Science and Religion Message Board 2001-2500

Joy, you, or anyone else, can always object to anything I say with no apologies needed. While I tend to address my comments directly to the person of whom I have quoted, I invite comments from anyone. I do not hesitate to object when I disagree with you. Neither should you hesitate.

I consider consciousness to be in the domain of the physical. I believe that I have previously mentioned this in a prior post. I believe it is the one in which I indicated that I thought Freud was a scientist of the first rank. (I think Freud was as great a scientist as Darwin.)

When you discuss these things with me, it might be helpful if you were aware that I am of the opinion, that as the evidence comes in, more and more, those things previously and currently thought to be spiritual will be found to be in the domain of the physical.

It is like this: how can there be physical evidence for thunder? At the time the Bible was written, who would have thought physical evidence for thunder could possibly exist. Yet it does exist. On a conceptual level, from the perspective of an Old Testament prophet, what is the difference between thunder and human consciousness?

As I understand your thesis, you maintain that consciousness is not physical and thus there can be no evidence of it's existence. I say consciousness is physical, and there is significant evidence already that it is physical. But I am of the opinion that much more evidence will be forthcoming in the next few years. I think what you will witness in this area in the next few years will be nothing short of revolutionary.

First of all, let me congratulate you on taking us officially into the future with post #2001! Note that CNN's board had no problem recognizing the zeros... §:o)

I fully agree that the evidence is forthcoming, and that we should be prepared to accept genetic fundamentals for seating consciousness in this machine. I also expect evidence that genes do not do more than program the passage of time, and further evidence (as if we didn't have enough by the existence of history) that humans have the capacity to transcend time.

I may be wrong, since we don't yet have a model, but I think this is exciting and worthy research. If there's more, we should look for it. Why are we limiting ourselves to religious belief or the lack of such belief?

Memes demonstrate evolution, adaptation, procreation and significant survival behaivors, yet we hesitate to define them as life. Although they are pervasive, and obvious, in our environment, we generaly deny that they live, or even exist.

Memes are frequently manifested in repetitive behaiviors and worldviews. Oral histories, legends, old wive's tales and parables are common propogational vectors for memes.

Many suggest that God is a meme. (My jury is still arguing.)

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is this like demonology and possession? This is separate from ourselves, but not a thought form?

Hello All. We have a few minutes before the cleaning crew come in to vacuum the system.

First - I do not even try to prove the existence of God. Nor do I have any interest in doing so. My pursuits are within the brain. Finding those hidden sub-programs that will open the way to the unseen. Like why, for instance, when you burn your finger annd shake it, not only does the pain go away - but the finger doesn't even blister if you do it right. Self-healing? Mind over matter? And what are hallucinations? How does a Mother lift a car off her child? How can we access these 'powers' so we can do these things whenever we want? If Dna and the gentic codes contain information about all that went into making me, how can I access that information to say, go back in time and 'see' life from an ancester's point of view? I have questions. And have found some answers. But they are relative to me and therefore not transferable. In that other 90% of the brain - there are answers. And one thing I am sure of, that I have proven to myself and has been proven to me, is that a 'spiritual' experience opens up those centers - while doubts, fears and ordinary interaction can thwart anyone's attempts to 'cross over'. The frown or sceptical gaze is purely frontal. It blocks access to even the crown area of the brain. It obstructs 'vision'. But the periphery - where the horns would be are always alert - always observing and classifying - storing information for future reference. Then there's the two horns that are put on demons - right on the frontal lobes - accessing only that which is necessary for immediate gratification - whatever the need. Search your mind Cliff. Are there no inklings of 'something more'?

At the time the Bible was written, who would have thought physical evidence for thunder could possibly exist. Yet it does exist. - Cliff Beall

Of course, thunder exists. You probably have heard of this ancient Japanese koan that asks: "Does a falling tree in a forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it?"

Going back to ancient times, why did people believe in gods? Because they lacked the intelligence to provide convincible explanations of natural phenomena. It was then more readily acceptable to proclaim that thunder is produced by a god (such as "Thor"), than saying that it is the result of air compression following a lightning strike.

But now, having (supposedly) more intelligence, why does man still believe in gods?

Because man doesn't like to think. Man is lazy, prefering to follow one of nature's fundamental laws: to take the path of least resistance.

What does this mean? It means that if I cannot understand (due to my unwillingness to learn to understand) certain scientific phenomena, I attribute their occurance to the actions of some god(s).

Consider, as an example, the case of creationism vs. evolution. Despite all the evidence that has been presented that overwhelmingly supports the validity of the theory of evolution, numerous members of this discussion group rather prefer to accept as truth the comical and nonsensical writings of ancient biblical texts in support of creationism.

Why? Because they don't have to think to do so! No mental effort is required.

Leszek, 10 marks for tactical evasion. What's more, in the interests of peace, I'll take you up on it.

I don't think either of the above remarks are true, not even if I take them in their broadest sense. There are far too many people in this world, no doubt misled by the media but that is irrelevant, for whom science is a 'god.' People who truly believe that science has and will have all the answers. That rationalism, logicality [or have I made that word up] and humanism is going to provide the answers that it hasn't already found.

There are far too many people who are called followers of any particular faith, who actually have no idea why they believe what they purport to believe. They seem to be operating on some emotional or gut level in the main. If that's what you mean by "awed belief" then I agree. Because of my faith, I actually look upon this latter with a much kinder eye, because it is, in my humble opinion, because there is a spiritual 'need' inside everyone, and they do in some sense, "know" when it is filled.

I don't know what the world population is Leszek, but whether it's the wide eyed ingenuous attitude I come across in Fiji, or the 'masses' in many other countries that have not been fortunate enough to have a good education, they all have in common that they are led. Led by the nose in many cases, led by politicians, led by religious zealots but led by the enthused. Far too few are able to sort out what they believe or why they believe it for themselves. Some of course, who do have the benefit of an education, simply can't be bothered, but they can be left out of the equation.

The question is, what is the responsibility of those of us who ha

The question is, what is the responsibility of those of us who have done a bit of thinking in whichever area, to be honest, to seek peace, to seek to live together in harmony. Like a marriage, if there is no communication, there can be no progress made in sorting out difficulties. Communication is *the* single most important thing we must concentrate on IMHO.

Now I have found that to be extremely difficult, because most folk seem unwilling to do anything but defend. There is very little listening going on. For instance, I tried very hard to understand your points of view Leszek, and I think to some extent I have succeeded. But to do that, I had to get around the rhetoric you occasionally dot around your posts. The rhetoric that is aimed at putting those of us without your knowledge, in their place. Without your permission, and because you have never, before the above post, *asked*, I have put my POV frequently enough I suspect to annoy some folk. Now when I say that, I am not drawing battle lines between scientific and religious again, I have frequently made efforts to try and get Christians to see that all may not be as black and white as they think. The post you helpfully corrected on the religion board is a case in point. I haven't had a single reply to that post, from anyone, never mind the Christians I was hoping would think about it. I have had an e-mail discussion with Bill U, trying to sort out the problems of denominational differences so that we can make progress .. that too was unsuccessful. All this is not helped by the fact that whenever a non believer of whatever colour makes a reference to someone of faith, they always take an extremists words and splatter them all over the place to ridicule. So any position, taken say by Joy, Marie or myself, that might be considered orthodox or conservative, gets lost in the 'hate mail' that follows. This particular Christian has just about given up trying

This particular Christian has just about given up trying to talk to fellow Christians on the religious board, because it is almost entirely taken up with battles and ridicule and ridiculous arguments between non believers and believers rather than between believers. However I had hopes for this board, I was beginning to hope that some of you would eventually ask for our opinion, that there could be communication. I know you have very decided opinions on people of faith Leszek, but have you really listened to some of the things they are trying to say. From here it appears that you have all made up your minds and this is not in fact an opportunity to communicate, it's more a question of bolstering up what ever views you already hold. There will be no progress if that is the case.'

Oh well, I have certainly learnt a lot, especially about the scientific community, I suppose I should be grateful for that.

It looks like I've ticked off quite a few people today - Rosemary, Marie, Russell. But at least Joy is still my friend. Right Joy?

Were the ancient races completely devoid of Intelligence? Are we more intelligent for knowing that thunder is a perfectly explainable phenomenon? Thoughtforms - or memes if you prefer are also perfectly explainable phenomenon. You create one - you send it and it effects that which you intend it to effect - if you do it right. Is it intelligent to assume that all that has been 'explained' to us is all there is? Is it all true? Is it faulty programming that keeps us from searching for Gods and/or believing in them? Is belief in any God a means to 'spiritual revelation" - an opening up of the 'other mind' that needs no verification? Look at a tree, Grasshopper and tell me what you see.

E.C. getting together "your" side again EC?

It should be a matter of trying to communicate with all.

I'd like to put to you all, a problem that is facing New Zealand today and for the past week. If you're interested in following it, I'm sure you can find it in our news media. Some years ago, our government put into place a law to protect the children of religious zealots, mostly JW's, who refused their children blood transfusions that might be life saving. Last week, the courts system put out a warrant for a missing child that they claim can no longer be the responsibility of it's parents because, in the opinion of the court, they are not doing the right thing by this child. In law, those parents no longer have any rights over that child, it is now officially a ward of court.

The child in question has a form of cancer of the brain or jaw, I'm not quite clear which, as both have been mentioned in the media. He has gone through months and months of chemotherapy and the parents became quite distraught at the suffering the child endured and asked permission, between bouts of chemotherapy, to take the child to seek out alternative therapies. This they were granted, but for a limited period of time until the next bout of chemotherapy was to be started. The child was not brought back and so the warrants have been issued. Here we have a case of some parents, [who just for your information have no faith in any god or gods], but who have lost their faith in modern science to give the necessary help to their child. They are on the run in this country, the police have made it clear that they have no wish to obey the courts and pick these people up. The people of New Zealand are successfully hiding them, it seems that the majority believe that the parents have the right to choose their prefer

Bernhard, I disagree that people in ancient times had less intelligence. I will agree that they had less information on which to base their beliefs, but not less intelligence. Heck, there has only been a hundred generations since the beginning of the common era. That is not enough generations for evolution to have a significant effect. I have to agree with Mikal in this case. Anyway, read what they wrote. They display great intelligence.

But, Mikal, no, I find no evidence whatever for "something more." I know that "something more" is rather popular with most people. I think that most people want "something more." But I personally find no evidence on which to base such a belief.

continued. their preferred method of treatment as the child at three is not old enough to decide for himself. The parents have notified the media from hiding, that the child is bouncing and well, and that the tumour is shrinking. But nobody else can verify that because they don't know where he is, the parents are too scared to come out of hiding.

Is there an answer to this conundrum, what do you think. I raise it quite obviously because it demonstrates my point, that some folk are losing their 'faith' in science, and it would now appear, that they are not 'by law' allowed to do so. What are the rights and wrongs of this particular issue? Can't say I know, because I don't and would welcome your thoughts.

Yes, of course, they are thoughts, but the interesting phenomona is that they persist and multiply across many hosts and generations. Every instinct tells us to dismiss memes as aspects of ourselves, or at most, aspects of society, but they do display all of the requirements and aspects of life.

Science is a method, a process, a set of rules and a body of accumulated knowledge. Science does not, can not, should not, and was never intended to provide the pat answers and assurances of religion. Those who sought or seek such in science are trying to install a lightbulb with a rake.

I've always been fascinated by that possibility, ever since I read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Of course, the jury is still out about whether a biological virus is technically "alive", but if we were to admit those viruses into the kingdom of life, we would probably have to do the same for computer viruses, and perhaps then even for memes.

My jury is still out on those extensions too... :)

I'm not one of them, and I can only speak for myself :)

That's a faith I'd call "scientism" - I'm not an adherent, but I'm willing to keep an open mind that it might be realistic :)

I agree that part of the answer lies in better education, so that we can see for ourselves when we are being led down the garden path by scientists, preachers or politicians.

I'll try and remember to check on the post you mentioned as having remained unasnwered, once the server stops being a complete slug. And I do listen, it's just that you don't always like my reaction to what I hear. That I can't help, I'm afraid.

Server really is a slug today! Maybe it’ll be better this afternoon... You and Mikal and Leszek seem to know what a meme is, Keith, so I must be confused by the terminology. I know what a thought form is, and this meme seems to be akin. Is this "An idea who’s time has come?"

My understanding of thought forms, as related to practical magic, is that they are created by human beings, so I’m also not sure how this could be considered "alive." There is fair evidence that certain behaviors and thought patterns, especially neuroses and psychoses, have some biochemical component and effect different minds in very much the same way. Like the "dependent" mindset I keep running into, where the person’s entire life revolves around constant neediness, evoking predictable ‘give’ responses in others. It’s like they all went to the same school! Can you clarify?

You betcha, E.C. I have trouble staying awake until the early a.m. reset is finished so I bugged out. I am also happy to see Bernhard here again! §:o)

I’ll get these up before clearing the line for awhile...

I feel your frustration, Rosemary! (That was my Bill Clinton imitation)... It’s hard to get past preconceived notions all around, though I also think it’s those preconceived notions that make for good debate. We’re not going to change each other’s minds, but we will get a good handle on how the ‘other’ side thinks, organize our own thoughts, and maybe work out some things for ourselves. Actually, I’ve been somewhat surprised by the civility here that doesn’t descend too often into abuse, and by the generally thoughtful responses. Even when I don’t agree with the response. The subtle asides are just cyberspace body English.

Note the strongest resistance comes when matters of spirituality are introduced, even such things everyone on and watching this board ‘knows’ to be real. That’s why I’m glad to get Mikal’s unique point of view, which I think is refreshing. Religion is more than Christianity, and the quest for knowledge is more than science. You recognize that as human beings, we are all reaching for the same answers. There are only a few fundamentalists of varying religious and scientific stripes who really believe they personally "own" the Truth. If they had such ultimate Truth, they’d be a lot more willing to share it with the rest of us!

Rosemary, continued...

Your story about the sick child in New Zealand is sad, Rosemary. Happens here more regularly than gets reported. Medical technology is capable of many wonders, but it does not perform miracles. To allow a child to die for want of blood based on one misinterpreted scripture is not fair to the child. I was told by a JW once (a friend who babysat my children until I found out they’d refuse a transfusion in an emergency situation for my child too) that the verse is:

"Thou shalt eat no blood, nor any fat at all." How your basic blood transfusion qualifies as a meal I don’t know, but these people ate bacon every day for breakfast.

If the medical problem is not so easy as preventing shock from blood loss (saline works pretty well, so blood is not always necessary), medicine and government have no business deciding the issue. The modern treatments for cancer are barbaric, and will someday seem like bloodletting and leeches. They’re quite effective on some forms of cancer, but on others the chances of spontaneous remission (miracle?) without any treatment at all are just as good. And some cancers simply cannot be cured. If there’s money to be made, if an insurer and/or a dying patient’s life savings can be looted ahead of time, medicine will take every extraordinary measure it thinks it can get away with, even if the chances of survival are nil.

Governments have no business dictating personal choices. They do have a responsibility to protect children, but in some situations their intrusion is unwarranted. Had this situation occurred in this country, all the parents would have to do is say they have no money and no insurance. Treatments would never have been started!

Good Morning Everyone. I wish there were more insomniacs here. I seem to think better in the wee hours.

Cliff - the 'evidence' you seek is inside. It lies in 'feelings' and 'sensations' that don't quite fit with what's going on 'outside'. When I say 'something more' - I do not intend that as proof of anything supernatural. I fact, in an earlier post I stated that I would like nothing better than to drop the 'super' once and for all and to view ALL as natural - including 'miracles' and such. Sometimes it's necessary to archive all the programs that have been insinuated into the brain and hover above the 'reality' and observe mankind in a more primal state. Some do this by studying auras - which modern science has finally admitted do exist (i.e. the air around us is electrically charged and visible to those who can perceive it). Some get there by crossing their eyes and looking at the space in between the double images. There are loads of methods and each one is unique to the individual. I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone 'sees' the 'evidence' but not everyone accepts it as valid. It's an individual 'choice'. And the imagination doesn't help - especially if it tends to manifest like 'Drop Dead Fred' - going out of its way to confuse matters - just for kicks. The evidence is there for those that want to see it. But I know of no way to prove its existence to anyone - nor do I have the inclination to do so. I have already finished my work on why sceptics can't 'see'. The blocks are frontal and self-replicating and can only be removed by the individual. I can 'see' that your mind is more 'open' than you let on. But to get you to talk about it freely takes me away from the areas I'd prefer to investigate.

Rosemary

Modern Medicine - cut and search - load the sufferer up with drugs and wait, hope annd sometimes pray. And when all else fails - say something comforting like - it's in God's hands now. I have many issues with the medical community and with the govenments of the world continuall violating what I view as individual rights - including the right to die. It's time for all of us to get our noses out of each other's business and teach ourselves how to really care and share and co-exist in this over-crowded, technically confused, ego-oriented world we've created.

Make that: technologically confused.

Memes as lifeforms. Like dead guppies clogging up the filters. Satan is a wonderful example of meme turned lifeform. And as this lifeform moves through time (back and forth at will) it absorbs any legend or tale or mode of behaviour that fits its profile (Lucifer, Baal, Ishtar, Beelzebub, science, cults, alternate lifestyles, pro-choice advocates, you name it). And it's growing stronger everyday -propelled along by the 'prediction' that the 666 beast will take over the Earth. Memes are dangerous - but nnot indestructible. Memes have no effect onn the growing number of individuals who prefer to make their own choices even if those choice fly in the face of convention, tradition, religionn , science, technology, society, etc., etc., etc. Just another form of pollution that rides the winds of change and accumulates or disperses as time, temperment and inclinationn dictate.

The "meme" is a concept invented by Richard Dawkins. It is basically an encapsulated idea, or fragment of an idea, for example such as popular song, or an advertising jingle, or the idea of a Supreme Being, or some cultural behavior, or a political belief, or an oft-used cliche, that can be passed on from one person to another. In this process of transmission, it can change (or mutate). If you've ever played that game that teachers sometime use in schools where a sentence gets passed on from child to child by whispering, and then you compare what the sentence started out as with what it ended up as (usually with hilarious results), that's the sort of mutation I mean.

Dawkins called the basic units of such ideas memes, because he was interested in whether you could apply some sort of evolutionary metaphor to the development and transmission of ideas, as you can do to the transmission of genes, because you have the elements of replication (tranmission) and mutation (change in meaning) in both cases. In a sense, then, these memes have an independent existence, and the human brain can be looked on as a necessary "host" for these memes, much like a body can be looked on as a "host" for a group of genes, or for a parasite.

I think the analogy is limited, myself, but it's still a fascinating exercise to ponder the similarities, as well as the differences, between the transmission of cultural memes and biological genes. It's not a concept that has gained much ground in the cognitive sciences, and even Dawkins isn't as enthralled by it as much as he used to be.

Leszek

You've made me wonder if memes can be transmitted through DNA/Genetic Codes. I wonder if we tend to think like our predecessors do because of early childhood programmin or is it something more biological? Either way - the meme gets it's recognition and gets it's replication and mutation. And I wonder if its limitations lie in the fact that there are soooooo many factors that contrive to develop the way we think, act, perform - etc.

I see where you’re coming from, Mikal and Leszek, though I’ve already expressed my problem with poor ol’ Satan getting all the blame. He’s an angel (fallen or merely given a nasty assignment), and I believe angels are a separate created lifeform. Now, de debbil and his minions might fit that description perfectly!

Of course, we could also be describing the "collective conscious/unconscious" here, which I think is primarily genetic.

But I think I’ve encountered what you describe. Have you ever been harmlessly going about your business and a sudden thought occurs to you that is so absolutely foreign it makes you shiver? Happened to me once when a horribly evil thought passed through that I ‘know’ didn’t come out of my own mind! It shocked and frightened me, and I immediately put it out of my mind (sort of ‘Get thee behind me’), but it’s bothered me to this day that a thought form could get inside my defenses like that. I immediately went into serious rework on those defenses, and it’s never happened again, but those darned things are more powerful than most people like to believe they are.

I counseled a woman once whose husband had flipped out on PCP and stabbed both her and her son, nearly killing them. He swore it wasn’t him, that ‘something’ had taken over his body. She was inclined to believe him based on previous experience, but that didn’t keep him out of jail. The drug could well have lowered his normal defenses and opened him to a meme (demons can only act through human bodies, after all), then left him holding the knife. What a horror (as well as a good reason not to dose ourselves with hallucinogens)!

You mean, like a sort of "genetic memory"? I dunno. Maybe. It does seem that our capacity for grammar is hard-wired, and our ability to learn languages to "native speaker" proficiency has a narrow window of opportunity. Many seem to have "instinctive" fear of snakes and spiders. And I suspect many of our basic moral codes have some genetic influence (incest taboos, parent-child bonds, murder taboos). So if such are "memes", perhaps they've become hard-wired... I'm speculating wildly, of course :)

While I don't have references handy, some research has been done in this area, and the results are interesting. While nothing is proven, experiments with cetaceans suggest that this is an existing phenomenon.

I doubt that we'll ever get to the stage envisioned by Frank Herbert in his "Dune" books, though, where one can awaken the cellular memories of all ancestors.

Greetings, Mikal. Sorry for not saying "Welcome" earlier. I was on vacation for a week, and it's taken me two weeks to get caught up on all of my boards. I'm interested in what you say, as some of it is similar to some "New Age" and metaphysical books I've read. I may pipe up from time to time.

Hello to you as well Michael! I went to the site you linked, but got immediately more confused. I know what thought forms are. I suspect demonology is black magic, and that the thought forms generated (by humans) are the active agents, through the minds of others. I’m not quite ready to assign consciousness to such things, and not all thought forms are evil. I don’t need any ‘meme’ to scare me about the turn of years, since CNN and its peers are doing that just fine without any help from magic.

But for reference, I’m not scared. By December the garden will have been harvested and processed as usual, and we’ll have our usual winter’s worth of food. Electricity is nice for things like this computer, but I can live without until they reset the switches and dials. If Jesus shows up in a spectacular display tomorrow, I’ll say, "son of a gun!" and jump aboard the bus... but I don’t expect it. If I see a real danger of global war and I’m allowed to say anything at all about it, I’ll say it. Right now I think we’re far more a danger to ourselves than either God or Satan is, and my time anomaly is 20 years old. Nothing millennial about that!

Have you perchance read any of Jean Auel’s books about Ayla ("Clan of the Cave Bear" and series)? These are fiction, I know, but the antropological background is most interesting. The Neanderthals in decline are crude in many ways compared to the ‘new’ species, but have a very interesting brain organization which includes the "memories," stored in a section unique to Neanderthal skull structure which modern humans do not share, having traded the racial collective consciousness for frontal lobes. You might find this concept interesting.

Hi, Joy. RE: memes. It's a concept I'm still struggling with, but I think I've got the basics of it down. I don't think consciousness is part of it. I think of it more like a computer virus, or a thought or emotion spreading out of controll (the riots after the Rodney King case, for instance). A crowd is difficult to control once it's tasted blood. ;>)

I think the Y2K hype is totally blown out of proportion. Religious hysterics are most likely to cause the "self-fulfilling prophecy" results they predict. All you have to do is read the covers of the Enquirer or the other rags to see that.

I actually tried reading "Clan of the Cave Bear" back in high school. It was mentioned in an anthropology class, and I thought I'd give it a try. I never finished it due to a lack of interest (at the time) and too many other things going on in my life then. But I have seen the movie (which I'm sure doesn't compare at all to the book). I'll have to try reading them again.

The brain structure info interests me. I've done some reading on whales' brains, and some of the mapping they've been able to do. In addition to the "cellular memory" theory, there is also part of the brain they think is used for the long migrations in reliving past event in a sort of "3-D surround sound" way. Fascinating.

"Clan..." describes this anthropological anomaly best, Michael. It does in fact exist, and skull structures display the differences in brains. The "memories" Auel ascribes to Neanderthal thinking (and which doomed them because they relied on the past rather than imagination for the future) have been theoretically postulated by eminent anthropologists.

Mikal likes to ascribe "Third Eye" and its alternative function ("horns") in the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are in fact our anthropological (evolutionary?) pride and joy. If we are indeed descended from Neanderthals, the "memories" would not have disappeared entirely. They would have been put in permanent cold storage - non-accessible for decision making purposes - and the frontal lobes are the replacement. I thought it most fascinating, myself!

Just one last quick post before I leave for the day.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. The human mind is so complex, with so many sources of input, that everything that goes into the decision making process is still not known. Such an aspect may be part of our brain structure, but on an unconscious level.

I'd like to get more into brain phenomena, but time doesn't permit right now. One of the things I'd like to discuss is hypnosis, particularly in relation to some of the research being done in MPD, supressed memories and past-life regression. Trying to keep this somewhat on topic, if current research using hypnosis provides reasonable evidence for past lives (i.e. reincarnation), what would that do to religions that don't believe in it?

Chat with you later.

Hello Michael. Thanks for the greetings.

Joy

Something I read a whole lot of years ago might help. I think it was called 'Thoughts are Things' - but I wouldn't swear to it. It described a process whereby thoughts that float out from all of us into the collective consciousness have a tendency to seek similar thoughts and join and mutate into another thought that also seeks similar thoughts. If there are enough similar thoughts (ideas) such as Jesus is Lord - they form a major thoughtform that insists itself into manifestation - especially amoung those who meditate in some way (or pray) and are therfore open to suggestion on the deepest of (sub)conscious levels. The thoughtform is further propulgated through conversation, lierature, sermons and the result is a self-feeding mechanism (or self-replicating) that becomes such things as tradition, philosophy, Creeds and the like. And if genetic codes can retain such information, then the 'meme' can be passed on and on and on infinitum. We on the information highway are only just beginning to break down those 'memes' and hopefully we will ultinately come up with a viable method of co-existence and mutual understanding and tolerance (that's an OLD meme).

