

Back to top
Posted on Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:39 am

### Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

lol, to be honest I like where this is going. I think I can understand both of you during this little discussion. As I must say I don't see much people like either of you. As for mediateing often like you do Daniel, I hope you wouldnt be surpise to find something new about yourself. I forget the term for it, but the way you view yourself and people view you are always different. To be honest I don't think this is that fun for you, seeing there is a pause in your own typeing words. But fun is fun never less. Personaly I think the universe is chaning, time is a illusion. String theory makes me laugh a little, then again loop is not any better. Big curch sounded nice to me at some period but I disagree with it now.
Perhaps some network of psi is governing the evolution partten I wouldnt know. As a man of science I have my doutes of evolution, why? Horseshoe crab in canada is one of the examples. I believe evolution exist, but maybe not as a random.
I notice religion was brought into this strongly, but then again evolution always seem to bug religion since Dawin thought it up.
I will say I once was a atheists, but ever since a trance I had years ago I had my thoughts about it. I wont say any more, not now anyway.

Back to top
Posted on Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:10 am

### DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Trust me, this is fun for me. I like talking about science related topics. What pause?

Back to top
Posted on Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:49 pm

### Ashrak

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 9

I didnt' watch all thsi topic but i think that the next evolution, won't be natural but technical, people will try to improve themselves by technical improvements => cyborgs.

Back to top
Posted on Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:21 pm

### equinox

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 9

we will keep evolving since evolution is just random. For example let's say that there is a mutation that make our brain 1/2 bigger that it is now, it was all just random, but that mutation will be useful because it will obviously make that being a lot more intelligent, and thus will survive. I didn't read all posts, but I did see a lot of you mixing in religion and spirituality with evolution. it is all psycological, religion didn't evolve. Our brain had to create it because we were so intelligent that we had to create an explanation and since we didn't know nothing about science we created religion. Since science , and the knowledge of our brain's capability is increasing we will not believe in religion any more...of course there will be those "how should I call it?" that still believe in religion. we don't have to nesseseraly evolve in order for us to be superior in brain power, we just have to rely more on us instead of religion.

Back to top
Posted on Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:09 pm

### Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

equinox wrote:
we will keep evolving since evolution is just random. For example let's say that there is a mutation that make our brain 1/2 bigger that it is now, it was all just random, but that mutation will be useful because it will obviously make that being a lot more intelligent, and thus will survive. I didn't read all posts, but I did see a lot of you mixing in religion and spirituality with evolution. it is all psycological, religion didn't evolve. Our brain had to create it because we were so intelligent that we had to create an explanation and since we didn't know nothing about science we created religion. Since science , and the knowledge of our brain's capability is increasing we will not believe in religion any more...of course there will be those "how should I call it?" that still believe in religion. we don't have to nesseseraly evolve in order for us to be superior in brain power, we just have to rely more on us instead of religion.

That is the most brutal butchering of sociology, psychologically, biology and just science in general I've seen in some time. I suggest taking some classes or reading some books on the aforementioned subjects before posting so authoritatively.

Back to top

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » Human Evolution?

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.