Michael

A theory has been introduced that hypothsizes that thoughts stored in deep memory areas can crystalize and pass through generations and be accessed. This was one potential explanation for re-incarnation. Of course this would not explain recalling total strangers or those completely foreign - unless the crystalized thoughts and memories can - when released at death - transfer themselves to fresh brains (new-borns) and lie dormant for generations. Since thoughtforms are not subject to the laws of physics or time and space for that matter - these crystalizations could span the spectrum of time and space. Just a theory.

I think the "collective" aspects of conscious/unconscious experience are probably real, Mikal, related to the ‘racial memories’ that invent things like mythology (and Genesis) to explain events actually experienced by human beings in their history. Such things as the events of Exodus, for instance, would be very impressive if you’d been there to see it, so may have impressed themselves on the racial memory.

The manifestations of such collective understanding would not be thought forms, in my opinion. They’d be actual beings (humans) who act the roles assigned by the collective. If there’s going to be an "antiChrist" I’d expect it to be someone who has a particularly strong connection to the collective, and a genetic predisposition to play the role. A natural megalomaniac with extreme delusions of grandeur, so to speak. If there’s an opposing manifestation, the parameters would be the same, on a more altruistic level. Harder to find, I’d guess.

As for reincarnation, I’ve said before I cannot imagine a crueler punishment for the sin of being born. I accept, however, that this is a widespread belief system which may hold validity, and assign that validity to a sort of planetary field of low-astral level. For me personally, Jesus has left the back door unlocked and I fully intend to escape that way when time’s over for me, as those I have loved and lost did. People these days don’t give enough credence to choice. I believe we have all the choices.

Keith, tell me, do you 'think' in pictures, especially when humour is involved?

Surely this must come from somewhere in your experience, don't tell me you actually saw someone trying to do such a thing .. my mind has a delightful cartoon picture of this event .. thankyou. -)

Rosemary I know you asked me about that one, on the Religion board, and I couldn't get back to it. If you don't mind repeating it, or just tell me which post it was on the Religion Board.:)

Also about the child who has cancer, in your country, that the courts demanded must continue with chemotherapy. I applaud the people who are protecting the parents and that child. In my little State, we recently had a similar situation.

The child has AIDS. Two of his siblings prior to him also had AIDS. The mother is HIV positive. The first 2 children, were treated with everything medicine had to offer, and died anyway. so when this 3rd child was started on treatment, his mother noticed how lethargic and unable to eat, he was having terrible side effects from the AIDs cocktail. She decided to; with her doctor, to stop the treatment, and allow him to live a normal life, for as long as he could without having to go through the misery of the medication. Her doctor concurred and felt the quality of his life was more important.

My "wonderful DHS- Dept of Human Services, took this poor mother to court to try to force her ; to give the medicine to this child, they threatened to make him a ward of the State. Thankfully she won, as she should. She and her doctor know more than the state, of what is best for this child.

One last note on the previous thread - Reincarnation sort of loses its charm if there's no life forms on the planet to carry the load, doesn't it?

Mikal, I do not dispute the existence of inner feeling and sensations that you take to be evidence of "something more." I am not devoid of such feelings. However, I do not agree that these inner feelings/sensations are necessarily evidence of "something more" than the "mere" physical, or evidence of something "non-physical" either inside or outside the body.

BTW, I will say that I was, at one time, impressed with the work of an investigator into the subject of clairvoyance. The investigator set up a experiment with cards having several different pictures/drawings and found a number of "subjects" that could consistently predict the turning up of the cards better than random occurrence. I saw this on a television show several years ago, and was impressed with both the method of the investigation, and the stated results. The show discussed additional scientific testing planned, including double blind testing and so forth, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the phenomenon. However, I have not heard or read of the results of such an investigation since. Perhaps you are aware of this research and can acquaint me with current progress.

I dislike your suggestion that "miracles" should be viewed as "natural," since, by definition, a "miracle" (a stone that defies gravity, for example) is supposed to be an action or occurrence that contradicts known scientific laws and hence is thought to be "supernatural." I think most are simple illusions--some of which are natural and honest. And, of course, if the illusion is "natural," then, by extension, the "miracle" must also be "natural." I would suspect that a fair number of "miracles" are fraudulent, however, and intended to fool the gullible for a profit.

Thanks for saying that you can "see" that I am more open than I let on. It is rather like saying that you "know" that I am not as dumb as I look. I always appre

Mikal, many thanks for saying that you can "see" that I am more open than I let on. It is rather like saying that you "know" that I am not as dumb as I look. I always appreciate such compliments. Just ask Joy :-)

Cliff

I agree. It's all physical but not always corporal. Miracles do not defy physics - but use physics to create a new situation or event. You can view it as advanced physics. Kenetic energy is a perfect example. The Shaolin call it the power of chi. Levitation also uses physics. By 'something more' - I only refer to something beyond the accepted parameters - like the light that exists beyond our vision or the sound beyond our hearing or the visually challenged developing the ability to perceive a wall in front of them. Auras are another example. English scientists have photographed them. They can be empowered to provide a force field around us or they can become weak and allow disease to strike. Auras that clash can cause arguments. Auras that find compatibility can spark love. All of this is the something more that happens in spite of our propensity to ignore it or deny its existence. But the thrust of my study is not to prove but to establish a pattern that can be used to access those abilities. For example - changing the color of one's aura by activating a center residing somehwere around the right ear or just above. Subtle eye movements. Barely perceptible body twitiches. Sending a firm - 'NO!' when a negative is about to burst. My studies are like one of the first typewriters trying to perform the function of today's most advanced computers. The Astral plane is not an illusion but a reality. It's just not a reality that everyone can see, visit or experience - yet.

Miracles are the things we still do not understand, Cliff! I know very (and painfully) well that my mind works differently than other people's minds work. When I was 4 and trying very hard to comply, my father the theoretical mathematician got frustrated and called me "stupid" for not being able to get my numbers straight. I immediately sought to rectify the situation, since I knew I wasn't stupid.

That meant I had to pay close attention, make sure everything was just right, and never automatically disregard what I didn't understand.

Because of this way my brain's operating system works, which I've struggled hard to build over a lifetime, what is 'unknown' or 'not understood' doesn't frighten me. I don't do the automatic flip-flop, I get out of the car and go look at it up close. Everyone encounters anomalies. Not everyone pays attention! §:o)

Actually, Mikal, I am not sure we agee to all that. It may be that you are merely discussing things of which I am not aware. I think I shall await the physical evidence.

Cheers.

Joy

In the collective consciousness are groups of what you call 'racial memories' - and they probably clash amd they are probably what keeps us all separate. We all adhere to principles, ideals and the like that we have never stopped to investigate. In fact we are discouraged from asking 'why' even by the Eastern Wisdoms. The beatles 'Let it be'. Or the big catch phrase of the late 60's - Be Here Now! I'm never merely HERE. And when we add imagination, we further compound any or all of it.

Minds lack discipline - spewing energy all over the place. We are very young an inexperienced. And we carry a lot of baggage - precomceived notions or maybe even pre-natal programs that seep through the cord while we feed. Asking why complicates more than it clarifies. I may just 'duh' up and become a sensualistic hedonist (is that redundant?).

So Cliff - what kind of physical eveidence do you require?

Joy, I certainly do not think your father was correct. But Joy, even very intelligent people, like yourself, perhaps, can be misled. And I am not talking just about evil and "other people" and things like fraud. I am talking about very normal things. Have you ever wondered how your brain "manufactures" a dream--precisely? What else do you think it might be able to "manufacture"?

Joy

Not if we become non-corporal.

Joy

Not if we become non-corporal.

I believe I have already given an example. In a previous post, tonight, I referred specifically to specific evidence in support of clairvoyance, and complained that after what appeared to be a promising preliminary indication, I heard no more. I am not nearly as interested in the "astounding" that can not be shown, as I am the "less than astounding" that can be show to be valid, and might thus be capable of shedding light on the "astounding."

The world is full of the "astounding." I prefer you give me something that you can demonstrate to be valid. I will await the evidence.

I thank you very kindly, Cliff. I had to fight not to be "stupid" and it shaped me, and that can be good or bad depending on how you look at it. I forgave my dear father long ago for being who he was, and I know he loved me for who I am.

But I really did learn to be careful. I am probably more observant and more likely to suspend disbelief than others are. Doesn't mean I automatically believe, either. I have learned to test my experience in terms of reality.

Cliif

I'm not sure but I think the ESP experiements were abandoned because onse they proved it exists there were no need for further tests. I'm more interested in which centers of the brain are responsible for claivoyance, clair audience, psychic abilities of all kinds. There's plenty of people relating their experiences in the psychic realm alll over the net and TV. I can tell you that I once stopped a stone rolling down a slope and then started it rolling again from about 20 feet away. I had a witness. But would you believe me or the witness? Must you see it for yourself? If you do, then you'll have to find someone who would be willing to show you. I was once with a mentor that dropped a dime and stopped it in mid air and retrieved it. I show it and it tooks a while for me to believe that I wasn't hallucinating. I believe because I've experienced. I am psychic but use the energies to explore the 'beyond' that I keep refering to and lack interest in say, telling you what you had for breakfast. And without the concentration on the here reality - I would just be guessing. I'd have to take a few months to re-focus. I still 'read' for friends if I get flashes that might be useful to them. But I'm not interested enough to hone the talent. So I say againn - the only proof you will accept is nothing short than akin to a hammar appearing and giving you a good rap on the noggin (an ancient Egyptian Teaching Method).

I earlier stated that I suspect that a fair number of "miracles" are fraudulent and intended to fool the gullible for a profit. This implies evil, perhaps.

However, if the purpose of the faudulent miracle is to gain converts to a religion, one would not call that evil, would one? I mean, considering that this is the End Time, and so little time remains to "get our loved ones in."

What do you think? Do you think that ought to be permissible?

If you're asking me - I think that all fraudulant activity should be exposed - whatever the motivation.

I guess the first question has to be: was it actually proven. Do you know of a paper published in a peer review journal that actually establishes clairvoyance to be true. Seems to me you need to make sure it exists before you start asking questions about what area of the brain is responsible for the "phenomenon."

As for witnessing things, I can tell you that the other night I saw a guy cut a rope into two pieces then he put two ends of the rope in one hand and hit it with the other hand, and guess what: it made the rope in one piece again. I was dumbfounded.

But seriously, Mikal, I do not desire to witness such a thing as you describe as a means of establishing it's validity for me. If I saw it, I could never be sure I had not been fooled, that it was not an illusion. No, Mikal, that is not what I want. What I want is a double blind, controlled, scientific experiment with cards having various pictures on the "down" side, and a "subject" that can name the pictures significantly better than random occurrence.

That would be the proof as far as I am concerned. Can you show me where I might find that?

I have a serious problem with fraud as well, Cliff. I've seen a few of those as well, and challenged whenever I could. Consciousness is not a fraud. The manifestations of consciousness are subject to fraud. A lot like "Peking Man".

Joy, :-)

Sorry for laughing, but I think you must be referring to "Piltdown Man," not "Peking Man."

If Peking Man is a fraud, it is news to me. My understanding is that Peking Man is in good standing as an example of Homo Erectus. The fraud was "Piltdown Man."

Thanks for laughing, Cliff! I am no expert in evolution, so they're all the same to me. Make me look it up next time, will you? §:o)

Joy, you really are a good sport and very adorable, and I do mean that as a sincere compliment.

Now my opinion on fraud:

My opinion on fraud is that it is a serious problem among gullible people. Among skeptics, it is a minor inconvenience. I think that fraud (fraudulent Miracles, for example) for sincere reasons is less objectionable than fraud for profit.

Along the same line, it is my opinion that there is nothing "sacred" about an "open mind." I would point out that there is a very fine line between having an open mind and being gullible.

The interesting thing here are people who reject evolution despite overwhelming physical evidence in it's support, but are open to things like the "Astral plane."

I think that is very interesting--and very puzzling, since it makes so little sense to me. Could someone please explain that to me.

Cliff

Explanations are useless. Experience is all one can relay to you and you will not except personal ecperience as proof. As for the clairvoyance - they did double blind studies and found a few who were able to accurately pick the right cards. In england. But amopng those that can do these things there are very few who will allow themselves to be tested. They have no need to prove anything to anybody and will not subject themselves to a lot of ridicule and questioning. Besides - the proof you seek is within you and there it will always be. You've as much as said that even if you see it you won't believe it. There's no where to go from there. It's all relative anyway. If I can find the correct sequence necessary to initiate these 'phenomena', I will surely write that book I keep threatening to do. But whenever I even begin to speak of these things, even in esoteric circles, I am stopped, blocked, prevented from revealing too many 'secrets'. The 'Ascended Masters" have only recently admitted that all this secrecy may have been a mistake. This is probably why my machine isn't exploding. I think they finally understand that the below is such a mess because the above is corrupted. And they are going back to basics. So I investigate the brian because I never bought all that shrouded in secrecy mumbo jumbo that has kept this knowledge from the 'unworthy' for millenia. Massive use of drugs changed everything. And all the memes are slowly dissipating. You want proof? All I can suggest is that you meditate on it or pray for it. Should I add "it'll come"?

One more thing Cliff. You asked about a journal that reported on these studies. I know there were, but have no details to give you. I remebeer reading an article in FATE magaxin about 30 years ago. Punch 'clairvoyance' innto a search bot and see what pops up. I'll do the same tomorrow and we'll see.

Goodnight all.

Mikal,

Evidence is what counts. Without evidence, you have nothing. I will not, at this point, insist that there is no evidence. How can I know that for certain? (It is beginning to look a bit bleek, however.)

I think this is interesting. As I recall, things were going super-duper for this guy, Uri, until he appeared on the Johnny Carson show. For some reason, it seems, Johnny, having started out as a magician, decided to replace the spoon the guy intended to bend, and watch what the guy did very closely (and as a former magician, he knew exactly what to look for).

And, suddenly, Uri's powers departed from him. Lost his concentration, I believe, was the explanation. However, surprisingly, it seems that the guy is still in business with a first class internet site.

One would have thought that the Carson thing would have ended his career. But, come to think of it, Going to jail didn't end Jim Bakker's career. Guess there is a sucker born every day. Interesting.

Mikal,

After re-reading my last post, I must say that I am very sorry I posted some of the remarks I made. I went on the attack a little more strongly than I am comfortable with--after calming down. The problem was that you really irritated me with your preaching. But I still should have not reacted the way I did. My appologies. Tell you what, stop preaching to me and maybe we can have a nice conversation, and maybe I will learn more about what you are about.

Cliff

Sorry about the preaching. It's a knee jerk re-action to years of being attacked for my beliefs and years of sufferring at the hands of naysayers who aren't content to simply say "I don't agree' but have felt it necessary to beat me until I admit that they are right and I am wrong. I no longer feel the need to prove anything to anybody - but the pain lingers.

I was honestly trying to find a way to proof - even though I have tried for over 40 years and I am still at square one. The sight you posted is a perfect example of why there are so many who put down psychics and the like. Unfortuantely there will alwyas be those that seek fame and fortune and are not too particular how they get it.

Again, I apologize. My intention was to assist - pure and simple.

PS:

I have no interest in the fight between good and evil, power struggles, self-exhaltation (mine own) or any other ego manifestations. I post here to learn - not to teach and to exchange ideas. I do not feel qualified to teach. But I do feel that by sharing with all of you, I will come away with useful information and I would hope that in the process I will be able to also help any who have questions that I can answer. I will not put forth theory as fact. I have been very careful to make that distinction in my posts. The most difficult part of discussions such as these is the obvious lack of facts or proof of statements made. I will offer none where none is apparant to me. But I will relate my experiences from time to time - even though I know that this is not proof of anything but an over-active imagination. But this is my life. If you don't approve - I can only say that that is more your problem than mine. At age 60 I no longer seek peer approval. Only friendly exchange.

Cliff

I’d call it evil, Cliff, as well as illegal. Fraud is fraud. I and my family are professional performers. Clowns, fire eaters, jugglers, magicians. I’ve got a guillotine in the shed we use once a year for Dr. Despicable (and Igor) to chop heads off kids (who always want to volunteer, for some strange reason). I’ve got a dove named Noel who appears and disappears at our will. We can do levitation, pyrotechnic effects and other such ‘miracles’ and are paid quite well to do so. I know all about sleight of hand and sleight of mind, so I’m not the least bit gullible.

The stone in that cornfield wasn’t trying to fool me. There was no crane and cable, no clever device underneath, no props, no magician hiding in the bushes. I checked it out thoroughly. I know it’s bizarre enough for others who hear the tale not to believe it, and my word doesn’t prove a thing. If I had pictures or video it would be no more believable. If I had the rock in my livingroom it would just be a rock. I did see this anomaly and I did examine it to my own satisfaction. The floating stone remains real in my experience, and helps to shape my point of view.

It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, though. The stone sits somewhere near my view of scientific "Truth" and informs me they do not have the proper answers, nor do they ‘know’ what is in fact real out in the world. So when they tell me "God is Dead," I can safely chuckle at their presumption.

Alright, can I blow the whistle here? TWEEEET! Cliff, I believe Mikal tried to steal a base when he asserted:- "I'm not sure but I think the ESP experiments were abandoned because once they proved it exists there were no need for further tests". The tests were done by someone (forget the name) at Duke University, and the tests certainly DID NOT prove the existence of ESP.

And really, Mikal, I'm going to have to invoke that most emminent of British philosophers, Monty Python, whose most cogent quote here would be "No it isn't!"(Referring to your ability to stop a stone from rolling down hill from 20 feet away). You go on to ask Cliff if he would only believe it if he saw it for himself, in which case he would have to find someone who would be WILLING to show him. The final cop-out: I can do it, but I don't feel like it. I won't even ask you to provide proof as easy to arrange as a video recording of such a, well, "miracle". I have the gnawing feeling you would give me some spiritual/mystical/philosophical reason why you wouldn't stoop to such a crass level for proof of something that you might regard as sacred. (Hey, if I'm wrong, tell me)

Cliff, I'm afraid you're in for a long wait for acceptable "evidence".

Larry

I think you read too much into what I post. I am a seeker not a revolutionary. The Faraday studies comcluded that ESP 'seemed' to exist in some folks more than others but they didn't think further test would resolve the debate. Studies done at Ithaca college went further due to their finding a local farmer that could move objects with his mind. If you go to the second link that I provided for Cliff, you'll find that Priceton University is currently conducting research and their findings are more relevant. YOu cann remove the arrogance from the 'WILLING' reference. It was not I that put it there. It was a statement of fact - that those who can do such things are reluctant to expose themselves to ridicule and dis belief. A simple statement of fact - not meant to impune or even snicker. And like I alluded to in earlier posts, I have no axe to gring and this is the last time I will defend anything I post. It is you who require proof. I suggest you look to someone or seomwhere else to find it. I seek only the sharing of information and some conversation.

Please excuse the typos, My message posted without taking me to the edit page. Anyone have any informationn about the Akashic Records (sp?)?

Or Astral Projection experiences? Or even scientific DISproof that none of this exists?

First, Nikal, I appreciate your civil response. I really don't know what it is that sets me off that way. I could guess if I chose to, but it would be only a guess. Probably something to do with some experience in my youth.

Anyway, it appears that we may have discovered a few things about each other, and that is good, I think. It is interesting to me that you are older than me. I had assumed that you were much younger. I'm 57.

I can assure you that I have absolutely no credentials at all. I am just a guy who loves to argue about most anything, particularly controversial stuff that nobody else wants to discuss, like politics and religion. By nature, I am a skeptic, and I tend to be demanding of evidence when somebody attempts to persuade me of anything. And while I hasten to mention that I do have a very healthy respect for credentials, I am just about as demanding of evidence from a Ph.D. from Stanford or Princeton or Duke as anyone else.

Now, of course, there are some things that are simply over my head. But if a scientist is able to persuade his peers, I tend to consider that reasonable evidence. In the absence of evidence, however, I am not interested in anyone's word as an authority. Authority without evidence means nothing to me. To me, an authority is someone capable of providing appropriate evidence in a particular field. Basically, I am open to evidence. I am not open to preaching. But I guess you already knew that :-)

Cheers,

By the way, Mikal, I hope you don't think I was too "preachy" in my last post. It just occurred to me that it might be perceived that way. Actually, I was just trying to let you know where I am coming from. But understand that I am very comfortable with attempting to come to an understanding of your beliefs without proof. (It is just that I do not plan to adopt them without you know what.)

Cheers.

Larry, thanks for the warning, but I think it is possible that there is something here. My inclination is to continue to examine the evidence for anything and everything as it is presented to me. I am very well aware that it is possible for me to be fooled. I will keep that as a consideration.

Oh, but Monty’s so very wise, Larry! I’m a Gourd believer myself, though I tolerate the Sandal sect... §:o)

I know you must have (maybe?) read my reply to Cliff about that gravity-defying stone I happened across. I’ve given as complete a description of my examination as is humanly possible, including the geology of the stone itself with details about weathering, size and weight, probable age. Didn’t have a carbon dating unit with me at the time, sorry! If I’d had a camera, I could have taken pictures, but pictures are easily faked and do not qualify as scientific ‘proof.’ Had there been witnesses, you could cross examine them, but that’s no guarantee you’d believe it either. You could just as easily decide we were all lying for whatever nefarious reason, or simply deluded.

I also mentioned once that it was not so long ago in the history of humanity (1950s, to be exact) that science was absolutely sure that stones do not fall from the sky. Ever. They were every bit as sure of that as you and Cliff are now sure that stones do not defy gravity. They were flat-out wrong, as anyone who’d encountered a meteorite or seen a shooting star could have told them.

This discussion would go much smoother if the skeptics would go ahead and admit there are things they do not yet understand, because this is pertinent. I’ve sure admitted that. Mikal has, too. This lack of understanding does not invalidate the evidence of experience which demonstrates there are things we do not understand.

And I did notice your willingness to discuss things not yet understood, Cliff, and greatly appreciate it. I personally think consciousness factors into the human equations very significantly. So I think it's a mistake to ignore it just because it can't be tested like a rock can be tested. I thank you!

P.S. What happened to "edit?"

Well, I am willing to discuss it as a possibility. As for the stone you keep harping on, I believe one of three things:

1. It happened just as you say and there is a physical reason for it as yet unexplained.

2. It happened just as you say and there is a otherworldly reason for it as yet unexplained.

3. Your brain manufactured a memory of something that never happened. (This is not an insult. It has happened to me. I know it happened to me because I still have a memory that directly contradicts documentation that I know could not possibly be wrong. I suspect this phenomenon of "false memories" is much more common than generally thought.)

4. You are lying though your teeth.

I strongly suspect the true answer is 3. I see no evidence for 1 or 2. I do not believe 4 and mention it only for completeness.

One other thing, Joy. I agree that consciousness factors into the human equations very significantly. But I think it is physical, and will be fully explained in the future, and will be tested just like thunder--or a rock.

Joy

I've been meaning to mention, but keep getting sidetracked, that there are well-documented - scientifically speaking - spots on Earth that defy gravity. I know of at least one on Mt. Shasta. They can come and go in most cases. The one on Mt. Shasta is rather large and has been fairly stable. The rock you encountered may have been hovering over a newly formed anti-gravity spot. Just a thought. I wish I knew what they were called so I could look them up.

Cliff

I am not, nor do I pretend to be an authority. I am fortunate to have had experiences that have documented certain 'phenomena' and as I said, I am psychic - or was until I turned it off. I was involved in a study at Stanford in 1972. They asked a bunch of us to 'read' for 20 people and then followed the progress to see if the predictions came true. They found me to be 97% accurate. I was in rare form that day and the 20 I had were very open and easy to read and probably very predictable. This is my only credential - such as it is. I am not that psychic now. Like I said, I turned it off and it's been a huge struggle getting it to start up again. But it was necessary for the next step - the crown area between the ears. You all are helping more than I can explain. thank you.

Joy Busey - Friday, 02/26/99 (#2019)

Good Post. Can I comment? (Actually, you can't stop me !) -:)

It is. We ALL walk into the room with little else but. They may even be new notions, at the moment we enter a discussion, but we usually have a long history leading us into our notions and are ready to defend them passionately. But by the "rules" (see Keith's good succinct post #2016 !), scientists should be the most willing to listen and honestly "discuss", and be READY to change their notions. Unfortunately, the "scientists" here, and in most forums, appear the most reluctant to change. To even pay sincere attention to the "other side(s)". They, indeed, are either absolute prosletyzers equal to the Inquisitors of old, or mere "roosters" strutting about the barnyard admiring themselves and altogether certain they are really cool and impressing the hens - or the other roosters. I gotta admit, that "rooster syndrom" is a bit contagious, and I've twice, now, had to retreat to wash it off myself! I have been a scientist, and know too many good scientists, and get to see and admire the works of many more, to be able condemn them all, or the fine endeavor we call "Science". That's why I've preferred to question some participants self-identification - are they really just "groupies" or "true Believers"? Neither can be "true scientists" - when they behave so. On the other hand, within the confines of this little cyberspace universe, many of the "I'm not really learned or qualified" participants are honoring the scientific values far more. They come in with paradigms, seek new info, and readjust them for the next round.

That I disagree with. They can, if the debate is honest, but will only make for a "good show" (in the roosters' own minds) if it is not honest, or fair, or victimized by the razor spurs of gam

The answer is #1, Cliff, but the only evidence for that is my testimony. Before you misassign my memory and examination of this phenomenon, you should understand something else about the way my mind works.

I was born Navy and raised Navy. I was trained from the beginning of my life for a total of 10 years to do nothing but remember things. Accurately, correctly, precisely. This is another of those factors in the unusual way my mind works.

My early training has not been forgotten. In high school I got behind in both drama and English for my rote memorization. So I memorized the entirety of "Beowolf" in one night, then 'performed' it twice the next day.

I know what is real, my friend! What we do not understand is what we do not understand. When we understand it, it will be perfectly natural. §:o)

Joy part 2

spurs of gamecocks. Some people, here, like the show, I guess. Beats - no, I'd say equals - professional wrestling on TV!

We needn't (and probably shouldn't) think "we're... going to change each other's minds, but", we need to have open minds, or at least honest minds with intentions a bit higher than the (gonadal) aspirations of most roosters. Then, it can be fun and profitable, and we really can "get a good handle on how the ‘other' side thinks, organize our own thoughts, and maybe work out some things for ourselves."

Last point - or I should say 3 points:

You can't get any more "right on" than that. I would also add that religion is, for many, also a search for knowledge. Some do believe they have "found it", and the search is over. But if any religion SHOULD (by its own rules - much the same as "science's" - in Scripture) believe that the search must go on, it is Christianity. Christians should have the confidence and excitement that when the Bible says, indeed, the TRUTH we are all reaching for is the same - Is God - and what He says about Himself - that science will indeed eventually show that. Right now, "Big Bangs and "singularities" are different names, to my mind, every bit as beyond real understanding as God and His "creation". There are many avenues to arriving at that Christian truth, God. And many sciences. God sets up many "tests": like prophecies and historical records, which archeology and history and current events can verify; like the creation account which I believe meets several tests rather remarkably; like details in that account that biological sciences can test; like details in the creation account and elsewhere (Job, Psalms, etc) that astronomy and cosmology can test. We can't talk about these things to "roosters" who ce

Joy part 3

"roosters" who certainly don't want to discover there's a really BIG rooster in their barnyard, but we can have a great exchange with anyone honestly interested! -:)

The point you made, however, is still basically true. The Bible, at least, doesn't "speak science", or try to give all the answers science seeks, or supplies. Far from it. Rather, it supplies a lot of little details, and brief sketches, that merely can convince or reassure many a (intelligent) seeker that the ultimate truths are there, and God "done it". That in no way says stop searching. Rather, it encourages searching, promising that when all is said and done, an honest searcher will find that God is true, that He is always verified. A Creator God, by any other name (you physicists know the most of them), will still be God. I, as I've testified before, was a fully convinced and involved researcher, theorist, and teacher of evolution - mainly by the avenue of anthropologist, meaning human physical and cultural evolution. I just ultimately concluded the evolution paradigm, in any application above simple life forms, failed. In the higher life forms, and esp human phylogeny, it was pure self-serving teleology, and a terrible (Rorschach-like) projection of our "wanna-believes" on the data. I didn't want any big rooster (esp a rule giving/enforcing rooster), either, in my playground. I didn't start my biblical research until many years later, after I began considering the Christian faith. I was not one to give the Old Testament, especially in areas I "knew" better, like Genesis 1, any credibility. I do now, as you know. I'd still like to talk about that, if any one really wants to talk, and not just strut.

Joy, I believe you have the wrong date here. Meteors were well known in the 1950's. Actually they were known to exist as early as 1794 due to the work of Ernst F. F. Chladni. However, meteroric astronomy is usually considered to be born on Nov 13, 1833 when the great Leonid shower appeared over America. (However, your point is well taken--just a bit late :-)

Did I do it again, Cliff???? §:o) Actually, I was referring to the steady-state arguments used against Velikovsky here, which did in fact descend to the level of denying what science already knew. Sort of like denying the laws of thermodynamics to explain away the actual effects of those laws that science didn't wish to admit.

I thank you, Russell. I have as much trouble understanding your statements about evolution (I’m honestly a dummy, and I expect some of it to be true) as you have with particle physics and all those strange concepts. At least we’re trying to understand each other!

I do not believe there is any possible ‘Truth’ out there that will not conform to what is real. I am excited by the possibility that we are very close to finding some very fundamental ‘Truths,’ and I’m all ears, ready to hear. There is nothing supernatural, there is only what we don’t understand. Most people grasp very easily that there are things we don’t understand. We have no reason to fear!

Fear is what’s wrong. Recent political events demonstrate that fear is becoming a powerful force in the world. This is a dangerous situation, and should be directly addressed. But in debate, the adversarial system is necessary. There have to be nay-sayers, or there’s no debate! Cliff, Leszek and others have moderated their attack-mode of late. This is good, because they’d all make deadly lawyers and I personally hate lawyers... §:o)

By the way, Russell, I'm glad you're hovering because I have a request. I make this request in all honesty and sincere desire to see what you have done, because I suspect it may be very good and I am interested.

Will you provide us with just a few details of this retranslation of the first chapters of Genesis? Just listing the disputed words and how you have translated them would work, as I've got my Bible right here to cross-reference. Any sources from recent discoveries of more ancient text copies (as in Dead Sea scrolls) would be nice, too! Thanks... §:o)

As I have said, Mikal, this stone (weighing more than me and I’m stable at 112) was hovering in a freshly-plowed cornfield. I ‘explained’ this phenomenon to myself, since I had to explain it somehow because I’d gone to the trouble of noticing it, as a disruption of whatever stable state had previously been there for this stone. It was unusually big for a cornfield, so the plow must have been set too deep (and the furrows were indeed deep, come to think of it...). It was on a farm between Orange and Mineral, Virginia. These towns are on the eastern piedmont of the Appalachians, foothills. The stones of this range are among the oldest on earth. If anomalies exist, and I know they do, science would do well to examine them rather than write them off as fantasy.

Joy

Science IS interested. They've been studying these reverse magnetic fields since the early 70's that I know of for sure. Like I said - I'm only familiar with the one on Shasta. But the reports I read stated that there are some all over the world. It would be nice if all researchers co-ordinated their efforts and if the results got better press. The reports also speculated that there could be a key to easier space travel in these particular anomalies. But the Energy Giants are very powerful and Influencial.

Ooooh, Mikal! Those corporate hegemonies again... something I also have way too much experience with, as well as negentropic drives for space travel. Funny. That was nearly 30 years ago. Where are we now?

Hi Joy

It seems in the late 60's and early 70's these facts and studies were easier to access than they are now. But just like plans for energy free living, somewhere along the way the oil companies, Automobile giants and energy moguls have gobbled up any idea or invention or scientific breakthrough that would free us from our dependence on oil (the world's biggest and most dangerous pollutant). I've read here that Scientists are for the most part honest and upstanding world citizens. But the results I see down here at the bottom is a lot of greed, graft and selling out. What is invented or discovered seems to be only what is demanded of them and all else is discarded - no matter how beneficial to humankind. I could go on for hours and hours on this subject. And if you add the medical sciences and chemical sciences to the list - it becomes a lifetime tirade.

The lifetime tirade is my passion, Mikal! I complain regularly and bitterly, because it's so absolutely unfair and I know it. Electrons are cheaper than air. They are everywhere around us, more than we can use, all the time. All we have to do is collect and direct them. What did corporate science give us instead? Atom-smashing to boil water to turn turbines to centralize the system and charge us by the kilowatt. Duh...

There's an easier way for everything science does the hard way. Religion, unfortunately, prefers not to see anything but the "Truth" it already knows, and everything else is just the in between here and there.

We're on a dead-end trolley car to nowhere, and I am not the only person who knows this. We have to stop living in the past and create something new for the future. How do we get these people to go along, since I am firmly convinced this is a journey we must all share?

Joy

the new memes are being created as we speak. but they are much too splintered with eveyone being way too specific on what, where, when , How and Who. We need to find a more general meme - like caring, sharing, peaceful so-existence. One Planet, One Species. One Direction - Forward.

Psst... Mikal... There's More!!!!!

Is this a meme? Could I do more, or let it propagate itself?

Mikal - Friday, 02/26/99 (#2025)

Philosophers like Plato, Psychologists like Jung and Freud, even Reich, and a host of anthropologists and amateur anthropologists (early adventurers, antiquity-hunters, and the "pioneers" before there really was such a science) have long speculated and theorized that ideas and concepts and archetypical concepts and common, or widespread, values and ideas are inherent in the "species", and later when known, in the genes. Anthropology, and most evolutionist sciences, have generally decided "not so", since. There are always a few mavericks. A few anthropologists and sociologists (maybe even a couple of geneticists - a couple with hopes of supporting racist theories come to mind, tho not names) have recently tried to show that certain genes almost "dictate" sexual orientations, violent proclivities (beyond the well established multiple Y- chromosome effect), marital infidelity, pedophilous leanings, etc. They haven't got a lot of support. Stronger support is found for succeptability to diseases, alcoholism, addictions, even gambling behaviors. But as for specific ideas and concepts, there is little support, but then, there's not much methodologically sound research either.

The "genetic memory" theory is part and parcel, of course, of all the above. But most anthropologists credit cultural borrowing, or similar

Mikal part 2

challenges, or opportunities (maybe "hard-wired", or maybe just likely from similar biology, etc). I'm certainly not so ready to rule out there being more "in the genes" than we now think there is. The genetic system is incredibly full of information, and these "mentalist" things are much harder to investigate and/or isolate than the stuff we are currently working on (discrete physical traits, medical problems, etc).

But, such items as "incest taboos, parent-child bonds, murder taboos" are far less universal (ie species-wide) than you might think. There is a great deal of variation. Some societies even required incest, in various situations. Some "required incest" rules, as in the ruling class, of course, are obviously utilitarian. Usually "incest rules" are strongly sanctioned in those societies that forbid it precisely because there is so much temptation/desire to commit it. Our own society is only now discovering how much incest has/does take place. "Murder taboos" are also very variable from culture to culture. Even defining "murder" is quite an issue within cultures, that we surely must question what "hard-wiring"is there. Is abortion, mercy killing, capitol punishment, vengeance, sacrifice to "gods", or warfare, murder? Finally, even what we, here in the US for instance, think is a universal "parent-child bond" is far less universal than you think. Some societies abort, others don't. Some allow killing a child until it reaches a certain age. Some see children as labor supplies, some coddle them almost forever. Some hang a crying child out on a tree, some respond with warm coddling to every whimper. Some define biology, others social roles, as defining of "parent". Human beings are incredibly "not wired", it seems, in almost all sorts of these things. Compared to all other species.

Truth is, what most people assume are universals, are far from universal. They are usually, for us, mostly learned, taught, Judeo-Christi

Mikal part 3

Judeo-Christian "morality" and role definitions. Take away the Bible, and we could easily live like the S. American tribes who admitted after missionaries finally rescued them from endless vengeance/warfare, "we never even had a word for ‘forgive'". Or the S. Pacific peoples who felt uncles should introduce children to sex at about age 6 or 7.

I would, however, suggest that many of these customs are so rare, and unusual, and also culturally learned, that they could be examples of "overwrite" of deeper seeded genetic coding. That's an issue for study. I also believe that what research has shown is that most of our assumptions about what makes sense in evolutionary explanation (the "harmful effects of incest", or killing, or various sorts of child-parent bond - beyond nurturing to a competent age) have been proven wrong. Murder, warfare, human sacrifice, vengeance codes, etc., have actually been most common in the societies/civilizations that rose the highest, spread the widest. The Roman, Greek, Egyptian, etc, societies were the ones who usually required/preferred incest in ruling classes. So, mankind has often overwritten the rules (we most approve) in many non-Christian societies. Indeed, the Christian God was most vehement, and "angered", at just those societies, religions, and rules. And wrote the Law we most regard as "good". And normative.

Another paradigm might also concur/blend with a paradigm that sees these "moral codes" as "hard-wired", and/or genetically encoded. The Bible says that God wrote His Law in the hearts of all men. And in Genesis there is strong language that indicates the genetic concept and fixity of species. And Genesis also has language that says when He created mankind, He imbued His spirit, which so prescribes love, marital fidelity, loving child-parent bonds, and so proscribes murder, human sacrifice, incest, etc., into the very essence of that species.

Go tell it to the Irish, Catholics and protestants on every continent, and the Israelis and Arabs, who have all lived with the bible for generations. They haven't learned the word "forgive" in many cases either.

Still, I'll agree with you on the "racial memory" business. There really is no reason to suppose it exists. Cultural transmission is much more likely by far.

As for the genetic basis for morality and much of human behavior, I have a hunch it's significant, but the hard evidence isn't there yet, and with something as complex as human behavior and sexuality, genetic determination is very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

As always, Im content to wait and see.

Leszek Rzepecki - Sunday, 02/28/99(#2097)

Who can defend, apologize, or even explain the travesty of Ireland. It's a "tribal" warfare that violates the moral values and Bible they both claim to revere. Though, by all I see in the news, and the plebiscite recently held, it is militant minorities, not the majority who are fighting this war, and the roots go back to political problems in English-Irish relations. I know not one Christian who does not abhor (as I assume you do) the strife, because it is anti-everything in the Bible, and the teachings of the New Testament, and your and my values (your "golden rule). Indeed, the history of the early church, and the apostles, from the day of Jesus' arrest, has been an ethic and commandment of "no arms, no conflict, no fight". All the Apostles, and most of the church, died unarmed, peaceable, martyrs. Do we not wish all billion or more Christians, since, remained as true to the ideal ethics and values of the Bible?

The Muslims do not live and obey the Bible, but a subsequent addition to the Torah, the Koran. And the Koran, and the Muslims, do not follow the peace, love, and tolerance in the Bible, and New Testament. Seven wars against Israel, all started by the Muslims, and we still find an Israel ready to give away most of their land, and safety, to get peace from a people ( more than 70 times their siz

Leszek part 2

size) sworn to a genocidal elimination of every Jew, and essentially as hostile to Christians. Slavery, unlimited terrorism, and hatred of most of non-Muslim peoples is, it seems, the predominant ethic of the Arab world. I do not idealize all Jews, any more than I idealize all atheists, New-Agers, pacifists, socialists, etc. There are all-too-many fallible human adherents to every creed and paradigm and value-set who fail and betray it for all sorts of reasons. But when they do, do we not always appeal to their "conscience" (if "peace and love and tolerance" are among them) to call them back to "decent" behavior? And they are usually labeled something negative, like criminals.

There is here, btw, no excusing the abominable events of about 1500 years of some Christian Churches, and the mix of immoral (by their values and creed) politics and economic ambitions and other perverted motives. But, again, if we look for any ideals, whether you acknowledge it or not, I believe, the values you received from your parents came, eventually, from a Judeo-Christian culture. And the only hope we have, in the troubled areas you mention, is to appeal to that common value they have (temporarily, we hope) lost sight of in their atmosphere of fratricidal warfare, to the Bible's COMMANDMENTs, to love their neighbor, and do unto them only that which they would have done unto themselves, and forgive EVERY transgression, as God has forgiven them every transgression. Have you ever seen a (vicious) fight within a family? Or between friends? Or spouses? Makes no sense and goes against all our rules, huh? But don't assume they, too, don't have the same rules. Or condemn their rulegiver, for their bad neglect of His teaching.

BTW. May you and I have peace, and mutual respect, also? It is MY ideal, and I trust your claim that it is yours too.

Russell, with respect to the Bible and the Koran, I think you may be drawing distinctions that do not really exist. You seem to have forgotten the partitioning of Palestine to "give the Jews a homeland." Understand that this was land the Arabs had possessed for over a thousand years. But with the British as enforcers, the Jews come marching in saying: This land is mine. God gave this land to me. Now how do you think the Arabs ought to feel about that--particularly the ones dispossessed of their land and made into refugees?

You don't understand?

Okay, let me try to make it clear. Suppose China was more powerful than the United States and suppose China decided the American Indians needed a homeland in Northern California. So with China as the enforcer, all current Northern Californians were forced to move to Southern California so that the American Indians could occupy Northern California as their homeland if they desired. Now suppose, also, after they were settled into their new homeland, the American Indians received sufficient war making capacity from Russia and China to repel any "aggression" from the Southern Californian refugees. But, of course, the Californians and Arizonians did attack anyway and were driven back to New Mexico. Now how do you really believe the former Northern and Southern Californians and the Arizonians should feel grateful if the new "masters of the land" were willing to give back the conquered Arizona land and a portion of the original Southern California land "for peace"?

In re-reading my last post, Russell, I note a possible misunderstanding. Allow me to clarify that I have no problem with the Jewish belief that God gave the land of Israel to them. After all, it is written in their most holy book. How could I or anyone fault them for that?

I believe that the Jewish people are beautiful people and I love them. But I also love the Arabs. They, too, are beautiful people. And I do not believe the moral code of the Jewish Bible is superior in any way to the Arab Koran. Furthermore, the moral code of the Bible (or the Koran) has nothing to do with the relative attitudes of the groups involved. True, the Jews were abused by the Germans before and during World War II. But the Palestinians fought with the Allies during World War II. For that, they had their land taken from them. My question to you was: how would you feel if your wonderful Northern California was taken from you under similar circumstances?

(And understand, I also love the American Indians.)

So what you are implying is that the peoples of the world were mindless savages until the great white man came with the Bible and destroyed their cultures in order to save their souls.

That's fine but it must be understood that the ruling classes of all nations (Christian nations included) practiced incest for no other reason than the preservation of power within a sovereign family.

BTW, the Bible is replete with examples of incest:

Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah. Isaac's son Jacob married two of his cousins, Leah and Rachel. Lot's daughters got their Father drunk and had their way with him etc....Certainly not all of these examples were revealed in a negative light.

Ancient customs, before the Law was given to Moses. Also the fact that these "sinners", still had God's Grace with them, gives us Hope.

Lot's daughters in no way did "right". Some surmise, that from living in Sodom, they didn't have the Teachings from Abraham ever taught to them. Lot compromised his Faith by living in Sodom, in the first place. He was still considered a "righteous" man by the New Testament, but He and his family paid a price and didn't escape without heartache. Maybe they still held ill-will toward Lot, since he was willing to turn them over to be raped by the mob, before Sodom was destroyed.

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 02/28/99(#2101)

Hi Cliff. BTW, I am no longer in Calif....-:) You know, I don't really want to get into a full discussion of the Middle East, but I will say that I'm pretty well informed, and I will clarify a few points of history (I hope, anyway).

Now, neither side deserves a score of 100% on righteousness, and both sides have a case for "ownership" of the land. If "God's will" counted for much (and it counts for very much with the Jews) He gave them the land now called Palestine (renamed and called such by the British when they took it over, precisely because they wanted to help obliterate the Jew's claims to their "homeland" Israel - many of whom still lived there, happily with the Arabs!). As you know, their history from about 1500BC, and pretty much everything in their Bible, and the Christian Bible establishes that was their homeland. If "conquerors rights" counted for most, the Jews conquered it from an assortment of tribes and small kingdoms. Then the Ottomans took it over in the medieval times. The Allies took it from them in this century (this is a very rough sketch, of course). The Jews then took it from the British. And took a bit more after each of the seven wars with the Arabs.

When the Jews took over, the "Palestinians (the resident Arabs) were not "refugees". They were co-occupants, with the Jews, with pretty much full rights and equal opportunities, and lived ever much better as Israel developed the land into a rich modern state. The Palestinian "refugees" were a creation of the neighboring Arab States who actually came in, just before their first war, and cynically warned the Palestinians to get out of the way or be massacred in the invasion. The purpose was to destroy the rather happy accomodation that Jew and A

Cliff cont #2

Arab had found, to push the "Palestine Arabs into a partisan situation, and to actually create a "refugee population" to get world sympathy. It was very Machiavellian. The war was lost of course, but the intended antipathy was created, and the more powerful Arab states then forced Jordan to support most of the "refugees" (in the "West Bank" region of Jordan). But no Arab states have ever really supported the poor "refugees". They've poured billions into war machines, and six more losing wars, but never provided for the "refugees" – because as long as they are refugees, they are a ready pool of angry, and "sympathy arousing" "victims of Israel" for the world to see. Its been a great strategy. The US, the UN, and Israel actually support these "refugees". The Arabs just re-arm for war #8. Notice how many Palestinians live and work and own homes in Israel. That latest Jewish housing project that the "world" is so upset about, -- by law, its almost equally dedicated to Jewish and Arab families! Notice the "Palestinian" "police" are actually an army, and are as often oppressing the resident Arabs as not. And that the Charter of Palestine, until a few weeks ago, called for the extermination of all Jews. And Arafat still says in his speeches to Arabs, "Don't worry, we will still do it. That was just to make the US happy." BTW, the Koran instructs, "Make peace until you are strong enough to destroy your enemy". And notice that there is (actively enforced) a death penalty for any Palestinian who sells, or helps sell, real estate to a Jew. No Cliff, the situation is not so "clear" as it looks. BTW, have you watched CNN's "Cold War" series. The situation there, in "Palestine", is about the same as it was in most Latin American countries. Machiavelli at his best!

I won't try to comment on your example about Indians and California, etc. Funny, I'd used about the same example (usually Blacks, and a new country being imposed in the South

Cliff concluded

(by China) tho. I was a pretty radical guy in my past. My dad thought I was a "Commie" (tough thing for a man who needed the highest security clearances for his job!),. I was a leading radical at Berkeley in the 60's, was a Civil Rights worker in Mississippi, idolized Che Guevarra, etc. (Been in jail twice, for politics!) So I wasn't very pro-Israel. Not until I mellowed, and started studying, instead of "rallying" to every cause. I did become a lot more knowledgeable about the Middle East, and now I have changed my opinion, which once mirrored yours.

E.C. - Sunday, 02/28/99(#2103)

Now you seem to be the one having an attitude problem. How could you get that "implication"? Perhaps because you assume that missionaries always "destroy" cultures? Well, I will admit, I shared that opinion, once upon a time. The early missionaries, and even later ones (esp the Jesuit), have often done that. But, let's not go there. That's not for this board. But do let me remind you I am an anthropologist. I became one, I suppose, for much the same reason most did, in my time - we loved and even idolized the "native" and "primitive" peoples, and felt almost a mission of our own to protect them. (See my previous post to Cliff, re my political and ideological background. Its relevant.) And I knew first hand much of the damage many missionaries did. I also saw the good that many did. In South America, the missionaries often gave their lives protecting the "natives" (S. Am. Indian tribes) from totally rapacious governments. Most S. Am countries' "civilized" governments, either hunted and destroyed the native peoples like coyotes, to get their lands, etc, or essentially enslaved them in forestry, ranching, mining, and road building. Missionaries, if you'll read your history (esp more radical-left histories, which are most truthful in these sorts of subjects), were often the best hope such people had. They often led legal and political and popular media campaigns to protect them. And often died along with the natives. Anyway, more about the example I mentioned.

That story involves a remote Amazonian people who no one ever was able to contact, and who were being slowly exterminated by the press of "civilization" and ruthless economic and gov't forces. 3 missionary families went in to find them

E.C. part 2

and help them to "deal with" the "authorities", like learn the official language, get legal rights, etc. They found them. And found they had, for as long as memory served, been involved in endless vengeance/murder warfare. They were all, (all sides) living in terror, and were little more than ever-moving homeless refugees from themselves. After a year or two, the missionaries had made great progress. Then the 3 men got a message to go meet several of the native men - to help end one major feud, I think it was. (Been about 2 years since I last saw this story). It was a trap. The natives had been riled up by a dream, and shaman, and fearing something (can't remember exactly), killed the 3. The missionary wives and children left briefly, but decided they could not give up the cause, and returned and kept running the mission and school. Years of work succeeded. Primarily because one Indian girl, now orphaned, came in and taught the language, and helped develop contacts, etc. In the end, the video (I read the story, then saw a video documentary) ends with that girl, the first Indian, explaining just how deep a horror her culture had become, by explaining that they had not even a word for "Forgive". BTW, the several men who killed the missionaries were also interviewed, now forgiven, now "civilized", and now helping reach even deeper into the jungle for more peoples related to them.

That was, essentially, my point. But not ALL, just MANY. And few, actually, of the "Christian" nations, unless you wish define incest as including cousins, etc. Recall the tumultuous history of the English, for example. There was great strife between monarch and church over such issues. One contest resulted in the esta

E.C. part 3

in the establishment of the English church, in order to get rid of the Catholic objections. And while rulers played, the people were always having to be placated, by a lie, or oppression, etc, because they were offended. In Egypt, however, brother sister incest, etc, was totally the rule.

"Replete"? Try, "has a number of histories of". Now, half sisters, and cousins, and such customs as the levirate, etc, are not "incest" under our, or most societies', laws. But, yes, the Bible is very earthy, frank, and honest about real-life situations. And you need to follow through the story/history to see what the result was. Was it "approved", or did it lead to God's anger and punishment, or popular disaffection and loss of position, say in a ruler's case? History, btw, is history. The Bible reported it, far more accurately than our history texts, I fear. Surely, you know that Lot's daughters were hardly praised or glorified or rewarded for their act. Uh, what was your point in all this, anyway?

Well, if the British had carved out a homeland for the Jews in Germany, then that might have made sense. But they didn't, they took Arab land. So your analogy would not fit.

Impressive. I must admit I never got around to doing any of those fun things. I was in the U.S. Navy within a year of graduating from High School and was married and had a kid within a year of getting out. I had to worry about supporting my family. And besides, I was a republican.

Russell, I’m an amateur on things anthropological, but I have followed with interest. I mentioned that I found interesting concepts in both Carlos Castenada’s anthropological fictions about shamanism and in Jean Auel’s fictions about the transition from Neandertal to Sapien Sapien. The evidence is strong that evolution does occur. I’m not ready to claim pond scum for an ancestor, but having apes in the family tree doesn’t bother me.

Human consciousness is unique, and represents something other than animal nature. Whatever we were in the Garden of Eden, we were clothed with "skin" when the fall occurred. Whatever we were in the "image of God" was emplaced into physical bodies subject to birth and death. When we got here, Homo Sapiens were already walking the earth.

There appears to be a genetic understructure for consciousness, but consciousness itself does not appear to be genetic. Consciousness operates on several levels, including some that are not limited by time or what is ‘real.’ Dreaming is an active manifestation of one such level. Dreamstate consciousness regularly accesses a "collective" storage area, and draws upon archtypes common to humanity. This leads to the hypothesis that the collective is genetic. The hardwiring in our brains serves specific purposes, so I suspect this collective is the seating mechanism for consciousness in the human body.

(continued...)

Anthropological researches dealing with magical belief systems have identified cross-cultural similarities related to the archtypes. The practical magic of these systems involves manipulation of the dreamstate level of consciousness. We tend to look down upon these systems as ignorant and primitive, but we still dream. Psychoanalysts analyze dream symbology every day, and the collective is being mapped because the archtypes are consistent.

At the same time, bilocation, clairvoyance, astral projection, NDEs, etc. are apparently real phenomena, not time or matter-bound. The ability to project consciousness outside the machine. This research tends to be labeled "pseudoscience" by those who avoid thinking about things they can’t hold in their hands or look at under a microscope. I think it’s just another of those things we don’t yet understand, which will be perfectly natural once we do understand.

I am aware that many Christians view this research as "forbidden," and associate it with New Age belief systems. On the other hand, everybody dreams. God did not forbid us to examine ourselves, and consciousness is part of ourselves. God forbad misuse of what we learn. It would be good to recognize that prayer and meditation operate from the similar levels of consciousness, creating positive thought forms and projecting them through invokation of the God archtype.

If you (or others) have any comment on my suspicions that the "special creation" of human beings in the image of God as described in Genesis has more to do with consciousness than with biology, please contribute.

I think I'd agree that the NDE is a real phenomenon, as the anecdotal evidence is certainly compelling - though I doubt there's anything supernatural in the explanation. The others have little trustworthy anecdotal support, and even less empirical evidence in favor of them - they are plagued by hoaxsters and charlatans. I won't go out on a limb and claim they are theoretically impossible, but as they are phenomena that neither I nor anyone else I know and trust has ever experienced, I'd require rather extraordinary evidence to accept them.

Possibly. I'll reserve judgement until an experimentally repeatable phenomenon is isolated. It's not a matter of not believing things we can't see with our own eyes, it's more a matter of not having any reliable evidence for the claimed phenomena whatsoever. With all due respect to those who claim to be able to do this or that paranormal trick, when tested in scientifically controlled conditions, no-one has ever performed reliably. The tests of clairvoyance have occasionally shown statistical significance, but when taken as a whole, they are not convincing.

Of course, things may always change. Perhaps someone will eventually stumble on some quantifiable and reproducible phenomenon of human consciousness that is fundamentally inexplicable by biology and neurology. Then, I'll take it seriously. So you see, we crusty and stubborn scientific types do have open minds. :)

Would you accept dreams as an example, Leszek? Science knows we dream, they have identified the brain activity during dreamstate, and where those centers of activity are located. But they don't really know what it 'Is,' what purpose it serves, or why the collective archtypes insinuate themselves in identified form into the dreamstate. Nor has science found any "dream genes" to account for either the need for sleep or the apparent need for dreams (the depravation of REM sleep does lead to mental disorder).

Yeah, but how do you quantify dreams? I know that you have them, and everyone else has them, because I know I have them. You can measure repeatable electrical phenomena associated with dream states. But when it comes down to figuring out what they mean, if they mean anything at all (and I think they have to mean, or be representative of, something specific), I agree with you, we are still largely at sea, even with the greatest respect possible for Freud.

I'll answer you with another question, and it isn't one I have an answer to (maybe it's unanswerable). How would one prove that a prosaic biological/neurological explanation for dreams was impossible? My feeling is we would probably have to find some other phenomenon that we could quantify (call it a quantum soul if you like), and that couldn't be confused with the interactions of prosaic matter. Tricky.

Joy, Good morning, thank you for your kind words on the other board. I'm not I hope, a 'hidebound' Christian, who refuses to examine anything outside the boundaries of doctrinal thought, in fact I know I'm not. Once a rebel, always a rebel.

Now as I understand it, and you've made references to this before, you feel that the world and it's inhabitants were here, among them human beings, but at a particular moment, some 'god' spark or conciousness was inserted into SOME, but not all. I'm hoping you're going to correct me where I'm wrong there.

Now all aspects of conciousness, self consciousness etc., make up perhaps as much as 33% of the reasons WHY I believe that there is a Creator. So I'm certainly not adverse to discussing and listening to things in this area. But they are, as has been said here before, in a way so 'airy fairy' and difficult to pin down.

I think my problem, if the above does describe in some way what you're thinking, is death. I was amazed to find, many years after coming to faith, that in fact the first part of the Old Testament gives no indication that Adam was created immortal or that sin brought 'death' into this world. Amazed because the New Testament is quite different in this respect. However, if I listen to the NT in this regard, then it is quite clear that because God is the source of all life [Rom.4:17] then death is the result of being cut off from God, which process started with Adam. [Rom.5:15,17-18.ICor.15:22] But if I start with your scenario, and presumambly there has been interbreeding in your scenario, then I am incredibly lost. I'm willing to consider it, but it makes so much sense to believe that He created the world, that the world was not created with death in mind, why should it have been if God Himself is immortal? And that death came into the world because of sin. Of course the trouble with this POV, is that if you believe this, there CANNOT have been any [animal or

Sorry Joy .. Of course the trouble with this POV, is that if you believe this, there CANNOT have been any [animal or human] death before the Fall. That begins a major argument with scientific findings. Enough for now, let me hear what you have to say.

Death is death. Humans die, animals die and yes plants die too. If Adam and Eve tended the Garden of Eden and ate the plants, vegetables, and fruits, plant matter was dying in order to sustain them. Thus there was death before the Fall.

Seems to me that it will be quite difficult to counter that logic. Just an observation. Rosemary is clever sometimes. But she is also very honest. We will see how she handles it.

I expect we will find a biological/neurological explanation for the NEED to sleep and dream, and I’ve already suggested a neurological foundation for the collective. The hormone Melatonin is known to regulate sleep cycles, and is biological. We know that REM deprevation effects normal conscious brain function, so we know it serves a purpose.

What purpose might be served by the lawlessness of dreams? We all have experienced dreams that don’t follow any rules of time-space or logic. We might conclude this was our unconscious mind exercising our conscious mind’s opposing concept, sort of a balancing act. But this presupposes that consciousness has an opposing concept which is unbound by the rules.

Our daily consciousness defies time and space too, though it functions through a body bound by rules. We write books to preserve our wisdom (or idiocy) through time. We stand outside of our biological time limitations to build on history. We stand outside of time to project cause and effect of actions and events so we can analyze their future consequences. Make choices. We toss our consciousness into outer space every time we contemplate the larger universe or any part of it. The arts project consciousness into the collective to gain inspiration and insight.

Thanks for the reply Rosemary, but I’m a little confused by your confusion. You note that Genesis doesn’t identify death as the consequence of the fall, then note the NT association that death is the result of being ‘cut off’ from God. I probably didn’t explain well what I’m still contemplating.

First, I don’t think death is evil. I think death is part of the nature of nature, the duality of creation. If consciousness survives death, and since it defies time and demonstrates the ability to function apart from the body, the cycle of life and death does not really separate humanity from God, and death could easily be seen to have been part of the natural world all along.

The New Testiment is a revelatory and mystical collection of works, written after Jesus had suffered and died, and won his victory over death. The admonition is not to fear death, because the door is open to us. I plan to follow through it. I think the sin of Adam and Eve was Pride, and I don’t think it’s hard to see how pride can and does cut one off from God.

Rosemary (continued)

If victory over death (and fear of death) is already won, the death resulting from estrangement from that victory is spiritual death. Or so I would presume, if death itself is natural and defeated.

The mystery has been brought up here before, with Cain’s fratricide and exile. He was firstborn, and he built cities. There had to be people (homo sapiens) on the earth already. Science is still confused about what happened to the Neandertal homo sapiens. They’re also still confused about whether Neandertals and modern homo sapiens are descended from the same common ancestor. They did exist alongside each other for a relatively long time, and there are skulls which show distinctive features of both subspecies. They were close enough genetically to interbreed. It is clear that the modern homo sapien sapien took over one way or another.

I haven’t done the kind of work Russell has to be clear in how I think this wild speculation fits with Genesis accurately enough to satisfy literalists, but I don’t see that it contradicts anything (except strict literalism). Neandertals had huge and complex brains (bigger than modern brains), but they were arranged quite differently. Burial sites demonstrate they probably had formulated religious beliefs and rituals, though. I don’t know at what point in geological history the creation of Adam occurred (because I give God leeway on His definition of ‘days’).

It was either a great deal of serious incest or it was interbreeding with a preexisting sapien species. Or both. Six of one half a dozen of the other in terms of ‘sin’ for the fundamentalists.

E.C. I'm on the run coz it's tea time and I must feed the family, but off the top of my head I'd have to query that plant dying bit. It's a circle surely, the plant grows, produces the seed, the seed falls and becomes the plant again. Very interesting, but I think the 50 or so posts I just downloaded on the other board probably are as well, have to catch up in an hour or so.

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 02/28/99(#2111)

I agree, that in some sense, justice would have been well served if Germany paid that price. But, of course, Germany was not alone in culpability, and many other nations and people were also doing it (Poland, Italy, Russia, etc...), or turning a convenient blind eye. And were it just a case of the UN, or Britain, "awarding" some piece of land, any piece, for a NEW homeland.... But the fact is, that land (Israel) had a long history of being occupied by Jews, it was the place of their whole recorded history of the Torah (even in their exiles and diaspora, many Jews were still living there) and Biblical times (even after Rome defeated their last attempt at a liberation rebellion, and destroyed their temple and cities), and in 1940 and 1948. "Palestine" was occupied by many Jews. It was not an "Arab" land. It was a Jewish and Arab land. So many Jews lived there, and owned land, that they were able to not only force Britain to give up defending her policy of exclusion (keeping out new, expelling resident Jews), they also won the first war against several Arab nations who invaded and tried to take it over for themselves. The point I tried to make (or one point) is that the Jews were there, all along. Once totally "owning" that land, later happily and peacefully sharing it. Then "owning" it again, politically, stll in peace and in sharing. It was outside Arab politics that actually evicted the "Palestinians", not the Jews, and thus created this 50 year standoff.

I'm sorry if, in any way you took my bit of biography as something I am now proud of, or touting, or think it should be "impressive". I do not view it, now, as highly as I did then. And I only mentioned it to make

Cliff concl

I only mentioned it to make the point that I'm not some "dyed in the wool, conservative, or radical right, or religious right" person, who has his own long standing position/prejudice. I'm not. I am one who has done about a 170 degree turnabout, on this issue, only after getting over my previous prejudices (fairly essential ingredients, I think, to radicalism on any matter), and trying to see two or more sides to these and other issues.

Joy Busey - Monday, 03/01/99 (#2112)

Yes.

I agree pretty much with all you've said. But only a couple of exceptions: I find little to support Jean Auel's fiction, or embedded theories. And I declined comment on the things you said earlier about interpreting brain cavity characteristics, but I also see nothing to support those ideas ... and seriously doubt we can make any supportable, verifiable, or useful attempt to interpret or imply any cognitive or mentalist conclusions, at all, from those brain cavities. And, I wouldn't mind an ape ancestor, either, if it were true (and I was quite satisfied to believe it true, 10 -15 years ago) but I am very convinced it is not, and that there is another true, and much more helpful, theory of our origins. Finally, I find the Genesis account might allow evolution at the scum (& up to insect) level, but not higher.

PS I'm getting something ready re your request about my Genesis findings.

Rosemary Behan - Monday, 03/01/99(#2117)

I agree. And furthermore, let make one further small (or huge?) point. All creation is created before Adam. That, I assume, and believe my own detailed translation shows, includes the carnivores and predators ... who kill. And E.C. ‘S point about even eating plants involves killing/death. (And we know that a plant is but a structured community of living cells that [most of which] could survive on their own.) So physical death was, it seems evident, built in to the original design/creation! After all, after the "fall", there is no indication in the scriptures that detailed THE creation, that there was another new, or a RE creation that redesigned any animals into the beautifully designed carnivores and predators that existed in history and exist today. So I believe we cannot accept that the "death" that we are told came after/from the "fall" is physical. That was a part of the original (ecological web/balance) design. So.... I would say that the "death [that] is the result of being cut off from God, which process started with Adam" was a spiritual (and to do with the eternal) death. If "the world was not created with [normal physical] death", many animals are absolutely wrongly designed, and the ecological balance could not have existed as we see it now. Ongoing reproduction requires death, or Malthus has a heyday!!!!

Indeed!!!!! And E.C. - re #2119, as you see, I absolutely agree.

Joy Busey - Monday, 03/01/99 (#2123)

Yes!!!!

And the insistence on a "young earth" and 6 24hr creation days!). Keep this up and I can be satisfied to just give you the results of my translating! I won't have to argue for it, you'll have got all the tough stuff figured out already! And this is exactly how science and the scripture can harmonize, and science need not deny God, but understand Him!!

Joy, yes, I think I can see why we are both confused, and it is certainly me as well.

This is what I'm not happy with. And the reason I'm not happy with it is 'death.' But perhaps we'll leave death out of it for the moment. Now I realise that any minute now you're going to label me and put me in a box labelled 'literalist' .. which is a shame, because I'm quite convinced that all our various 'boxes' never quite fit anyone, we all overlap them somewhat. Suffice to say that on remarkably few issues am I so one eyed that I won't listen and be prepared to change.

What you describe above is generally referred to as Theistic evolution. This accepts the theory of evolution as a general explanation of how God worked in creating the world and producing life within it. With reference to the emergence of man however, some further factor is posited whereby a particular anthropoid was separated and raised to a new level of awareness and to a relationship with God.

So, first we agree that God Created and we agree that the culmination of this process was the special creation of man. Then we MAY differ, on whether man was a brand new product, or a refashioning of an already existing creature.

Theologians I know and admire argue for your thought in this, so we must be careful here and not be dogmatic, both arguments have merit lets say. [Or maybe I'm just talking to myself here?] We agree however, that mankind is distinguished from all other animals .. by for example, our ability to reason, moral awareness, pursuit of beauty, use of language, fear of extinction etc. Now I can quite see, if I compare myself to an insect crawling up one of your very tall buildings in New York, that I might not be able to guess the purpose of everything, why it is was glass one minute, concrete and steel the next, but I WOULD assume purpose because of the symmetry. The reason I put that in, is because evolution, as opposed to theistic evolution can tend to remove that purpose.

There are genealogical problems whichever way you go, and I'm no mathemetician, but I personally feel that we must try to preserve the plain meaning of Acts 17:26 .. that the nations have come from one man. And truth to tell, I don't think anyone has an absolute answer to this. I answered a post to Linda today about a difficult text in Genesis that refers to the 'nephilim' who may or may not be a race of angel/men that were destroyed in the flood. My imagination soars when I come across these things, but I try to curb it a bit and stick to what I can say more honestly. But there are points we may not agree about with regard to post diluvian and antediluvian Scripture. For instance, I don't have a problem accepting the literal meaning of their long ages, that Noah was 964 .. how about you? [grin] There is the impression given in Genesis 4:16, of a populated earth, and you may be right, these early types of hominid simply died out. A lot depends on how we interpret Genesis 1 to 3. And as I stated rather unclearly in my previous post, my major problem is that Genesis depicts a perfect world quite clearly. A perfect world into which suffering, death and evil subsequently came as a result of the Fall.

I think you are right, Russell may very well have something to add to this discussion. However we must not let issues such as these, rob us of the great central biblical realities .. that mankind is the creature of God, set in God's world, uniquely related to Him and holding special responsibility for the created order.

BTW Joy, continuing my reading on theodicy, Berkouwer suggests that the ultimate Christian perspective on evil is doxological .. the adoration of God for His triumph over all His enemies. [shrug] .. helped me, as I've said before, "hope" is very important to me. This way I have some "hope" and in every other direction so far all I've found is darkness.

Let me first re-assert; Evolution "knows" no up or down, only survival. Now.....

Please elaborate! Why have you allowed the more improbable action, development of multicellular life, and disallowed the obvious, specific adaptation of multicellular life?

On that note: Does anyone know, offhand, where Casini is right now? This controversial little machine may help clear a lot of this up (or not.)

Bexause it's necessary to maintain the fictions that there is a vast gulf between people and the animal kingdom, and that the purpose of creation is people, and that the bible is an actual description of creation?

I've now read Russell posts to this issue, isn't it wonderful that we can all be so different, it excites me so much. However, I think you may have to write me off here. Not I hope as a mental case, but as one who is not burdened with the knowledge that you have, and who therefore approaches this issue in a fairly straightforward way. It's not that I'm not open to learn to think another way, I'm created and therefore in effect, cannot KNOW all truth, but so far, your particular leanings on this issue haven't convinced me. For instance Joy, you said ..

But wouldn't it be true to say that the only reason this vexed question even comes up is because of knowledge that you have. Had you been born 500 years ago, it probably wouldn't have been an issue. My faith is pretty simple on this point, I accept that what seems to me to be extraordinary NOW, was somehow different before the flood.

So yes, there was Adam and Eve, [although even after only one year studying Hebrew, I know that Adam wasn't his name.] I accept this, not only because of Acts 17:26 but because the "Offence of one man made sinners of the many, and subjected them to death." And I believe this man was as distinct an individual as were Moses and Jesus Christ. Having accepted that, I had no problem accepting that the offspring of those first two [perfectly] created folk, were not under the same prohibition that came in after the flood, and that we now refer to as incest.

And with the long life span, it seems to me perfectly possible that there were many offspring and offspring of offspring etc. City has no meaning in the OT such as we give it today. Just refers to a fixed abode as opposed to a moving one in tents etc., doesn't have to mean heaps and heaps of people. I have read I think most if not all of the other explanations, including some very creative ones, but for me, none has surpassed the beauty and simplicity of the one I hold. And somehow, if I'm wrong, I don't think it will be counted against me, in fact I don't think you would either would you? .. but rather simply describe it kindly maybe, as 'childlike.' So be it .. I'm happy with that.

Thanks, Rosemary, for your input and perspective. I was often admonished growing up that while I must question everything I experience, see, learn or hear, I must not question details of faith. As you can tell, I was never very successful at keeping the two separate. Be assured that my questioning is not aimed at the destruction of anyone else’s belief systems or interpretations.

Having said that, I’d point out that Cain is the reported firstborn. Even if Adam and Eve had "known" each other for a long time prior to that and produced a hundred or so girl babies nobody in those days would count as anything, they must have been one Bad race of asexually reproducing Amazons to threaten their brother so directly after he’d killed Abel!

I do not see how the allegory in Genesis 1-3 was ever intended to be taken at face value, because the collectors of the tradition and the writers of the Writ were far too intelligent to think people wouldn’t recognize it as allegory. To me the after-Eden descriptions of the world into which Adam and Eve were exiled detail a world already long in motion.

I also don’t see what is so "imperfect" about the cycles of duality which define nature. If there were no night, day would be nothing special. If there were no death, life would be no challenge. As I have said before, Choice - Free Will - implies by its existence that there are opposing choices which could be made. The lion does not choose to kill, because lions kill in their role as lions. People choose, thus people and their choice introduced evil into the world. Murder is evil, but death itself is not. Or so my reasoning leads me to believe.

(continued)

Time is a moderating factor in the whole of existence, and I think it’s very misunderstood. I don’t limit God to a 24-hour definition of "day" any more than I limit Daniel to 7-day "weeks." I suspect conditions on the pre-flood earth were quite different from conditions now, so I wouldn’t dispute the tally of pre-flood years. Our orbit could have been closer to the sun (shaving a little time off years but not significant to 900+), a vapor canopy could have shielded the surface from ionizing radiation, and the new human beings could have held far purer genetic information than we have today.

Nor do I limit God’s creativity when he fashioned Adam to have improved upon the highest level of creature then in existence, based on His oh so brilliant DNA design for life. He could have fashioned this new creation from clay (from scratch), since the design was His all along, or He could have introduced it as mutation in the existing population before transporting Adam to Eden. I’m not really concerned about how, exactly, God accomplished this. I simply see a good deal of evidence for a certain amount of evolution in kinds, I accept that God specially introduced a new form of human in "His Image," and that this new form of human did end up taking over the world.

But heck... I could be wrong. Won’t know until I’m not here to tell anyone about it. Life is a search for knowledge, a thirst for experience, a desire to ‘Be.’ Experience is not all fun at an amusement park, as God warned Adam and Eve when he exiled them. As in everything else native to a duality-based universe, joy is empty without sorrow, pride is shallow without shame... on and on. It’s no rose garden, but even if it were there’s still thorns on the bushes.

Thank you for the great responses too, Russell. I mentioned Auel’s fictions (mostly Cave Bear) because I found the differences she postulated so fascinating in terms of consciousness, and I am interested in consciousness as it factors into the human experience. There is no way to tell from cranial cavities exactly what parts of the brains functioned in what way, but it is evident there were significant differences in the size of structures between the two subspecies.

It can’t be good science to compare what we’ve mapped area-wise in our own brains to Neandertal brains (which is why Auel wrote fiction), but the occipital bunning of Neandertal is in an area that in our own brains fires on retrieval of long-term memory and wholistic perceptions (‘reading’ of faces, body language, things like that). The differences in thought patterns she described fictionally are most interesting to psychology. Interesting concept, that’s all.

But we know the Neandertal were fully homo sapien, very close to us in all but general robustness and brain/skull anatomy. ...and close enough genetically to mate with.

I look forward to whatever you care to contribute in the way of your work, and be assured I know you can’t (shouldn’t) give too much before you publish the entirety of your thesis.

(Russell, continued...)

As Rosemary says she sees Hope in Christianity while elsewhere there is darkness, I believe one of the best things about the Judeo-Christian faith is its actual tolerance of all the ways the words can be interpreted. The Rabbinic tradition bears this out very well, the constant study and refinement of meaning. For my neighbor whose faith is pure and simple, this is all it needs to be. He’s an example of Christian goodness, and lives his faith every day of his life. He needn’t understand complexities that don’t effect him, nor should he feel particularly threatened by the existence of complexity. Jesus made that clear by simplifying everything quite nicely.

I personally believe there is nothing ‘True’ which can disprove any word or concept in the Bible, so I’m not afraid to look at whatever ‘Truth’ is asserted by the world and test it by the Bible. If there is no possible way to meld the ‘Truth’ to a Biblical concept, it will eventually be proven erroneous. I’m not intimidated by non-belief in God on the part of scientists. What Marie would ascribe to me is a fluid base of interpretation, and this would preclude me from membership in her congregation. Yet she is aware that other interpretations exist. Most which have denominations built around them are pretty much set in stone.

The only stone that counts is the Bible itself, so I’m willing to modify my interpretation to fit reality. There is nothing to fear from ‘Truth,’ and much to be gained. Now all we have to do is tone down the resentments from the wings and recognize we’re all on this journey together!

Has anyone noticed lately that this board and the Religion Today board have nearly flip-flopped in content. The Religion Today board has focused on the political and even some scientific ramifications of religion while this board has delved into scriptural interpretation as of late. I for one can express my utter devastation at this turn of events. I'm going home to drown my sorrows in a bottle of Yahoo chocolate beverage. Don't anyone try to stop me!

Rosemary Behan - Tuesday, 03/02/99 (#2137)

I'm not sure what your reference to me meant, whether you disagreed, or disagreed in oart, or merely meant something else. But, I trust, some of what I've said is entertained as "possible", besides "interesting" (I already know its interesting, your open-mindedness and scholarly/scientific objectivity assures that!). This message is not asking you about that, however. I just want to make a few points.

I wouldn't put Moses in the same class as Jesus the Christ. Moses was, by every indication, merely a man, but one whose faith and faithfulness led to his most complete acceptance and use as a man (nowhere near perfect, obviously - his errors even kept him from entering he promised land) by God. That included, as you read, even "plain talking conversation" with God. Etc.

I would not jump to any quick conclusions about "incest". One indication of a rule, is the "man shall leave his mother...., and become one flesh....etc" There are also later remarks about sons of God, and daughters of men, and so forth, (we don't want to get into all that here), that also suggest God had some rules. And I believe that the scene in Genesis 2:21 - 24, describes (and is given to establish) the marriage and family as something very special, and serving very special needs. We need to remember, again, that "incest" is absolutely a culturally relative term and definition. And those who keep getting into this issue often have disingenuous axes to grind. And finally, "incest" might not even "exist" as a norm in the occasional culture, but it is widely known, and fairly concurrent, in most socie

Rosemary part 2

n most societies, and even more so with any Judaic background. And that definition does not extend to cousins, ½-blood relations, even such institutions as the levirate, etc.

Now there is another statement I cannot agree with more!!!!!!! Too many Christians seem to forget how simple it is to be written into the Book of Life, and seem to think that entrance into "heaven" with be first preceded by a theological entrance exam (graded on a "curve"?). Well, too many also think it requires a perfect score - their doctrine being the only correct doctrine, of course - and forget that not one of us, not one, is either perfect, nor anywhere near capable of being a "Know it all"!

Keith Fosberg - Tuesday, 03/02/99 (#2134)

Sorry. Once again, I failed to make myself clear. You are absolutely right, and I've repeatedly made the same point, there is no direction to evolution. That in itself only adds to the improbability of the total evolutionary scheme that, while it often has ongoing "non-up-scale" (bacteria to bacteria, for instance) production/evolution pf new species, the overall "pattern" or trend throughout history is dramatically UP, always producing more complex and "sophisticated" species, genera, etc. The "higher" in my statement was in reference to our common characterization of the "later" and more complex families and genera we have defined in our classificatory (usually cladistically) scheme. Ie, insect is "higher" than bacteria, and mammal "higher" than insect, etc.

Now, I'm not "allowing" anything. I am saying that the "seed" and "after its own kind" language you will read in the KJV translation of Genesis, looks much like, and is often taken to mean, "fixity" of those "kinds" - which are also usually taken to refer to "species", but I would say could as easily be referencing larger groupings, like genera, or even families (because the account is not so detailed as to actually refer to specific species. For instance, it references "fruit-bearing" plants, not apples and grapes. OK? Now, the particular point I am developing is that the "fixity" is applied to the "higher" life forms referenced in the creation account, but not the lower! This is overlooked, and obscured, by

Keith part 2

obscured, by the style of KJV and other translations. But the language I believe refers to the "lower plants"(like algae), and "lower animals" (like insects) does not "connect" to the "fixity" language. So, I see it as deliberately not telling us that insects cannot "evolve", or "change beyond mere inner-specific adaptations", while it does tell us that species (or genera?) such as include "buffalo" will not/cannot "evolve". They remain true to their own seed (genetic population's boundary), through time. Adapt, yes. Evolve, no. (Obviously, this discussion embraces a range of big topics, and a book, or semester-long course would be needed to fully explicate, and argue. Here is no good place to do it. I'll leave it my assertion, you can love or hate, or just let it open a new train of thought, or theoretical possibilities, in your mind until I get my fuller treatise available to you.)

Is it accurate, or helpful to interject this answer to your question?

No. My statement, I hope you now see, is merely an observation and conclusion, on my part, of what I think the original language of Genesis, accurately parsed and translated, says. As for the "fictions", that term is no more than the usual prejudicial conclusion of someone who would not give an ounce of respect or credence to another theory or paradigm were it written in lightening on the White House lawn. "Fictions" is a declaration/conclusion that there is no truth, nor even a possibility of truth, and amounts to an imperious (and intentionally deprecating) statement that no one should even be willing to investigate or consider the information with scientific openness or objectivity. I think you, anyway, know that.

Help is only a phone call away, E.C.! Chocoholics Anonymous has operators standing by...

§:o)

...Hello?

I think there may be some onsight in this, but I also suspect that I am looking under a different rock than you.

I think that what you are seeing is a phenomonea that is often moddled using a construct called a binary search tree. Trivial differences very early in the taxonomy of any group of objects causes a divergence into more or less fixed groupings. Once these relationships reach a maturity (in a linear system this is a percentage of the total modulas, but in chaotic systems far more subtle triggers often appear) there is little, if any, "cross talk" in the taxonomy between the original progenitive divisions.

Welcome to the wonderful world of fuzzy logic!

Actually, Russell, I have plenty of credence and respect for many theorems and paradigms. The idea that Genesis is any more than a fictional and pretty allegory is not one of them. It is just a speculation, in my view. Perhaps if you send me a copy of your treatise I'd have enough information to change my mind.

However, anyone who starts off with the assumption that Genesis is a real description of real events shouldn't be accusing others of lack of objectivity. You made up you mind, and are trying to find justifications. I have empirical evidence for evolutionary theories as a reason to give them credence. All you have in Genesis is belief.

Gosh I'm sorry Joy, but I really don't understand what you mean and I'd like to, can you help with the following? Trouble is, I'm not sure whether you should answer here or on the Religion board!!

Ø Having said that, I'd point out that Cain is the reported firstborn. Even if Adam and Eve had "known" each other for a long time prior to that and produced a hundred or so girl babies nobody in those days would count as anything, they must have been one Bad race of asexually reproducing Amazons to threaten their brother so directly after he'd killed Abel!

Now, with regard to ..

Ø I do not see how the allegory in Genesis 1-3 was ever intended to be taken at face value, because the collectors of the tradition and the writers of the Writ were far too intelligent to think people wouldn't recognize it as allegory.

Are you saying there, and saying definitively, that the intelligent writer had no thought whatsoever that his writing may be taken to mean just what it says?

If it wouldn't be too much trouble Joy, I'd like to know your Scriptural reasons for the above statement, which particular words or phrases tell you this?

That's all, I understood the rest .. thankyou for your answer.

Hello Russell, I suppose I was disagreeing, but not in a strong way, it doesn't disturb me the way a certain issue upsets me on another board.

Nor would I, I was simply making the point that the Scriptures give me a clear sense of Creation if you like, when it says, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Or, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." No that doesn't preclude that man evolved, but to say so goes against it's clear sense. It refers to one man, just as Moses is one man and Jesus Christ is one man, or Paul is one man. OT and NT present a whole picture to me Russell. In fact when I go through the 'dark night of the soul, when I 'doubt' .. it is Scripture that brings me to my senses. It is amazing to me, how anybody who has studied Scripture, can think that 'just a group of men' wrote that book, when it is to me, so clearly God breathed.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying about incest. I wouldn't refer to what happened before the flood as incest, but because I believe that there was one man, one woman, and that they, over hundreds of years had many children, only some of whom are listed in the Bible. And that those children married, .. then because the Bible doesn't mention that God created others, I assume they married their brothers and sisters and so on and so on. My reason for so believing, is the Scripture referred to above .. "From one man."

Russell continued ..

Strangely, I was asked about that on the religion board just yesterday, as you say we need not get into it, but it's not a problem for me. I find the problems come when I try to "fit" Scripture into the sort of thing you and Joy are talking about. A sort of marriage between science and Scripture. But if you two find it easier to accept that way .. that's fine. It's not a salvation issue. You will find that the last phrase I used there, is a favourite of mine. I'm quite happy to disagree with a fellow Christian about interpretation of Scripture, unless it's a salvation issue .. then I can be a bit obstreperous and have to try and curb my temper.

My apologies Joy, I was trying a new system that obviously doesn't work, my first post to you was not as clearly set out as I would like, that funny symbol of course precedes what you said .. so sorry.

Joy Busey #2141, 2142

Thank you, Joy. You've got me in your corner on that one. 'Tis very much my philosophy (and religion)! The Truth, good scientists, and faithful Christians, must all believe exists, and is in our deepest human-endowment, and is (most)our quest. It is (the?) something that I believe, sets us apart, and defines us (which I also believe is at the center of whatever God did inspire into His first-chosen man (and woman) in Genesis 1:27,28 & 2:22).

You misunderstood my intent. What I meant was that your proposed analogy of a homeland for blacks in the south would made sense only if the British had carved the homeland from German soil. But as I pointed out, they did not do this. Instead, they took Arab land. For your analogy of blacks to work, in this case, the homeland for blacks would have had to have been in Africa.

And, yes, Russell, it was Arab land, and had been Arab land for over a thousand years.

Then why was it necessary to partition Palestine? I say the purpose was to take Arab land and give it to the Jews, and to allow the Jews to organize a government. I do not know how you can refuse to admit this. What if California was to became part of Japan? Should it make a difference to the citizens of California as long as they are allowed to continue to live there? I say, ask the people of California before you assume it would not make a difference.

Understood. Actually, what I said was somewhat tongue in cheek as I think I indicated by saying I was a republican. However, I must admit that when I first heard about Woodstock, I did feel a slight sense of regret. I sensed that it was a "happening." Of course, at that time, I had never smoked pot. That came several years later at the end of a class party for one of my night classes at the U of H that one of the female students threw. Actually, I was about to leave to go home when, suddenly, it was all over the place, and yes, I did try it, and yes, I did inhale. I tried to act normal, but my Prof. saw right through me and wanted to know if I had ever smoked pot before. I answered truthfully that I had not. "I didn't think so," he said.

He was a far left liberal--probably the first one I truly admired. That exchange remains to this day one of my fondest memories. The whole thing was rather like a religious experience to me.

Leszek Rzepecki - Tuesday, 03/02/99 (#2150)

Yes, I realized I'd mispoke there. I'm sure you do. I meant, of course, to refer to a creationist paradigm. And it certainly is your right, and I can't say unreasonable, for you not to have credence for it (the Genesis paradigm), yet to evaluate it, and give it (us) a decent debate you need, in my opinion, give it some respect. I've seen meetings where the opponents of an idea shout down the proponent, catcalling etc, like in some street demonstration. Dinos being warm blooded was initially treated that way in some early paper presentations. So was the idea that meteoric ice raining down on earth was a significant source of water. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I perceive that sort of interaction as totally out of bounds, and anti-scientific and unprofessional. It certainly dismisses the opposition as naught but charlatins and fools. We aren't.

That I'll accept. And as for a copy, as soon as the finished copy is ready, you'll have your fair opportunity to deal with it on its own merits, tho I doubt there is any such thing as "enough information....but, who knows?

It is completely sound methodology to start out with either a positive or negative hypothesis. It has no presumptive affect on objectivity. The assumption merely helped me look where all the others never bothered, and see possibilities that centuries of the opposite assumption could or would not. Obj

Leszek concl

Objectivity is served by a simple "I'll wait and see". You just continue to dismiss my testimony that I undertook my work with no expectations — indeed, I did not expect to find what I found at all, I was fully expecting to continue in my disdain and disbelief of the creation account — as a lie. I'm sorry, but that is the truth, and my findings changed my mind, big time. BTW, there are many Christians, perhaps the large majority nowadays, who see Genesis much as you do, so I did not need to come out with the "positive" I did. I was not "trying to find justifications." And I know that you "have empirical evidence for evolutionary theories". So did I. But I eventually concluded it was not supportive enough of those theories to overcome their shortcomings. It is fair that each of us can reach our own conclusions, and not be considered as proof of dishonesty or stupidity of either of us. If you could agree to that, these discussions could be a lot more pleasant and maybe even useful.

What do you mean by useful, Russell? In the past, I think you have made it quite clear that your purpose here is to find converts. How could a pleasant conversation with Leszek on even terms be useful for your purpose?

Just asking.

Good Morning All

And who do you think should teach this to them, Mikal?

My post was merely an expression of personal hopes - not directed at anyone in particular. As to who will teach them? If we are speaking of general entities such as Science annd Religion - I would imagine that a general overall change of attitude would suffice - a general agreement to 'open up'. This may happen as more and more come forward to 'testify' to personal experience with the great unknown. It may never happen. It may not be important that it happen at all. On a more personal level - the 'teacher' is always the 'self'. Like I've said - I post to share, converse and learn - not to teach or even suggest that I am qualified to teach. Who do you think should teach? Do you believe that there is anything to learn?

Not exactly, Rosemary. I am saying that Genesis was (is?) a product of the human collective unconsciousness, a description of beginnings from a hardwired source which holds archtypes, and achtypes speak in symbols. This is an ancient literary form, especially in matters of religion and spirituality, where words themselves do not adequately convey the totality of a concept. Every word is carefully chosen, the concepts expressed are concise and left without comment, the description of beginnings is ‘Truth.’

It is ‘Truth’ on a literal basis, a figurative basis, an allegorical basis and a scientific basis. It’s true on every other kind of basis we might ever discover as well. ‘Interpretations’ limit the understanding to whatever understanding one or two people hashed out for themselves, then gathered adherants to agree with the interpretation, and who too often defend it with violence. Sad.

To read Genesis in exactly the same way you’d read your morning paper, or your kids’ report card is certainly acceptable, but overly simplified. Such a reading ignores the broader meaning, and all archtypal images which intrude themselves into human consciousness are saying something more than "Eve ate an apple and got the humans booted out of Eden when God got mad."

(1) Gen.3: 22 - "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and live forever:"

Adam and Eve were not created to live forever, they were mortal.

(2) Gen.3: 23-24 - "Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Death was already part of creation.

(2) Gen.4: 4 - And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof..."

This was butchered meat. The sheep was dead.

(continued...)

(3) Gen. 4: 14 - "...and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

Who might the "whosoever" that Cain was frightened of be? Again, death is what was wrought and the vengeance sought.

(4) Gen. 4: 16-17 -And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived..."

There is nothing about Adam partitioning the outside world. Nothing about Cain kidnapping a sister and taking her with him, either. Nod is not where Adam and Eve lived, as the geneologies separate at this point.

I honestly don’t see how anyone could read these few simple words, expressing a vast conceptual framework for God’s special creation, and understand it to mean Cain was afraid of lions or that lions would be referred to as "who" instead of "what." If Genesis 1 - 3 are taken too literally, Genesis 4 must be untrue. To choose specific words on which to base interpretations that require other words to be rendered untrue is error. There is nothing untrue in Genesis.

Perhaps it might help this rather barren exchange if we could focus on something specific where the scientific and Genesis accounts appear to differ significantly. Somewhere back there, I think you said that evolution might work for some some "kinds" (I forget whether you used that actual word, but that's the KJV word), but not for others. Perhaps you could elaborate on that, as there is nothing in the evidence for evolution to support that suggestion.

Just out of curiosity, how would you anticipate that scientists could truthfully and accurately conclude that that was true? It seems to me it is logically impossible to define boundaries for scientific knowledge - of course, that doesn't mean such boundaries can't exist, but it does mean that even if we ran up against them, it would be impossible to recognize them, because there would always remain the possibility that a fresh approach could resolve the apparently unresolvable.

I think you're asking science to do something impossible there! :)

A general comment to Russell, Joy and Marie and indeed anyone else :)

One of the problems I have with those objections that "refute" the paradigm of evolutionary theory is that those that do not prove to be fabrications (e.g. Paluxy footprints) or factual errors (e.g. no intermediate forms), generally boil down to the "Argument from Personal Incredulity". That's the "I personally cannot imagine how this might happen, therefore it never happened" argument.

An example in point. Somewhere in Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker, he talks about listening to a radio debate between an Anglican (I think) bishop and an evolutionary scientist. The bishop conceded he could see how protective camouflage could evolve for prey species, such as the white fur of arctic hares (he could hardly deny it, given the story of the evolution from white to black moths in industrial Britain - and recently the gradual evolution back in post-industrial Britain), but he couldn't figure out for the life of him how to explain a white polar bear. Since polar bears didn't have to hide from predators, he reasoned, they had no cause to evolve white fur. He couldn't believe it, therefore evolution was, in his mind, refuted.

Of course, in his book, Dawkins was able to ask his ecclesiastical protagonist to try an imagine a black polar bear sneaking up on its prey in the snowy arctic wastes, and suddenly this incontrovertible refutation of evolution dissolved in the powerful solvent and explanatory power of evolutionary theory.

That, basically, is the reason I am not impressed when people come and tell me that there is "no way" that such and such a phenomenon could possibly happen. It may be that they just didn't ask the right questions.

Time
Space
Relativity
Limits?

If we had no need to measure time, space, degrees of relativity I wonder where our minds would go and what we would discover.

And one last thing before I go out into the day:

Is the need to know why genetic or acquired?

We’re in for a long wait, Mikal! It is Pride that leads to impasse, and humans are nothing if not prideful. Both science and religion (and denominations of religions) have a lot of pride invested in their particular interpretations. That’s pride, not faith. Faith would allow for admissions of fallibility in matters of ultimate ‘Truth.’

You’re not the only one in a box, you know. Humans put God in a box a long, long time ago and tied it with intricate knots. Now science puts creation in a box and guards it with weapons of extinction... for themselves! What possible evil might these boxes hold that must be considered so dangerous that we’d kill ourselves and each other just to prevent ourselves from looking inside? Very bizarre.

I think maybe Russell and I have bored you with our sideways discussion of evolution and special creation, Leszek. While I admit I remain unconvinced that all life evolved from pond scum, I have admitted the evidence for evolution is strong in many ways. I’ve also said that by this evidence it seems clear that life has a good degree of control over its own forms. I do not see this as being pointless, especially to us as the products of special creation with a specific purpose to serve.

Religion is tied to its interpretations, so is unwilling to admit that God may work through life - evolution - in His plan. Science is so determined to deny God had a hand in any of this that they’ve claimed for themselves the power to call a halt to the whole process with the push of a button. Not very impressive. Science knows no ‘Truth’ that successfully refutes God’s existence. It does refute interpretations. In this, I think science isn’t asking the right (or obvious) questions, either, by ignoring their own bias of interpretation.

P.S. to Rosemary - I said yesterday it’s possible due to the patriarchal bias of the culture that Adam and Eve produced a population of women prior to Cain’s birth and the storytellers just didn’t think they were important enough to mention. These daughters might have practiced incest with their father and produced a small population with males before Eve ever had a male child, but this introduction of biologically produced children in the world would I think have been important enough in the scheme of things to mention. Cain is listed as firstborn.

I think it’s stretching the imagination to fill in a hole dug when one interpretation or another insists that when Cain was exiled, there were only 3 people alive on the earth. It also makes a lie out of Cain finding a wife and starting a civilization (however primitive). It is far more logically consistent to see the Genesis account as the story of a separate, special creation introduced into the preexisting world. A world in which human beings - homo sapiens - were already present.

Which means, most simply, that if an interpretation of scripture requires the insertion of words and concepts into scriptures so they will conform to the interpretation, the interpretation is in error. Seems like Christians are always trying to rewrite the Old Testament in terms of the New Testament, instead of trying to understand the New Testament in terms of the Old. Cuts meaning off at the knees and renders it senseless.

To assume direct incest (father-daughter, brother-sister) is to assert something that is not written in scripture and is specifically against God’s law, if the God of Genesis is the same God who gave the law to Moses. This rewrite of Genesis was invented to counter evolutionary theory, as until evolutionary theory came along nobody much questioned the firstborn status of Cain.

Evolutionists are often gleeful in their absolute faith that evolution disproves the existence of God, and religion has allowed itself to be fooled into believing they have to defend against it. In truth, they don’t have to defend anything. Science does not have the power to declare God dead. All it has the power to do is declare us dead.

I don't think scientists are determined to deny anything, Joy, though I know you will say you've had experiences I'd never believe so you won't test my scepticism by telling me about them. That's ok, you know what you know, and I think I know what I think I know :)

Nah, I'm not going to go there anymore. Point your finger of blame on the generals, the pols who appointed them, and the voters who elected the pols. Science was just the tool they used. Individual scientists had an individual responsibility to speak against this, and many did Other scientists, including Einstein (to his ultimate regret) spoke in favor of it for their diverse reasons. But ultimately, this was not a discovery driven by scientists, who would never by themselves have been able to come with the funding for such a project, but by politics and the government, for which we are all to blame.

Building straw men again, Joy? :) I know of very few evolutionsits who would argue what you've just claimed. That proves you're wrong there.

<sigh> Have you not used evolution here in your refutations of Biblical belief systems presupposing a God and intentional creation, Leszek? Have I misunderstood?

Of course we’re all to blame, my friend, that’s why we all have to fix it. It is not qualitatively different if Saddam Hussein unleashes the beast just because he’s an evil megalomaniac, or if the POTUS unleashes the beast to protect the world from the ‘evil’ of Saddam Hussein. A dozen scenarios fit here, including nearly launching the arsenal during the Cuban Missile Crisis to protect the world from the godless Commies. What difference will interpretations make when we’re all dead?

Fact is, peasants the world over still don’t have access to health care or antibiotics, reliable food supplies, decent housing or adequate educations. The supposed great benefits to humanity of science and its technologies is reserved for the favored few, while the rest pay the bills with blood, receiving nothing in return. Wealth and power vs. servitude and degradation. Pitiful.

If this is the best that politics, science and religion can produce, we’d better see if we can invent something better. This will take intelligence, imagination, prediction, inspiration and every other possible benefit of human consciousness. We do not have unlimited time to figure out the difference between good and evil. If I were the teacher, I’d say we flunked. Since I’m not the teacher, I can say the dog ate my homework, and cram to make up. If God really likes us, he might let us get away with it.

*I* have, sure, because that's what I believe. I'm in a minority, though, as the righteous always are! :) Most evolutionists, even on these boards, wouldn't go as far as that. Did you misunderstand me?

You are not as small a minority as you may suppose, Leszek. Because I haven't closely followed the evolution issue here, I'm not clear on who has or has not used the argument in this way, but the Christian defenders have all encountered it many times before they got here.

Perhaps another unfair generalization, and I should have prefaced the statement with "atheistic evolutionists." Sorry.

"God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Gen.1: 24-25, NKJ) This is after the sea was populated by sea-kind and the air was populated with air-kind. Key phrasing here is -

"Let the earth bring forth..." God didn’t sit around molding little critters out of clay and breathing life into them, he let the earth do its thing. There is no scientific blueprint for evolution here, but there is no refutation of the concept, either. Humans invented the species classification systems, not God. According to the Bible, evolution is entirely acceptable. Unless one cares to tell God how long a ‘day’ is supposed to be. I personally wouldn’t presume to do so.

Cliff Beall - Wednesday, 03/03/99 (#2161)

Cliff, every man here, to some degree or another, want's to convert others to his/her own belief. Indeed, scientists do, merchants do, conquerors do, religious believers do, etc. They probably have greatly differing motives, of course. If we could sort them out, and scale them along some classificatory or descriptive schemes, say: Pride, reassurance, profit motive, power, altruism, etc., it would be interesting, even instructive, huh? In fact, I'd say we all do something of the sort whenever we encounter another human being, especially in a transaction of some sort. As for the motives of the 4 types I listed, I would guess that cynics (and Leszek is one regarding me and creationists, and I am one regarding "Evolutionists" (cap E), and have succumbed to become a bit toward Leszek, though I was not for some time), tend to classify simply, approximating 100% scores on one or two scales, and leave it at that. That is also common (leading to?) prejudice. Ie, we might simply assume a merchant is 100% profit motivated in his transaction with us. That probably errs in overlooking the possibility the merchant is also altruistically moved, believing his product is good or beneficial.

I believe we all probably score something on each scale - we are all complex beings. A good scientist I think scores high on altruism and pride, less on power - tho the politics/sociology of their world and getting grants, etc pushes toward the power motive - and for a pioneer, like those who introduce new ideas (Dino's are hot-blooded, meteors brought much of our water, Genesis is accurate -:)), there is some reassurance, etc.

I want, mostly, to convert to a half-way point, not

Cliff, concluded

not to my entire belief system. Yes, I've come to believe in God ( a 100% turnabout over about 8 to 10 years), and because of what I also believe about Him, I am very high in the altruistic desire to "convert" others. But I do not have the egotism to believe I can "convert" anyone. Instead, my ½ way goal is that of just opening minds that are (and have usually been long) closed to even knowing what Genesis says! I found it exciting, amazing. I also have, all my life, been committed to the (old fashioned, are they?) values of science and scholarship - open-minded, respectful, always ready to hear a new truth or theory and hold a degree of readiness to "convert". That's mostly altruistic, but I expect it would also score some on a reassurance (ie, I'm not a fool) and (I'm sorry to say) probably a bit on the pride scale. Well, to cut a long essay short, does that give you any help on seeing, for yourself, how a pleasant conversation with Leszek would satisfy my motives in this forum? I do think he's bright, articulate, and fairly learned in some (but not all) fields. I would hope the same could be said about me. Now, if "pleasant" could only translate "open-minded, respectful, and truly interested in hearing (and not just condemning or "humbuggung") the other side), we'd really learn, or have the chance to. I've learned from several, if not all, here. Maybe none "convert", but each could enjoy and gain that "common ground" understanding that prefaces the reason for this particular board.

Joy, there are more evolutionists on the planet than post on this here board. Most of them believe in God. Get over it.

A case in point. You're wrong, of course (about god), but I couldn't prove it in a month of Sundays! <g> You might want to read Daniel C Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea for a diehard but cogently argued view of why evolution disproves god... I'm not sure I'd go that far, but he gives food for thought.

Leszek Rzepecki - Wednesday, 03/03/99 (#2170)

"Generally" is not "always". You need to "hear" other arguments. Some of us here, and others we reference (say, Hugh Ross) have other, good science, arguments. And even if they choose to express "personal incredulity" - which is all that your generic rejection of "God" and the Genesis creation account, and "God Created it" is - as one of their arguments, many have many other arguments and evidences but you just don't "go there" following your generic rejection.

Of course, the Anglican Bishop was no expert, and debating a scientist who was thoroughly convinced about evolution, was a losing proposition. A more neutral scientist, or a Christian scientist, could have argued better. For example, the black/white moth. There is no evolution shown there (though it may have been a product of, I'll grant) But the fact is, both black and white moths exist within the single species. Just as r

Leszek, part 2

Just as redheads and blondes exist in human populations. And each color proves an advantage in different circumstances. We might assume that for thousands of years, even millions, there was some of each existing. Those resting on white bark trees survived better in such a grove than the black version (race, subspecies, variety) because of the "camouflage" advantage (less visible to predators). The black variety, however, continued with its advantage in darker foliage. When a major overall change occurred, the sooty British atmosphere, the blacks naturally survived more and became predominant. No evolution here, just population (genome) shift. As a matter of fact, since industry has changed in recent years, the color distribution has evened out again. No evolution, or reverse evolution here. Just adaptability. Something an intelligent creator could also have "designed". BTW, being blonde was a big advantage for a long time; now, according the many "blonde-jokes" circulating on this "web of truth", the internet, it's a real disadvantage! -:)

Of course, we know there are several evolutionary "explanations" for white polar bears. They are as varied, and teleological, as our evolutionist explanations for white and black skinned people! And:

I think I've done as good a job explaining away the "powers that seem to be" here. Except for saying the moths "evolved", there is neither evidence of that, nor any example of evolution in the natural history of the case. Adaptation is not evolution. It is, however, often appropriated as such by the ever-hopeful Evolutionists. White polar bears may be merely arbitrarily designed white by a Creator, or cleverly designed white for any number of reasons – the very same collections of reasons which evolutionists (note, small e), ie predator

Leszek concl

predator evasion, predator efficiency, thermal efficiency (reflecting heat, why not gathering heat?)(reflecting heat inward, ie good insulating) etc. No, which paradigm the solvent dissolves merely depends on which paradigm you dunk!

And we, respectfully, apply the same standard to you!

Glad to hear it, Leszek. You, of course, are free to believe as you choose. We now know that earth is not the center of the solar system or of the universe. We’re not even the center of our own galaxy. If God created the universe, He probably wasn’t standing out here in Podunkville. From where He was standing, days could last billions of years.

Or maybe forever. Don’t forget that I still have that ‘other’ ulterior motive here... the nature of time, and whether it has another relativity we haven’t yet factored.

It’s a comforting image to see God very carefully creating everything solely for our personal benefit, but I tend to think multi-dimensionally. I like to imagine the singularity at the beginning of time and follow perfect symmetry forward through all those billions of years. To me the holographic brilliance of the DNA structure as a programming language for life is Miraculous (capital ‘m’). The variety of everything in nature is perfect and brilliant and miraculous. The usefulness of every tiny part of it is Genius (capital ‘g’)...

I do all this complex, multi-dimensional time-travel through my mind. My consciousness that is not bound by the laws of physics or the rules of the universe. That’s the most Miraculous thing of all. This is high Art (capital ‘a’). Atheism to me would be ultimately lonely.

But, Leszek, that's exactly the same problem, Evolutionist have. :) "Can't believe in Miracles". etc. etc. I think the Genesis Creation account, does leave out many details that could be explained naturally, by evidence I've seen or read about from evolutionists, I just "see" the same evidence in a different way. My outcome or verdict of the evidence is different than one who subscribes, to the predetermined "Views" of evolution. Are many thing not yet understood or explained? Definitely! Does having Science find answers to the beginning of Life, intimitate religious beliefs? No! Some Scientists have beleived in a God or a Creator, after doing their studies.

White fur would tend to be disadvantageous in polar climes. White fur cannot reflect heat inward as you stipulate any better than any other colored fur. Most of the heat released by warmblooded animals is in the infrared portion of the EM spectrum which is only partially trapped by fur. The color of the fur would not matter in terms of trapping heat generated internally - a brown coat works as well as a white coat. However, white fur does possess a relatively high albedo to Sun's shortwave radiant flux and due to the harsh conditions evident in the arctic, it would be a distinct liability. The true benefit of white fur on a polar bear is camouflage for predation while for the snow hare and other polar herbivores, white fur serves as a camouflage for the avoidance of predation.

The following is a kid's site on bear evolution which is surprisingly instructive

BTW, you stated that adaption is not evolution. Of course not, any organism can adapt to changing conditions i.e. seasonal changes in the type and distribution of food, deforestation, changes in water salinity , oxygen content, or pollution level, etc. Evolution driven by natural selection and "genetic drift" of isolated species is a much longer term process. Creationist cannot seem to contemplate that fact.

If Man and Woman are really the pinnacle of God's perfect creation as presented in the Genesis account and supported by Christians and creationists alike, then why didn't God place us in the center of the universe i.e. the universe was truly anthropocentric.

If you were a watchmaker and happened to build what you thought was the perfect watch, would you display it right in the most conspicuous place in a store window or would you but carelessly drop it in a huge pile of average watches strewn across the workshop floor?

But Marie, evolutionists have this thing called empirical evidence to support their case. Creationists have nothing. Every objection you've brought up has been answered reasonably and fully. Why do you still persist?

Joy, I'm not sure if you are just postulating what could be's... or not. I just think as in your next post you talk about God's law against incest, you are just citing could be situations.

Right after God made Eve and presented her to Adam , there is the verse describing marriage. Genesis 2: 24. This verse at this particular place always stumped me, because neither Adam or Eve ever had parents, according to scripture. It seems to be that the writer of Genesis,( Moses)inserted this verse here to designate the First Marriage. And God's plan for marriage.

Because of that verse, I doubt that any incest took place between Adam and Eve with their Children. It must have occurred within their Children to each other, and No we don't know how many children Eve had before Cain or after, only the 3 sons are mentioned. So Eve must have had several dozens of children, who had children, and grandchildren, of which Cain could have married a niece or sister. Incest didn't become an official Jewish law until Moses recieved the Commandments, many thousands of years later. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Fall, We just know Adam lived 930 years, time for lots of babies. He was still alive when Noah's father; Lamech was alive. ( I know I'm literal, but it makes sense to me.)

We have everything we need. Joy's right, no need to worry.:)

Well, trot them out so we may critique them.

It isn't evolution but may have been a product of evolution. Is this hand-waving? What is it? It's either evolution or it isn't. Make up your mind, please.

That's what evolution is about. Shifts in gene frequencies.

Yeah, like camouflage to avoid detection by prey. A very evolutionary reason. My goodness but you do dissemble so when faced with evidence to refute your hypothesis....

As I said, every objection to evolution you offered was refuted. Why persist?

Here's one for you... why do dogs and cats dream? Is it consciousness?

This is a trick question out of that book I haven’t read, isn’t it E.C.? §:o)

Depends entirely on life, and whether we’re the only special creation. Goes back to our long-ago discussion of what it might signify if we were to discover physical evidence of DNA-based life forms from "unpolluted" extraterrestrial places.

But that really wouldn’t matter, since no matter where we look, the whole of the universe we can perceive is moving away from us, so in a relativity-based time-space, we ARE the center of the universe! Of course, so is every other object/place in the universe, since we all started out in the same place...

Probably you only convinced yourself, I should be convinced, but I'm not. Evolution is not proven by any stretch. It takes more imagination to beleive in Genetic "drift". Maybe that old 60's song,"blowing in the wind". gave someone that idea, for all I can see.

I do not have the reference immediately at hand but a genetic study was conducted not too long ago which looked at the minimum number of genetically distinct individuals (no relation out to 4 generations) necessary to replenish the present global population if everyone were killed. The study revealed that of minimum of ~1500 individuals would be required and any number smaller that would eventually lead to the spread of genetically linked diseases which would jeopardize any further population growth. Now after the Fall it is assumed that physical laws which we currently have were established and Eve started have children from Adam. Eve would need to generate well over 1000 genetically distinct offspring. Since Adam was the only one around, how is this possible? Genesis does not mention the creation of other people in the same manner that Adam and Eve were created.

All dogs go to heaven, Leszak! Didn't you know that? Cats, of course, sometimes choose 9 lives...

§:o)

I'm sure it's a good genetic study.:) I don't know, but the Earth was very different before the Flood, as evidenced by the vast difference in age of people, after the Flood. Maybe the atmosphere offered more protection from Sun's radiation. There are studies on the Earth's tilt, and other astronomical studies, which bear out facts of the changes. Also the moon's orbit is further away now, than thousands of years ago. It doesn't bear on this question in particular, though.

BTW, I heard a commercial for "Veggie Tales" on Christian radio today.:)-

Now I have to watch Monica. LOL.

This limitation would not necessarily apply in the case of genetically perfect (whatever that is) individuals, E.C.

Marie, I was discussing my general suspicions about subspecies evolution in homo sapiens (human beings) with Russell and Rosemary. I presented - and badly defended - a postulation that homo sapiens were already present on the earth when homo sapien sapien (modern humans) was introduced. This, I suspect allowed Cain (Genesis 4) to be afraid of retribution for murder, to move away, get married, and eventually build cities through his line.

Thanks for your input! §:o)

Which dodges the question of why they dream. I think it's consciousness, or self-awareness. What say you?

I said nothing about genetic drift... which could never explain adaptation. It's natural selection that's the main engine of evolutionary design, Marie... all your objections were refuted, and you didn't come back to refute the refutations. I guess you ran out of arguments! :)

You know, Leszek, I'd like to think they're conscious too, and I believe they are. Pigs and cows and sheep and even snakes. They are all conscious, they can all plan their day and react/adapt to their environment, and they know what death is. They see it and react to it as they are designed to do.

Carnivores are particularly intelligent, though pigs and elephants are amazing. I'd like to think all sentient life is gifted, all consciousness rewarded.

Had a Maine Coon cat named 'Abraxas' who was not only the best cat in creation at being a cat, he could also relate very intelligently to us and the kids he raised with an iron paw (16 years). I've had dogs who could be described in just such glowing terms. I expect to see them all in my afterlife, because I loved them and they loved me. I could be wrong. If they're not there, I'll be bummed...

I don't know if they view their own mortality as we do, and in my experience with animals it's more instinct than long-term estate planning. Fear of death is instinct. Humans have it too.

Our difference is quantative, I believe, rather than qualitative. We are timeless and we know it.

I do love when we can agree... it will give others conniptions, though!

To make an assumption that there is more to learn than presently understood is probably a safe assumption. However, to specifically identify those things that are as yet unlearned, but that need to be learned is not easy.

I think that science does a pretty good job of investigating the unknown. Look at all it has taught us. However, I am firmly convinced that it is at least as important to avoid learning that which is wrong as it is to acquire the knowledge of those things which are right. As to who should be the teacher, I can only say that my teacher will be someone who can avoid the teaching of things for which there is no clear evidence.

Yes, Joy, I agree with you here, but if you have the existing world already, why do you need a special creation? If you admit evolution as I do--and even abiogenesis, as I do not--why do you need the Biblical account. If the world was already populated with people with which the children of Adam and Eve could mate, how do you conclude that Adam and Eve were needed?

Don't let us get them started then, Leszek! §:o)

I consider myself to be an evolutionist in the sense that I firmly believe the fossil evidence supports it. There is no doubt in my mind about that whatever. I do not believe evolution disproves the existence of God. I am persuaded that evolution provides some indication that a "personal" God who walked and talked with Adam does not exist since it does raise some questions that make that assumption difficult--at least for me.

But I think the issue of the existence of a universal God is a separate issue altogether. I think you protest too much.

I watched Shania. She sings and dances better than Monica. Or maybe not.

I don't know if your Presbyterian sensibilities will mesh with the heretical teachings of the Living Water church but there you go ;-) I guess the irony is that some Christians fully believe that Fido will make it to heaven while the destitute, homeless street children of India who have never heard of the Bible will not. Go figure.

E.C., I quit trying to figure (and started thinking for myself) back when my children were babies and George, our humble pastor, told me they had to be sprinkled with water or they'd go to hell.

Go figure... §:o)

Marie,

I kept hitting "copy" in each of your recent messages! ...

one
Addam and Eve may, or may not, have been real people, but they were certainly not the only humans of their time (and I do mean before they had children!) if Genisis is a literal account.

Laying aside the improbability of 900+ year lifespans for the moment; a multitude of children might be produced, but the number is no defense against the lack of the minimal genetic diversity required to sustain the species.

The emergence of a species through evolution can support a single individual as a progenitor, but the emergence of a species via special creation can not. two
Our capacity to comprehend and/or accept an idea has no bearing upon the validity of that idea.

three
The conditions of the environment are fairly well known over th last couple billion years.

four
The "watchmmaker" strawman does not address the observed behaviors of watch components compared to long-chain molecues.

If you accept that God can do thinks any way he pleases, and accept that God has no reason to lie about our origins to us; There is no threat to faith in observed reality.

Frankly -- I have often wondered if God went for a capacino and came back, only to discover that the Earth was "stuck" on dinosaurs, and had been for millions of years. Did God then "reset" the game by smacking the Mexican coast with a goodly-sized hunk of iron so that mamals could get a brood in edgewise?

I’m going to have to sleep on your good questions, Cliff, and see if I can possibly answer without asking that you believe what is not evident. Evident, however, is going to have to include experience and consciousness. There’s no way around it, because these things are necessary to the wholistic whole, so to speak. But I’ll try to boil it down if I can, and that may require a device called the ‘third person’ or what might be termed the casual outside observer with all the information on both sides and no preconceived notions. If you’ll be willing to hear on those levels, I’d certainly be willing to try and fit it into those levels! §:o)

I am game, I guess. I may wish to differentiate between that which is possible, and that which in probable or reasonable. I suppose anything is possible if you allow for divine intervention.

I guess my questions have to do more with what is reasonable--or, at least, what I consider to be reasonable. For example, I do not consider it reasonable that God would purposefully deceive me, or hide evidence from me.

According to Genesis, God walked and talked with Adam, and he spoke to Cain and Abel also. This would indicate that God revealed himself to those people as a personal God. But if Genesis is correct, and he is a personal God, when and why did he stop being personal. I am 57 and he has not spoken to me yet, or, at least, not that I noticed.

Joy, in my following post, I'm going to answer your last to me. However I'd like to say something first. Ages ago, you mentioned a theological tome that had been very helpful to you [I can't remember which.] Now I realise that I am very blessed to be so close to the hundreds of books in my beloved's study, so I thought I'd share this insight if I may. Discussion about Genesis has run in two very uneven cycles. For eighteen hundred years, whether it was Maimonides as a Jew, Augustine as a Catholic or Calvin as a Protestant, there was no disagreement as to the point of Genesis' origin and composition. Then, for 200 years, their solid contribution came to be considered archaic, traditional, precritical and other opprobrious terms. In fact so dominant is the last 200 years worth of work in this area, that IT is now considered traditional. However, "the worm is beginning to turn," and you may very well be unaware of this other scholarship.

To challenge the work of this last 200 years, the one that produced the J,E,D and P strands that someone referred to on this board a while ago .. used to mean that you would be labelled "fundamentalist." This is no longer true, more and more works are coming from extremely good scholars arguing for the cohesion of the first 1800 years. For instance, among Jewish scholars [you expressed an interest once] Umberto Cassuto, Benno Jacob and M.H. Segal. Cassuto has mounted a most convincing case against JEDP. Anyway, to answer your post.

Joy .. Firstly I think I was at fault, my memory isn't the best sometimes, in that I spoke of pre-deluvian and post deluvian, whereas I think we should have started and pre the Fall and post the Fall. Your post to me sent me back to my books, without which I should really never speak. Trouble is, I don't listen to myself when I say that!!!!

The first two chapters of Genesis introduce us to the world of paradise .. meaning a place of blessing and one unsullied by sin. The God hating serpent is absent, which is only true again in the last two chapters of Revelation.

So in those two chapters, man's relationship with God, with himself, his spouse, with the soil and with animals is in order. There is no friction, rather everything works in harmony. [That's another point where my mind shoots off into all sorts of realms .. but I mustn't.] Chapter 3 onwards is of course, the time of God's Judgement, the withdrawal of His Blessing. Because not content to exercise the power God gave us over nature, we wanted to include the power to be morally autonomous, power over another's life and the power to determine our own future. However, that Judgement is even then tempered by Divine Grace and promise. A and E are clothed, a seed of Eve is promised who will crush the snake and Cain is divinely protected. All this moves us towards the major divine action against sin and death .. Christ. Demonstrating that us wee earthlings will never be reconciled to God by clothing, or a sign on the forehead!!

I so much enjoy the ongoing battle about whether a day is 24 hours or a thousand years. I think what's important though, is what did it mean to the person who wrote it down, and what does God intend for us to understand from it.

Well, thousands of years fits the latest scientific thought heaps better doesn't it? And definitely, if you open this door of "epoch's" rather than 'days,' you also open the door to some kind of pre-adamic homo sapiens. But, in trying to marry the two [science and God Created], you have problems. Firstly, science is always changing it's conclusions. Secondly, you've got to take more than liberties with the language. Evening and morning make a 24 hour day. And also, how does the scientific marriage bit deal with an 'epoch' which has vegetation preceding the 'epoch' of sun and stars?

Now to the specifics. The verses you very kindly quoted for me .. thankyou. I'm only going to deal with the first, because the others are after the Fall, well this one is too, but it refers back. [Sorry, my fault.] Chapter 3, Verse 22, "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.'"

Finally .. This is sort of God talking to Himself isn't it? But the Hebrew is not clear as to whether the words prohibit man from STARTING to eat .. or from CONTINUING to eat. So if you take verse 22 on it's own and out of context, the simple meaning appears to mean START to eat. And yet nowhere in the previous dialogue, did God forbid access to the tree of life. Far from it, in 2:16, He tells them they are free to eat from ANY tree, accept of course from the good old tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So this verse doesn't mean that God is jealously hoarding some divine prerogative of immortality .. we lost it.

Now the thing I did agree with in your post, more than wholeheartedly, is that we MUST use the New to help us understand the Old, because Romans 5:12-21 is critical here. Paul's explanation is completely new. He puts a new slant on everything and it isn't a thought that can be found in traditional Judaism. Death came through Adam .. life from Christ. Confirmation in 1st Cor.15: 21-22, and 45-49.

Joy, I'm sorry I express myself so poorly, I mention that death is my problem and don't explain anything at all well. Half the time I'm operating with a fairly poor memory of something studied long ago, and I have to look again before my thoughts can make sense to anyone else.

Thanks again for your informative reply, Rosemary! Again, I’m not sure I am understanding you correctly, so feel free to refine where you think I’ve got it wrong...

The theologian I mentioned is Reinhold Niebuhr and his 2-volume collection of lectures (Union TS) entitled "The Nature and Destiny of Man." These lectures were given in the late ‘30s and through the first years of WW2, and provide a good theological examination of the aberration of fascism and human evil. I mentioned it back when I was trying to establish what evil ‘Is,’ where it originates, and define its absolute expression. Never got very far with that!

I am aware that Christian thought associates death with Satan and the fall of Adam and Eve. In my personal experience with death I haven’t seen anything unnatural or evil about it from either side (considering my NDE), but I also know sorrow and grief are heartbreakingly real, and pain in the process of death is no fun.

I’ve seen some serious evil through the years as well, and I tend to get a strong sense of revulsion - for lack of a better descriptive term - whenever it’s close by. I’ve had that sense whenever I’ve had to deal in my work with murderers, for instance. In those deaths I was most involved in attending, beloved pets, dear friends, family members, evil was absent.

(Rosemary, cont...)

I don’t see how God could have created a duality-based universe, then duality-based life forms that are designed to reproduce, without having also engineered the cycle of life and death. Even stars die. Every living creature dies. If there were no death, there is no need for reproduction. And I see no Biblical evidence of a recreation of the earth after the fall.

Consider the differences in Genesis 1 and 2. These were taken from two separate traditions, and both were deemed important enough to include. Gen.1 details the creation of man in the image of God, male and female. He sent them out to have dominion over all the earth, to be fruitful and to multiply. There is no garden, no cloning from ribs, no special commandments. Just creation of the universe, the earth and its life forms. All pronounced good.

It is not until Gen.2 that we get into the special creation and paradise (Eden). This chapter details a highly personal relationship between God and the Adam/Eve humans he created to tend his garden. This is the archtypal story of a special covenant with special humans, which the special humans broke through sin. The personal nature of this recitation from the collective speaks to the descendants of those special humans, and the whole rest of the Bible details the unfolding of this redemptive plan. I tend to believe it is aimed specifically at human beings, not at creation in general, as chapter 1 preestablished a cyclical and populated earth. Thus I am not convinced death is the great punishment for creation.

(Rosemary, concl...)

I’ll concede that from Cain through Jesus death may have been associated with evil. I do know that God displayed an inordinate liking for blood and death. The Temple was basically a gigantic slaughterhouse with runnels in the altar to channel the blood into underground conduits. God liked Abel’s dead sheep more than he liked Cain’s tended maize. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son. If death were so abhorant to God, He sure had a weird way of showing it!

So maybe what I’m saying has pertinence only to the past 2,000 years, following the sacrifice of Jesus and the ‘defeat’ of death. Perhaps what was defeated was the association of evil with death. I don’t know, so if you’ve got any thoughts in this direction, I’d welcome them!

BTW, Josh Wilner posted a series yesterday on the Religion board explaining Jewish concepts of death, reincarnation and resurrection that is very interesting. You might enjoy reading it.

Okay. I'm the only one here today, so I'll go ahead and post my 3-part beginning to Cliff, and listen to the complaints of 'hogging the board' later!!! §:o)

How... how to say this? I am no more inspired today than last night, I’m afraid. I can’t even start without certain givens, Cliff, that you may not be able to accept. I see God’s hand in the world and its processes, but I live as far out in the country as practical, and shun cities. This is my own peculiarity, maybe also genetic. My Filipino nursemaid named me ‘Joy’ back when I was about a year old, a tribute to my delight with the world. I used to ‘speak’ with birds (but this was before I spoke English, so who knows...), Mom said she saw me often sitting on a blanket very quietly, surrounded by birds. I don’t remember this, but it’s a big part of the family stories. I do have a way with animals.

People are something else. I am what you’d call "sensitive" to thoughts and emotions of other people. I don’t understand people as well as I understand nature. If I am crowded by many human beings, my own thinking becomes muddled with extraneous thoughts and emotions. I have to reinforce shielding to spend any time in a crowded situation, and that tends to cut off certain natural functions of my own thinking.

<sigh> There I go. I’m sorry that I can’t explain this better, Cliff. My brain doesn’t work the same way as most people’s, and much of what I ‘know’ is predicated on my individual organization. This is asking you to accept something evident only to myself, isn’t it?

(Cliff, cont...)

Other evidence... hmmm. I fully believe in a genetic basis for human consciousness. I mentioned that my son was a very unusual person, and he was. He died of rupture of intracranial artery injuries suffered in an accident. In the process of identifying these injuries, he underwent many medical tests including arteriogram. I have lovely pictures of this arteriogram, and they display a very unusual arrangement of blood vessels uncommon to standard anatomy, proceeding from the internal carotid.

In short, he had unusual blood supply to portions of his brain normally supplied as an afterthought. This was explained to us as a "birth defect." I don’t think it was defective. He didn’t get it from me, as I have had my brain scanned and no plumbing anomalies showed up, though my father did display some of the unusual healing abilities my son had. But I come from a family of scientists. My husband’s family tree includes some noted healers, but they’re just numbers on a government roll... Cherokee.

I mention healing here because my son had been studied since he was 12 and displayed an ability to control certain body processes in himself. Before he died he was involved in a spectacular ‘miracle’ (I use quotes because I don’t think it was supernatural) still under investigation by the Catholic Church. An Irish priest was a witness, and this is why it was submitted. We are not Catholic.

(Cliff, concl...)

So I think that what I’m trying to establish first is that not all human consciousness operates in the same manner, and some have far more access to the collective than others. As I said, I am naturally not averse to human consciousness being something far more than what empiricists tend to think it is, and I’ve experienced enough unusual manifestations of human consciousness to know there are things that science doesn’t yet understand. I do not see them as unnatural, since they have been evident in my own life.

I am not sure what the pretty pictures of my son’s unusual brain plumbing means. He was a wonderful, well-rounded human being (with a fatal overabundance of altruism), but I wouldn’t classify it as a ‘defect.’ In fact, I’d tend to think it perhaps represents something evolutionary. These arteriograms do exist, I’m sitting right next to a collection of them, and his healing abilities (my father’s as well) are well documented. I can’t release details not yet submitted for publication by the researchers involved, but I assure you the evidence exists. I don’t know if this can qualify as evident enough for you to consider with this limitation on what I can release, so before I go farther, please let me know.

Leszek Rzepecki - Wednesday, 03/03/99 (#2199)

Trot your own lazy buns to the library and do that for yourself! Sometimes you border on the absurd. Hugh Ross, btw, has several (about 6, I think) books out. A website. Go look. The "others", are equally available, if you had any mind at all to read them.

I guess you are simply not used to graciousness or respect for the other guy and his argument. I just said that the transition in population distribution to a mostly black moth was no an incident of evolution, nor was the later shift back to a population of mostly white moths(or a balance of each) an incident of evolution. Let me say it another way. Variants/variation in a population can be designed as well as "evolved". Variable "fitness", through time or space, as a matter of adaptation to variation in ecology, can also be evidence of design and creation, as well as seen as evidence, or adduced as a "process of", or leading, to evolution. In the latter case/interpretation, I wanted to make it clear that no "evolution" had taken place - evolution would require successful speciation; that is, production of 2 species, one black, one white (biologically/reproductively isolated and distinct). Why did I make that obvious point? Because some evolutionists, and textbooks, have tried to say it (this moth story) is an example of evolution (and never mention it could fit a story of creation and design), and many mi

Leszek part 2

many might interpret you as saying the same, by the way you presented it. But, I did try to be gracious, and allow that one (but not I, here) could still argue, and believe, that the species (including the two variants, an their shifts in % over time) itself was a "product of evolution". Note, again: I do not agree it is, and do not see any evidence that it is, but I allowed - in respect of your intelligence and freedom to believe and interpret the same evidence differently - that the moth and its varieties could be a product of evolution, as well as creation. "Hand waving" it is not, its just an (obviously unfamiliar) instance of allowing two points of view, and two theories.

I agree, that is a major part of the evolution paradigm. But there is much more, which you always assume, or imply. Shifts in gene frequencies, like shifts in popularity of blondes versus redheads, are only shifts. They can go back and forth forever (as the black/white shifts amongst this moth species). Until there is a completed speciation event; until there is established a reproductively isolated and independent population, there is no "evolution". Use the moths as an example. If, sometime, we could show that the descendent population of black moths could not interbreed with the descendent white moths, and that the two types/populations of moths were not just a variety of one, and the same, moth species, then we have shown the speciation process has taken place, and that two species have "evolved". Of course, a clever reader might now observe: "How can we show or know when two fossil populations are "reproductively isolated" (ie, could

Leszek part 3

not breed with each other)?"; or, "If the black ones were to die out entirely, how could we say that is a "new" species?"; or, "If you have a bunch of fossils that look a lot alike, but have a lot of variation in them (say, a species of rat-like creatures, ranging in size from 6 in to 8 in for a million years, and then a population that ranges in size from 8 to 10 in), how can we prove they are separate species and not just clearly distinguishable variants (like black and white)?"

Yup, and a very teleological explanation. E.C., btw, in his post, doesn't realize that the various "reasons" I mentioned, which included yours, are all "reasons", or "explanations", which have been given at one time or another. The reflective white fur, btw, as good insulation is also a good explanation. It can help keep the bear cooler in sunny summers (notice Arabs wear white robes), important for a creature built for Arctic climes and waters, but which must still handle a brief warm sunny season. White also reflects heat from both sides of the fur. But, a real problem is that most "explanations" for most obvious characteristics in any population, are untested hypotheses. For instance, if the "white" fur is camouflage for predation, then why not test the theory. Compare yellower bears against whitest, for success. Test the seals (main prey) to see if they are able to avoid black bears (color a few polar bears and see), etc. A second, as always, is the assumption "evolution designed it that way", and flat out rejection that a "Creator designed it that way.

Uh, before I get chastised, here,

E.C., my friend, forgive me not addressing a separate post to you, I'm not being cowardly, ju

Leszek fini

((and defeated by the buffer cut-off! -:))

just economical. I thank you for the reference to the "Kids Page". It is good.

PS, Leszek, I'll ignore, and not use your not-so-nice remark, "My goodness but you do dissemble so when faced with evidence to refute your hypothesis....", though it would be every bit as fitting.

Morning Joy, yes I know about Josh's posts, I asked for them.

Maybe this is where we differ. I, in common with most of humanity see the separation that occurs when I lose a loved one, as unnatural. Unfair if you like, and not what God purposed. I suspect it's why most of the Western world always comes up with inanities like "they've just moved to Heaven and you'll see granny again when you go there."

That 'evil' though is not the evil of death, but rather the evil of mankind .. you can almost smell it sometimes can't you? I'm sure my dog can. [cont.]

Joy continued ..

Because it's after the Flood, .. "When Yahweh saw how extensive was man's wickedness on the earth, and that every scheme in man's imagination was nothing but evil perpetually, Yahweh regretted that he had made man on earth, and there was pain in his heart. Yahweh said, "I will wash from the earth the man whom I have created, both man and beast, creeping things and birds of the air, for I regret that I made them .. but Noah found favour." All those people and only Noah found favour, strikes me to the quick I can tell you.

There are three main interpretations here Joy, 1, Sin, Speech, Mitigation, Punishment. 2. Spread of Sin, Spread of Grace. And 3, A Creation, uncreation, Re-creation. The first of these focuses only on the narratives and ignores the Creation story and the genealogies. Nearly every exposition you will read will include a combination of the last two because they include all the material of Gen. 1 - 11.

This is a huge subject as I said in my first post yesterday, if it fascinates you then you must read about it, it certainly can't be dealt with here. Try Cassuto first, he is recommended but I haven't actually read it. [cont.]

Joy continued.

So what do you do with the NT references I gave you yesterday? Are you saying that Genesis takes priority, I don't think so because you yourself stated that we must interpret the Old from the New.

In association with these things Joy, I have some weird thoughts of my own .. not necessarily orthodox either. Re the difficult passage in Genesis 6:1-7 for example. Why did the 'collective conciousness' of our world so long retain the thought of man "knowing" the divine .. it's in many myths and legends. Or dragons .. might they too in fact be what we refer to as dinosaurs. Remember the maps Leszek refers to, really old and marked in places .. don't go there, dragons. So many questions, not enough answers.

I’ll concede that God cleaned out the filters in the flood, Rosemary, but this didn’t introduce death (although it did significantly reduce time spans).

And don't worry, Rosemary. We've had some experience with kids who are right away very much different than the 'standard model.' When our daughter was born (about 4 weeks old) I asked my husband directly one night. What do we do with her? She's smarter than both of us!

We came to the decision that no matter how smart she was, we knew more than she did because we'd been around longer. That helped a lot... §:o)

I shouldn't be on this board, I'm so used to being with people who talk theology all day, that I'm useless when I try to communicate successfully with anyone who isn't as 'steeped' in it.

You are right, death came at the Fall, [cf. N.T.] and the Flood brought re-creation or the period of Grace, whichever term you prefer.

"Steeped" in it .. I sound like a tea bag .. no comments please.

... whatever, Mr. Husted. Is there any conceivable evidence that would convince you that scientists are correct about evolution, and theologians wrong?

If not, then let's drop the subject.

Pardon'e moi, Leszek, but why does anyone have to be "wrong" or "right" in the matter of evolution? Are we not all seeking truth? Do you have an absolute you can offer, or are you just faithful? §:o)

Do you take that from Genesis 1:27? If so, I think the 1st Chapter is giving the 7 day overview, and chapter two goes more into the creation of man himself by God,then Eve.

Keith:...but the number is no defense against the lack of the minimal genetic diversity required to sustain the species. The emergence of a species through evolution can support a single individual as a progenitor, but the emergence of a species via special creation can not.

Why not? I really don't see the difference? Also, I don't have the resource handy, but I've read that genetically it is possible. Also if ones pre-supposes God created a perfect man and woman, he must have given them the genetic information which would make ours seem small in information content, in comparison. I think the natural adaption of people and animals observed in nature would apply in helping propergate the generations and varied genetic changes, each generation.

True, and it cuts both ways.:)

The conditions of the environment are fairly well known over the last couple billion years.-Keith.

No, I disagree most emphatically, they are not well-known. Many people THINK that is's well-known. There's a difference. The evidence can be interpreted otherwise, by scientists, just as intelligent as biologists. Dating methods are not completely accurate in many cases. It's interesting that like Carbon 14, it's most accurate for determining age less than 10,000 years old.

I don't know how to respond to #4. I think someone else brought up the watchmaker.:)

Keith: Just as a little aside on Genesis, and the Flood. One day, when I was reading Genesis, I brought out my calculator, and went through all the generations from Adam to Noah. I added the ages each person was, as recorded, when they "begat" the sons. I finally figured out that Methusulah, the oldest person recorded in the Bible. He was 969 years old. He died the same year the flood occurred.

Several years later I bought a study Bible, which has many historical facts, and different facts about the Temple. etc, and graphs on the different periods and reigns of kings. It has a graph on the Genesis patriachs., and showed the same thing, I had found, that Methuselah died the year of the Flood.

What does it mean? I don't know, except, perhaps very ironic, that the oldest man died the year God destroyed the original creation. I just think it's interesting.:)

Joy, I appreciate what you have said for a number of reasons. First, while I have had no specific religious experiences, and tend to disbelieve the existence of outside influences with respect to religious experiences, I can assure you that I do not find your telling of strange occurrences altogether strange. Members of my family have professed to significant and strange occurrences also. For example, after my older sister died at the age of six months (before I was born), my mother was, for a time, I am told, extremely depressed, but then she had a vision. At the time the vision occurred, other members of the family, and neighbors present, thought she had lost her mind. But a sister of hers, who went into her room to check on her, reported upon her return that this was not so, and, instead, my mother was having a wonderful vision.

The main feature of my mother's vision, I am told, was that my mother saw three babies. Her interpretation was that God was telling her that he would replace threefold the one she had lost. So when she again became pregnant (with me), she expected triplets. But when I was born, there was only me. She was, of course, very disappointed, and thought she must have misunderstood God's message. However, within the next three years, two additional children were born to my mother and she did have the threefold replacement after all.

In addition, my older brother, who was ten years old at the time of his baby sister's death, and who had also felt the loss very strongly, in his later years reported a series of visions of his sister (the one who had died as an infant), but according to his visions, the sister had grown up in the other world in the interim. He recalled in vivid detail how he had become convinced that this was his baby sister grown up. And he also had a couple of visions of our mother after her death.

I do not disbelieve these reports by my mother and brother, nor do I disbelieve your reports. I certainly do not question anyone's sincerity. But, I am of the opinion that it is not necessarily the case that the visions of either my mother or my brother were influenced by outside forces. I am of the opinion that a brain capable of creating a dream is a brain capable of creating a vision. Nevertheless, that a brain might be capable of creating a vision does not necessarily mean that it actually created it. It remains possible, in my opinion, that an outside force is at work. It this is so, it should be discoverable on a scientific level. Also, if these things are things totally contained within and created by the brain, that also should be something discoverable scientifically.

I think it is merely a matter of time until this is established one way or the other. If it turns out that an outside force is involved, we can then turn to the nature of the outside force. But you know what, I think the brain is a truly wonderful thing, and if I were a betting man, I would bet that all of these things are wholly contained within and created by the brain.

It occurred to me that in your response to me that you did not answer my questions which were: "if you have the existing world already, why do you need a special creation? If you admit evolution as I do--and even abiogenesis, as I do not--why do you need the Biblical account. If the world was already populated with people with which the children of Adam and Eve could mate, how do you conclude that Adam and Eve were needed"?

However, in re-reading your posts addressed to Rosemary, I think I got the answer. It is not so much that you need it, it is just what you happen to believe. I think I can accept that.

Thank you very much, Cliff, for your willingness to suspend disbelief long enough to let me present the case. I'll take this as a go-ahead on the difficult translation from my right-side, and give it a little leeway. This helps immensely! §:o)

Marie .. interesting one that one, 1:27. Because of the use of the word 'them' in that verse, which obviously refers to the next two verses, the male of the species cannot say that 'women' were not made in the 'image' of God as well, although they have certainly tried to, over the years in some places.

I am reasonably convinced that the mechanism of access is within our brains, Cliff, but I am not convinced that your sister is a figment of your brother’s imagination. Again, I will sleep on it, and regret that you’re a night owl and I am not! §:o)

Joy, I know very well how you feel about the importance of acceptance of what you are saying, and I do desire that you continue. But you know me. I will not be dishonest about these things.

I can assure you that I will try to be fair and respectful of your belief system(s), and I will admit possibilities when they exist. Also, I think I can assure you I will not ambush you, and if you decide to trust me, I believe you will find your trust is well founded. But I will not intentionally mislead you or anyone else about my agnostic tendencies.

Russell, you were the one who said, "Some of us here, and others we reference (say, Hugh Ross) have other, good science, arguments..." Since you were the one who made the statement, you are the one who has the burden of proof.

Do you really think that Leszek (or me, or anyone else, for that matter) is going to suffer through everything Hugh Ross and all your other heroes have ever written looking for a "good science argument" for creation. I am not sure such a thing actually exists, but if you think your statement is true, I would expect you to at least provide an example of what you consider to be a "good science argument" for creation. I do not guarantee that I will agree with you. Indeed, considering my past disagreement with most of what you have said, I think it is not likely. But, at least we can have a pleasant debate, provided you avoid insulting remarks such as the "lazy buns" remark above. I am certainly willing to discuss any "good science argument" for creation honestly and candidly, and will expect the same from you. Let us keep our discussion on the subject and have fun with the argument, shall we?

-Jimmy Swaggart

-Benjamin Disraeli

The first individual on the "road" to a new species is still, for all intents and purposes, a member of the progenitor species. Lots of genectic diversity is available.

Genisis may have simply omitted all of the other people God created from scratch, Addam and Eve may have been demi-gods, with no dangerous recessives, or Genisis may be a poor physical model for creation.

Sorry to butt in Keith, but what do you make of the Mt.DNA thing that says the world's present population is descended from one female?

Well, it either happened or it it didn't, so to that extent one has to be wrong or right :) And I find it very hard to figure out what Russell's view is, even when I have the patience to look beyond the insults.

The question I asked Russell has some validity, however, though it is is a little unfair - here's why. Evolution is a scientific theory, and susceptible to disproof. It cannot be proven, of course, but enough evidence can be adduced to convince reasonable men that it is not unreasonable to think it true. So what I should have asked is how much additional evidence, and in what field and of what nature, would it be necessary to convince him, as he is a reasonable man, that Darwinian evolution is a natural phenomenon.

Alternatively, I could ask him what piece of evidence he thinks disproves it. He says that on the whole, he finds the theory unconvincing, but hasn't said why.

You, on the other hand, ask me for absolutes, when you know that science doesn't really deal with absolutes (except in the sense of the presence or absence of a thing), it deals with statistical probabilities. Absolutes are in the domain of theology, and I don't offer any.

It's just a mathematical necessity, and one the ancients were bright enough to figure out, even though they knew nothing of modern genetics :)

Consider the present population of all children. Each of them had one, and one only, mother. The number of mothers must be equal to or smaller than the number of children. Now consider the population of mothers. Each of them had only one mother, and so the number of grandmothers has to be smaller than or equal to the number of mothers. Keep on going back generation after generation. In each case, the number of mothers must be smaller than or equal to the number of offspring.

Eventually, you end up with one, and even though many other human beings and mothers would have been alive at that time, their progeny just didn't pass their mt genes through to the present. So the story of Adam (the original male parent who passed on the Y chromosome) and Eve makes some sense at that level, though in reality, Adam and Eve need not have lived at the same time, as mitochondria are passed on solely by the maternal line, and Y chromosomes passed down solely by the paternal line. Same goes for any other chromosome... each could have their ancestry traced (in principle) to a single parent, but these would not necessarily be the same parent for each chromosome. That's why in reality, it's very unlikely that there was a real Adam and Eve, though the possibility can't be excluded.

Did I explain that well, or did I just muddy the waters? :)

(Cliff, 1 of 5)

You know, Cliff, try as I might there doesn’t seem to be a pat answer. If I or anyone else had physical proof that consciousness survives death, we wouldn’t be having this debate. I haven’t done much thinking about visions, since these things appear to be generated directly from the collective and are an altered mindstate. Dreams are natural and necessary to our proper functioning, and the collective intrudes itself on them in small pieces. Easier to handle.

However, it would appear that in your own family there is a strong connection to the collective. This goes along with the story of Moses, and the strong connection his sister and brother displayed as well, since both Miriam and Aaron spoke with God. Because this tends to be true in families, I’d have to guess that both the collective unconscious and the ability to tap into it are genetically based.

Let’s supposed for a moment that the specially engineered new form of humans was sent out into a world full of late Neandertal homo sapiens, who had a well-developed tribal culture. Suppose that the genetic re-engineering of the brains in these new humans required significant rearrangement of structures Neandertals had developed very highly, of necessity limited by the process of birth which dictates that heads can only be so big.

Homo sapien sapien has relatively immense frontal lobes, and occipital region is smaller than Neandertals. If we take the mapped functions of our own brains as a clue, the differences in thinking processes are significant. Frontal lobes are good for ideating, problem-solving, invention, projection (if-then or cause and effect), very logical and scientifically-minded. The subspecies we replaced didn’t have much equipment in that area.

(Cliff, 2 of 5)

What Neandertal did have (in the mapping model) are memories. Because they were quite successful on evolutionary terms, we could presume these stored memories were built up over the lifetime of the race and passed on genetically. This eliminates the need to relearn everything from scratch with each new generation, so not a lot of time was spent in school. A description of Neandertal reasoning would then be that in most given situations of life in which survival was the goal there were accessible ‘instructions’ on what to do. Apes have definite social structures as well, and while childhood observation of others plays a part, most of the behaviors are hardwired.

We don’t have enough of this hardwired behavioral ‘memory’ to qualify as a logical evolutionary improvement in the species. We are an anarchistic bunch! We tend to think for ourselves, we are known to break the ‘rules’ on a regular basis just for fun, and we require serious long-term tutoring just to find out what the last generation knew. Even then, we’re known to flatly reject our ancestor’s knowledge and come up with some entirely new idea. Just for fun.

We could have the occipital memories. Frontal lobes don’t automatically preclude them, they just give us foreheads. For some strange reason the memories were very suddenly and dramatically weeded out of the population despite their obvious evolutionary value.

Neandertals lived alongside sapien sapiens for thousands of years, and there is good evidence to suggest interbreeding. Because of the convergent time scale, we cannot safely presume that environmental pressures were the reason for the dramatic redesign of brain structure. If evolution were faced with sudden new and serious threat, the ability to ideate quick on one’s feet would have been evolutionarily desirable. The past (memory) wouldn’t help the race to cope with entirely new challenges. This does not appear to have been the situation.

(Cliff, 3 of 5)

Fast forward to the recent centuries. Because childhood had to be artificially extended over many years in order to teach the basics to the new generation (without benefit of accessible racial memories), things quickly became specialized. It just took too long to learn everything an individual needed to know.

The new genetic design suddenly removed the collective memories of animal evolution from the then-highest (most intelligent and adaptable) form of animal evolution. You could say this was an accident, I could say it was done purposely, and neither of us would know for sure. But it is in fact a very, very odd thing to have occurred so suddenly, and does not appear to serve any evolutionary purpose. Even evolutionists would have to admit this is odd.

The lack of pre-programmed behavior patterns has allowed us to reach astounding heights in the area of intelligence and application of intelligence. Our frontal lobes are useful in the quest to know everything that can be known in spite of our need to specialize. What evolutionary purpose do you suppose this insatiable thirst for knowledge of things that do not effect our survival or comfort serve? Why are we seeking the singularity?

Mikal mentioned the other day that humans apparently have more neurons than they need or use. This means the genetic basis for our mainframe is preset for uses we haven’t invented yet... whole sections of undiscovered territory. Our intellectual evolution is already accounted for in our brain structure, which until all babies are born by C-section, is as big as human heads can possibly get. All that evolution has to do is "turn on" the unused sections. How might this be accomplished?

(Cliff, 4 of 5... whew!)

Why, oxygenated blood, of course! Right now there are whole apparently unnecessary (to functioning) areas of the human brain that are minimally supplied with just enough blood too keep the cells alive. The areas we constantly use are kept supplied with a large amount of blood, which increases whenever we strenuously exercise those areas. A brain deprived of oxygenated blood begins to die in 4 minutes, which is an indication of how important blood is in the matter of thought.

The unusual plumbing my son had in his brain is something becoming more common as medicine develops new testing technologies, so it could be a structural anomaly that keeps trying to assert itself in the name of evolution. These anomalies are called ‘fistulae’ and are quite often tortuous and unstable. They are often ‘diagnosed’ only upon autopsy of someone who has died of sudden rupture with no previously identified risks. The genes for this plumbing are apparently unstable as yet in the general population, but it is trying to happen.

So what we’ve got is a very odd creature, something designed from the preexisting animal, but in which the ‘memories’ of that animal history have been replaced with an entirely different set of ‘memories’ (archtypes) hardwired into the collective unconscious. The rationality of the frontal lobes allowed a quantum leap in intelligence, and back when God ‘spoke’ with people fairly regularly, we were informed of the reasons why this is so. We must come to God of our own free will, meaning that we must make that choice for ourselves. Intelligence is the tool we were given so that we could do this.

(Cliff, #5 Last Post Thank Goodness!)

The evidence for the existence of the collective unconscious and its archtypes is strong and well-mapped by psychology. The evidence that ‘paranormal’ states of consciousness exist is just as strong (and can be artificially induced at will by pharmacology). The evidence that some people have greater conscious (or ‘paraconscious’) access to the collective is strong as well. The evidence that some humans have developed abnormal brain plumbing is irrefutable, medicine has documented these anomalies for a hundred years. The instability of many of these anomalies has led medicine to label them "defective," but I think it’s evolution trying to get a foothold. For as many "defective" and unstable plumbing systems, there are at least as many that are stable and functioning, which means unless they are accidentally discovered (as my son’s was), nobody’d ever know they were there.

I think its reasonable and rational to postulate that despite our evolutionary history, we represent something quite ‘other’ by virtue of our brains and the consciousness our brains are designed to support. I also think it’s reasonable to conclude from human history and circumstantial evidence that we were engineered with a genetic connection to that which engineered us. God does ‘talk’ to humans. He just doesn’t ‘talk’ to all humans at the same time. Individual humans still have the choice to ignore whatever is said.

No one can ‘make’ you believe there is more. This is your choice alone. I can’t make literalists accept that the evidence for animal evolution is acceptable within a religious framework (but I’m still not buying pond scum). I can’t make science accept that the evidence for a spiritual (disembodied) existence is considerable and important to our purpose. Someday soon they’ll both have to figure it out or the experiment fails. The key to this is to recognize the existence of absolute good and absolute evil. For me, WMDs are absolute evil, an

I can't comment on the more speculative aspects of your recent posts, but there are some questions about your assumptions with respect to Neanderthals. It's very likely that thought processes of Neanderthals and moderns were somewhat different - the jury is still out on whether Neanderthals had language to the same degree that we do, for example, and the evidence for cultural ritual is relatively sparse. So I wonder at your assumption that the two species, or sub-species, actually were able, or would have wanted, to interbreed. That's a question that paleontologists have been wondering about for a long time, but I don't think we're in a position to answer it. True, they overlapped in the same sites for a few thousand years, but it isn't clear that it was at the same time, or that there was ever any significant interaction between them. Mayhap there was, mayhap there wasn't.

I'm also uncomfortable with your assumption that Neanderthals had racial memories beyond the simple instincts that we have... that seems to me highly unlikely and certainly speculative, as all we have to go on with Neanderthals is fossils - we can infer that their thought processes *may* have been different, but we cannot really deduce the nature of the difference as yet. What's the purpose of making this assumption?

ARGHHHH!!!!

For me, WMDs are absolute evil, and the God-connection is absolute good. Everything else is relative.

I am not assuming, Leszek, anything which has not already been postulated by scientists in the respective fields. I could go looking for links to sites in the various Universities for you, but you can do that on your own! §:o) (I’m actually too lazy...)

Brain anatomy, mapping, analysis and theoretical (psychological) sciences all do this sort of thing for a living. Speculation is okay, because all the evidence is circumstantial. Sort of like the Big Bang. Anthropology is fascinating. A great deal of good work is being done, all relating to what I believe to be occurring in the human population on evolutionary terms.

I think sooner or later we are all going to have to accept that evolution does occur, and that we are in the process of experiencing it without benefit of cloning technology. It is a natural thing in God’s plan. Sooner would be better than later. At the same time, we’re also going to have to recognize the existence of the ‘other,’ and come to a rational conclusion about where we’re going. Sooner is definitely better than later on that score!

I'm not accusing you of inventing this speculation, nor am I denying the value of speculation. I was asking why speculate that Neanderthals had "racial memory"? What is the point of it? What do you gain by postulating this that you don't gain by assuming that Neanderthals operated much like people do now?

I am pointing out that significant and apparently senseless (on evolutionary terms) differences in brain structure exist, Leszek! I happen to think this is significant to the fundamental schism here between science and religion, which tends to gravitate towards evolution. These ‘memories’ could easily be likened to instinct, but Neandertals were human beings with complex reasoning abilities. If I were born ‘knowing’ how to make fire, I’d call it a memory and not an instinct. But that’s because I can talk... §:o)

My son and father’s unusual healing abilities (transmigration of fatty tissue to isolate abdominal ruptures) were written up in JAMA during the ‘80s, but I don’t have the articles handy. This has little to do with the plumbing "defect" identified 8 weeks before our son died, which actually had more to do with who and what he was in his life. It may have something to do with the fact that he lived that long...

But that’s research others are doing, not me. I’ve spent 7 years on this mountain trying to figure out what it means. I have reasoned quite a bit of it out, and I am presenting it here for the first time. I am aware I must defend it, so I’m not worried about questions. If I’ve got no reasonable answer, I’m stuck. I am willing to risk that, for the sake of refining my "interpretation."

Joy and Leszek, I don't want to interrupt a fascinating series between you two, please continue with it.

Leszek, no you didn't muddy the waters, I'll admit that the mathematical thing is very hard for me, something about numbers really loses me, I could never understand why a minus and a minus doesn't make a double minus, and from that point in my schooling [which is pretty early] it was a lost cause. Maybe one day I'll force myself back into it. But I really appreciate your last sentence, and I thank you for it.

I'm just the same as everyone else I suppose, [pride], I would like folk to admit that there "is" a possibility that such and such is correct, however remote and unlikely.

Joy, mammoth effort there, I can see why you enjoyed the Cave series. [I did too.] God didn't make two blades of grass the same, so it's fine by me if we differ on these things. It's even fine by me if you define me as a literalist because I believe quite firmly that there was but one man and one woman and all stemmed from there. Our reasons and backgrounds are the cause aren't they. I'm coming simply from Scripture, you have a much greater wealth of knowledge which, while I struggle to absorb it, hasn't so far changed my thinking in any way. So be it, not a major problem. For instance, coming again simply from Scripture, my thought on Neanderthals is why not consider the possibility that they are the pre flood Nephilim?

Because scripture identifies the crossbreeds as Nephilim, Rosemary. Humans who had both the ‘memories’ and the frontal lobes.

P.S. Rosemary - Evidence does clearly indicate that Neandertal humans preceeded modern humans for a very long time. They were here first, in other words.

Birds are born knowing how to sing and build nests. Spiders are born knowing how to make webs. Termites are born knowing how to make termite skyscrapers. We're all born knowing certain things necessary to our survival, and have to learn the rest. However, if you could prove that Neanderthals were born knowing things like, per your hypothetical example, how to make fire, the Nobel prize would be yours and deservedly so.

Perhaps birds would call their instincts ancestral memories, if they had language, I don't know. If you want to call an instinct an ancestral memory, well, what's in a name, it's just semantics, right? Just so long as we're both aware we're talking about instincts.

If, however, you want to postulate some Neanderthal ability to convert memories acquired through a lifetime into a genetic inheritance, a truly Lamarckian endeavor, then you have an uphill struggle. If you succeeded, you could *retire* the Nobel prize! :)

I'll go along with Keith to this extent - the chances of an actual Adam and Eve wandering away from the rest of their tribe and incestuously breeding the entire future of the human race is hugely improbable, since the genetic bottleneck and restriction in genetic variability would make that population extremely vulnerable to disease - because everyone would be equally susceptible to the same disease organisms - similar difficulties face the Californian condor today... they have just passed, thanks to DDT, through a major genetic bottleneck, and the species may lack the genetic variation to survive. However, given a bit of luck, and the chance failure of pathogenic organisms to destroy them, they may make it.

So I don't exclude absolutely the possibility that the present human race came from a single parental pair. Possible, yes, but it's so unlikely, I don't really take it seriously. I don't think that the extrapolations of mt DNA and the Y chromosome lead back to compatible dates, but I'm not sure the last word on that is available yet.

Thanks Leszek, I understand what you're saying and I can see why it is so difficult to believe. Like you, I guess I'll have to wait and see, hope the next development is soon though, it's really very exciting. Hope the condor's make it. We had a case here of the black robin, went down to five with only one female, but we're winning now. We put them on a small island cleared of all predators among other things.

And the point is.....:)?

The first individual on the "road" to a new species is still, for all intents and purposes, a member of the progenitor species. Lots of genectic diversity is available.

Genisis may have simply omitted all of the other people God created from scratch, Addam and Eve may have been demi-gods, with no dangerous recessives, or Genisis may be a poor physical model for creation.

I don't know about the term "special creation". I just call it "Creation". It's all "special".

I think you are saying that the lone progenator, with all the genetic variety of past evolution within it's genetic makeup is possible, as opposed to two created beings from "scratch", with as you ;determine; limited genetic ability ingrained. But how can you imply That since we are here? ( A circular reasoning borrowed from evolutionists):)

And as pointed out by Rosemary, and Leszek, that the mitochondial DNA shows a single female ancestor? If anything the random chance of evolution would make the genetic possiblility of surviving diseases less probable, than a Creator, Who knows; exactly how much disease; is out there for His creation, and man to be susceptible to. Why wouldn't a Creator put all the genes necessary for all the variety needed to sustain the species?

Whoa! Wait a minute! I said there was a single female ancestor for mitochondrial DNA, but I didn't say there was a single ancestor for all human genetic material, quite the reverse... I said that every individual genetic package could have had a separate ancestor... that would get around the problems of the genetic bottleneck.

There is nothing in the mitochondrial Eve scenario demanding that we believe in a single "Adam&Eve" parental pair. That is exceedingly unlikely, as I pointed out in my posts above. I think the scientists who published the original "mitochondrial Eve" report did us a grave disservice with their title. It has served to confuse the issue more than clarify. They didn't mean to imply that "Adam&Eve" ever existed, they just zeroed in on a saleable soundbite, with the result we have had to deal with massive misconceptions ever since :(

Sorry, I meant to add a disclaimer ;for you; but was not sure how much longer I could write before it was truncated. :)

I'm sticking pins in wax models of Larry King as I type... twice this last week he's featured pseudoscientists who make claims in the absence of scientific evidence, without bringing in a sensible skeptical viewpoint. Of course, the skeptical viewpoint doesn't gain as many viewers.

*lost a pin... now where is that sharp one...*

spitting nails*

This idiot Larry King is interviewing is actually saying he resents the fact that skeptics demand proof of his bizarre assertions! I mean imagine the utter gall of doubting his unsupported word! Is he the Pope? Larry King seems to think so, or at least he's being much too kind, at best.

* exits stage right, muttering... *

When I think of my friend Larry, I think of his inane USA Today column and all the trees that needed to be cut down in order to print his useless drivel.

Joy, I have carefully read your five-part post. In general, I found much to admire in your argument as well as a few points with which to disagree. I am tired tonight and I have decided to sleep on it before commenting further.

Good night, Friend.

Example - The world's foremost recognized genius, an intellect of astounding dimensions, Stephen Hawking. "Challenged" by ALS since he was a graduate student, struggling for every moment of borrowed existence...

Nobody who says life is or should be fair knows what they're talking about.

§:o)

Marie, hope I'm not making a mistake here, because your comment to me would be considered quite rude here, so perhaps I'm not supposed to reply. But I'm hoping this is a case of .. we all speak English, but mannerisms and customs are different.

There really wasn't a point, I wish I hadn't written it. When you asked Keith if he had arrived at his conclusion that either homo sapiens was already on earth, or that more were created than are mentioned, you asked him if he got that conclusion from 1:27. I looked it up and assumed you must mean from the use of the word "them" in that verse. Then I read on and saw that the "them" clearly refers to the next two verses and remembered that it has often been used by certain male people within the church as a Scripture for suggesting that women weren't made in the image of God. I obviously shouldn't have mentioned it at all. I am apt to forget that what supremely interests me, isn't of interest at all to others, I'm sorry. It was simply an aside, and maybe, as we are the only two on this board who hang on to the simple explanation of Scripture, that we come from Adam and Eve .. an attempt to indicate support.

No, it isn't intended to be rude. I'm sorry, you thought, that. I was asking for more information, as it seemed that you were making another point, in regards to how scripture has been interpreted ;in the past, by men, who wanted to be superior to women.:)- Several scriptures have been used by Religions to "try to prove", that women must be "submissive", and don't have equality with men.

Rosemary Behan: To add from above. I didn't mean to imply that I'm not interested, at all. I appreciate your posts, greatly. I think since, I'm a product of the generation, which has seen many improvements for women's equality, it used to be something, that kept me away from Churches, when I was younger. Many churches still adhere to that doctrine: that women are not as important as men. I guess it's something, that I feel strongly about.

It would appear reading chapters 4-6 of Genesis that God became frustrated. The humans He’d so carefully designed were becoming something He had not intended for them to be. Crossbreeding defeated the purpose of the new collective, the ‘Image’ which had replaced the ‘memories.’ God obviously deemed it necessary to start over with someone "perfect in generations" and conveniently wipe out the previous evolution (and crossbreeds) at the same time.

Homo sapiens sapiens is not equipped to be a good animal. Most of our supposedly superior equipment makes us laughably inept at things animals do without a second thought. We are deadly, mean, wasteful, destructive, arrogant and extremely confused. The modern trend towards relative values has demonstrated that something so fundamental as parental "instinct" for raising children is something we have to be taught. What a waste of time to have to learn something every animal does automatically! Animals all have some arrangement aimed at survival of the species. Survival of the species is not high on the human list of priorities.

The lion knows its purpose, and so does the salamander. Why would evolution choose vast frontal lobes (creative intelligence) at the sacrifice of purpose? Why do we not inherit a system of values? How come we don’t know the ‘right’ thing to do, or why is it we consistently choose to do the ‘wrong’ thing? Is it because we CAN choose? Intelligence (frontal lobes) has very little to do with this choice. It has a lot to do with how dangerous our choices are.

I personally see Choice (free will) as primary to the seemingly senseless difference between humans and the animal kingdom, and this is just what the Bible says. The animal kingdom does not exercise choice, because its behaviors are largely hardwired. The mother raccoon does not choose whether or not to nurse her young or to tend them until they are independent (which takes a year or less because the behaviors are hardwired).

Intelligence in itself would seem a useful evolutionary development, since evolution did develop it. Neandertal humans were extremely intelligent, and displayed that with organization of their societies, work divisions, specializations and even religious practices (there is good evidence for ritual behavior). It was not necessary for evolution to sacrifice itself (survival of the species and further development) for something as arbitrary and pointless as individual choice! Yet for some reason this is exactly what happened, and here we are today looking extinction directly in the eye. By our own hands! What is logical in the oh-so logical progression of evolution about this reality?

I see it as an evolutionary dead end. Yet again has science neglected to analyze the meaning of their own choices, and the physical effects of those choices on whatever it is they choose to study. They’ve left themselves out of the equation. The Bible explains all this quite well, and in very understandable language. It supplies us with the reasons for our existence and the lesson we’re here to learn. We are not fully a product of animal evolution. God interfered with us.

First, Joy, I wish to congratulate you on a well organized series of posts beginning with 2229 through 2231 and continuing with 2262 through 2266. It is a comprehensive statement of belief. Probably the strongest and best I have ever read. At least now, I understand your assumptions. My comments on the issues you raised in 2262 through 2266 follows:

I would suspect that both dreams and visions are of an "altered mindstate."

Dreams occur more often and seem less significant and less mysterious than visions. It might appear reasonable to suppose that dreams appear to be less significant and mysterious than visions because they occur more often.

This may seems to be a stretch, but given a couple of halfway reasonable assumptions, it might be seen as having validity. Although most people seem to disagree with me, it is my opinion that most things--including many things generally ascribed to environment--are genetically based. Thus, I would think that if there is a connection to the "collective," the ability to access this connection is likely also to be genetically based.

I think your speculation about Neanderthal brains may very well make some sense in that it is true that it was larger than ours, but shaped differently. Since the part of the brain having to do with emotions was significantly larger than ours, it may make some sense that Neanderthals depended more on their emotions for survival than we, and that we depend more on our analytical ability. I would certainly not completely discount your speculation. (Perhaps I would not discount it at all.)

My understanding is that memories are based on specific arrangements of neurons in the brain. To my knowledge, there is nothing to prevent any organism (including our own species), from being born with meaningful arrangements of neurons from which an interpretation can be made. In our own case, we appear to be born with only one instinct (the ability to suck), but, again, there is nothing that I know of to prevent from having other meaningful arrangements of neurons.

But sometimes we have reason to do so other than for the fun of it. And I would note something. Each succeeding generation seems to have more to pass on to succeeding generations than the previous generation. Is that not good?

Based on the above mentioned evidence, I think interbreeding was most unlikely--and probably impossible. While I would admit the evidence is not yet conclusive, it appears to be relatively sound.

Neglecting the evidence that we did not evolve from Neanderthal, you make a very good case here. If the evidence indicated that Cro-Magnon (modern man) rapidly evolved from Neanderthal (within 5,000 years), your conjecture would be very strong. I am of the opinion that the evidence that Neanderthal was not an ancestor of ours weakens your argument considerably. It all depends on whether the evidence continues to hold up. I think it will. I suspect you think it will not. :-)

That is a very good question! The obvious answer is that it seems to serve no evolutionary purpose whatever. And yet, it seems that we have not only survived, but we have prevailed. I suspect it if for reasons other than that, however.

Ah, do I detect an argument for a creator with the ability to "look ahead"? Actually, this is not a bad argument, I think. The alternate question is: is it difficult to justify the extra neurons in evolutionary terms? I am not sure, and I think I would like to hear from Leszek before conceding the point completely, but it would appear to me to be relatively difficult to justify the additional neurons in evolutionary terms.

I am not sure I would agree that evolution "tries" to do anything. I tend to view genetic drift as something that generally happens as a result of random mutations. In some cases, a mutation may result in a change that is particularly useful, and natural selection may be the mechanism for rapid change in the species. But I tend to think the possibilities are random.

You obviously presuppose the existence of God although you are unable to establish the existence of God. I neither presuppose nor refuse to suppose the existence of God. I simply see no evidence either way. And, in the absence of evidence, intelligence is useless.

As I understand it, pharmacology is the science that deals with the nature of interactions between drugs and biological systems, and with the applications of such interactions to the treatment of disease. I assume, therefore, that you are referring to paranormal states induced by drugs. However, I would add that drugs are not actually needed to produce significant results. For example, isolation of individuals can be a means of inducing psychosis. Weird visions, for example, have been known to be induced in this manner.

Again, I do not agree that evolution "tries" to do anything. It just is.

I agree that you have presented some evidence in support of this. I have noted above where I believe it may be valid.

I certainly agree with that. And I am most thankful.

I disagree the evidence for a "spiritual (disembodied) existence is considerable." You have not addressed that or presented any evidence for it here.

Yes, you have said this before. Personally, Joy, at a conceptual level, I see no difference between Weapons of Mass Destruction and any other weapon. To me, a weapon is a weapon. A weapon, whether a stick or a bomb is intended to hurt someone else. I believe you mentioned that a stick might serve another purpose, but that a nuclear weapon has only one purpose, to destroy: thus a distinction.

However, I would submit that the development of nuclear weapons by the United States had a very laudable purpose, that purpose being to avoid enslavement by the Nazis. I ask you Joy, how could that possibly be considered an evil intent?

Wow, Cliff. You really did sleep on it, didn’t you? Looks like it did you more good than 2 nights’ sleep did me (I did manage to come down with a cold, though). First, I thank you for your gracious assessment of my overall effort, and for pointing out weaknesses in points still merely conceptual for me. This is more helpful than you know.

First, I’d say it’s great that each generation has more knowledge to pass along, if we weren’t so completely deficit in the basic wiring department. These basics were at one time instilled by osmosis (environment) through the culture and society, which is probably why humans tend to maintain a general balance between liberal (gung-ho to the future) and conservative (don’t dump the past) in the population. Over the last 100 years, this has not been so as the state took over the task of education and instilled for its own purposes the relative morality of capitalism and secular ideals.

Worse, capitalism’s noted unconcern with the human suffering caused by greed (unemployment is "good," tight labor market is "bad" because you have to pay the workers more than a dime a day) has created a definite bias against the religiously-based idea that we really don’t need to sacrifice motherhood and child-rearing for a Lexus or $200 sneakers. I don’t see this as a spectacular accomplishment.

The 4 or 5,000 years of coexistence remains unexplained, as does the sudden disappearance of Neandertal. The evidence for interbreeding (skulls with characteristics of both) is not sufficient to explain the disappearance by absorption, but is indicative that interbreeding occurred. I’m sure a strong predudice against this practice arose very quickly if the crossbreeds were as powerful as the Bible indicates they were.

Homo Erectus may be the common ancestor, but if it’s postulated to be the ancestor of sapien sapiens but not of Neandertal, who progenated the Neandertals? This is backwards, I expect. Neandertals evolved first, and erectus doesn’t have much to do with modern humans. I’d also take issue with Cro Magnon. Cro Magnons were giants.

"There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Gen.6: 4.

Noah was saved from God’s frustration and disappointment by the fact that he was "perfect in his generations." God destroyed the life forms on earth because his experiment was in serious danger of total contamination, if you believe the Bible as I do. I think the reason listed in the above verse explains things quite well, so I expect the ability to interbreed will be established.

Sensitive subject-crossing here, with much of the current work as yet unpublished on this specific anomaly, only recently recognized as significant to the question you ask about ‘extra’ neurons. We know for sure that neurons and their brain-space require adequate and active oxygenated blood supply to function. Medicine knows for a fact that blood vessels are the hands-down easiest and likeliest organic structure to spontaneously generate. It also has a wealth of documentation gathered over a hundred years that unusual brain plumbing systems do arise in a certain percentage of the population. They recognize that the anomalies they see are defective, but this does not rule out the existence of stable systems. My son’s system was stable.

The chaotitian in "Jurassic Park" said, "Life finds a way." It does. A re-engineering of human beings by divine intervention didn’t eliminate the biological tendency to evolve. It just wiped out the previous evolution (by Flood, according to the Bible account). As I said, extra neurons in brains already as big as biologically possible indicates that we’re pre-wired. Turning the electricity on is a matter of plumbing. This is medical reality.

This is politics, where humans obviously have no hope of ever agreeing about anything, my friend. I do not dispute that the weapon was intended well at first, but the scientists involved knew all along what it really represented. It quickly went from there to the combined ability to destroy every living thing on earth more than 400 times over, while we weren’t even at war (declared). The nature of warfare was forever changed. It was no longer aimed at warriors, it was aimed at civilians and civilization itself. I have said before that the Nazis (many of whom came to work for our nuclear development projects after the war), the Japanese, and the Russians did not present enough of an extinction threat to humanity to justify this grotesque excess. You may disagree, but that doesn’t undo what we’ve got the power to do.

The ends do not justify the means. The weapons are illogical. They are designed for nothing but death. They are evil.

You have me at a disadvantage, Cliff. I am not familiar with any publications demonstrating that humans have more neurones than they need. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) imaging of the human brain during various cognitive tasks doesn't show any "unused" neurones that I'm aware of. If Joy or Mikal would care to reference the definitive studies proving there are "unused" neurones, I would be most appreciative.

(cont.)

...especially at my age when I lose almost as many neurones as hair follicles each day, any "unused' ones I could press back into service would be most welcome :)

May I remind you that if one day a near earth object such as a comet or meteor of significant size is found to to traverse Earth's orbit and represent a very real impact threat, a nuclear device may be what saves humanity by altering the object's trajectory. A meteorite the size of mount Everest slamming into the Earth's surface at 30 km/s will release over 1,000 times the energy achieved if all the nuclear weapons in all of the arsenals of the world were detonated simultaneously.

A tool is a tool be it plyers or 57 megaton device. It is not inherently evil since the concept itself is relative to our moral inclinations.

In that case, I will not concede the point just yet.

The thing is that I recall hearing, when I was a kid, from one of my teachers, that people use only about 10% of the brain's capability. And since it was something I first heard from a teacher when I was a kid, I naturally believed it.

Me too :) But you know, not everything our teachers tell us is true. Now this particular story has to have had a beginning, and I'm not sure where. I'd like to track it down if anyone has any insight into it. There has to be a paper trail here.

It could be one of those "tablets of stone" effects, where a story becomes so much part of folklore, it becomes inconceivable that it could be untrue, even though it is. Well, perhaps some picker-up of unconsidered trifles can help us out here :)

I am not sure I am aware of any skulls with characteristics of both. I certainly do not think I could point to a specific example. Perhaps Leszek can confirm that examples do exist. I recognize, of course, that he knows a lot more about that then me.

Unless Leszek tells me differently, my assumption is that there probably was no interbreeding, and if there was, the offspring were undoubtedly sterile.

I am sorry that I can’t release data as yet on our son’s case, but similar is the demonstrable ability for people seriously disabled by stroke (that kills neurons) to re-wire their abilities. In this, it is often helpful for the patient to have previously had a fairly open net interconnection. A wide interconnected net is serviced by an active blood supply. I will note only one detail in this. The anomalies tend to arise in the same area of the main brain blood supply. This is a strange arrangement of vessels, where the veinous outflow is engineered to run right through the very middle of the main inflow vessel. The arterio-veinous systems are physically connected (though separated as in a steam generator).

We have arteriograms, CT scans, electroencephalograms, and every other kind of gram you can imagine. And we had a live human being with no good excuse for being alive... and fully functional.

I am not aware that Nazis came to work for our nuclear development projects after the war. Are you confusing Germans and Nazis?

Also, I think as long as nuclear weapons are used for the sake of deterrence, they are not evil.

I do agree that indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons would be evil. So far, that "darling of liberalism," Truman, was the only one to so use nuclear weapons.

Makes me sleep well at night to rest assured "give 'em hell" Harry was the only human to wield the weapon, but only for a good cause. Wonder how Osama Bin Laden views that? The Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, Chinese, Koreans, French, British, Russians, Uzbeckistanis, Kamchatkans, Ukranians and (ever popular) Israelis feel about that?

The main contributions of postwar Nazi engineers and scientist to US weapons programs were in the fields of aeronautical engineering and rocketry.

As a sidenote, Nazi physicists were in fact instrumental in the development of the Soviet atomic bomb first detonated in 1948. During the postwar years the Soviet leadership grew increasingly impatient that the captured Nazis were not making headway.

A Soviet general is quoted as asking one of the Nazi physicists

"Who has the purest form of fissionable Uranium? Us or the Americans?"

The Nazi scientist proudly answered,

"We do. Ours is 90% pure while the American's only used 88% fissionable Uranium in their first atomic bomb."

The Soviet general answered,

"You stupid Nazis. Don't you know that you wasted an entire year purifying Uranium more than it had to be!"

This Nazi physicist was prompty taken out of the building and shot.

Motto: Only do what is necessary. Doing more is often a waste of time and can be lethal in some instances.

Again, I'm unaware of any findings of fossils reliably intermediate between Neanderthals and modern humans. If Joy cares to reference such publications, it would be interesting, but since the species are so similar, I'm not sure it's possible to prove anything definitively. However, I don't think the paleontological world has reached a consensus. Some think interbreeding might have been possible, other pooh-pooh the notion. My prejudice is that it is unlikely, but it's just a prejudice. This may be an unresolvable question.

The human brain has much redundancy built into it, and rewiring appears (fortunately) to be often possible to some extent. It is rarely if ever complete. One thing we do know is that specific areas of the brain are responsible for specific higher cognitive functions (e.g. speech, or parts of grammar such as the ability to use nouns, or verbs). Once those areas are destroyed, the functions are lost, though sometimes a degree of recovery through rewiring proves possible. The brain is a remarkable organ, and we are only at the beginning of understanding how it works.

I am still angry that the French have the bomb. This is a nation where Jerry Lewis is considered an international treasure for goodness sakes.

I hear you, E.C.! Good motto...

§:o)

We've got Jim Carrey now, E.C. As physical comedians go he's a fair successor to JL. Besides, the French are terminally depressed. They could use some good slapstick!

E.C. and Joy, what is all the houhah about with regard to this announcement about matter and anti matter? Can you put it into plain language for me? They sound very excited, but I don't understand why?

You have no idea, Leszek, and I am not at liberty to say at this point in time. What we had was nothing short of 'miraculous' meaning nobody yet understands how in the world it was possible. We do have the physical evidence, and more people than me are analyzing it.

The link (general overview) that Cliff provided earlier today is good as a starting place with other links to specifics. I would reference you to Teshik-Tash and Tabun (Israeli) and St. Cesaire (French) skulls in particular, though there are others.

Referencing me to skull names is all very well. Perhaps you'd reference me to publications?

On subjects that you are not at liberty to speak of, perhaps you shouldn't mention them, since we aren't allowed to consider the evidence objectively.

Is there a more recent revelation that I have not heard about?

But Leszek, they are real in my knowledge and experience, which colors my point of view. Is that verbotten here? §:o)

Then we'd better retarget our missiles, oughtn't we?

Well its decided. Paris will be the preferred global nuclear target in lieu of a large comet/meteor. Now if only I could push this legislation through the United Nations, we could realize years free of nuclear anxiety and French pretentions.

But Paris is so beautiful in the spring, E.C., and it's almost spring...

Though I did giggle in "Armageddon" when Paris got slammed. Not near as funny as the lawyer getting eaten off the toilet by T-Rex in "Jurassic Park," though.

A concensus has to be built. If we do it, we might survive. If we don't, we're dead either way. We need to look at it, I think.

Joy, for some reason, that really upsets me. It just seems so uncalled for.

I guess the part that gives me the most pause is the almost religious adulation given Harry Truman by liberals such as yourself. I must say that I think this adulation is absolutely ridiculous in view of the fact that Truman bombed cities--not military targets, and that this was after the Allies clearly had the war well in hand. By the time Truman dropped the bomb on the two Japanese cities, the Nazis had already surrendered, and Japan, itself, had largely been driven back to their own territory.

I can find no justification whatever for what Truman did. He might have used the bomb in any number of ways to avoid taking so many lives. What Truman did was evil, pure and simple. But I do not believe the development of the bomb was evil. And I believe that threats to freedom, as well as survival, provides sufficient justification for the maintenance of nuclear weapons by the USA as a deterrence of their use by others.

E.C. I read, last night my time, on the BBC Science page about a new statement from someone in Chicago I think, but I understood very little else, other than the fact that they were excited of course.

Sorry, I was a bit cranky after doing a batch of rather tedious chores :) of course you may report whatever thoughts and experiences you wish! It's just that having raised skepticism to the point almost of cynicism, I like to be shown that a thing is so, rather than being told that it is so. I acknowledge that is not always possible :)

Of course, if we, composed of matter were to enter an antimatter galaxy, we would disappear, along with an equal amount of antimatter from that galaxy.

I will be interested if E.C. disagrees, but I probably won't change my mind anyway until the AMS confirms it, if it does.

Good Sunday Morning All

I've been reading the discussions here - and interesting as they are, I'm left with wondering why all discussions of God are limited to the Judeo-Christian God - (with a polite concession towards other religions) and all scientific evidence given is kindergarten stuff - rehash of old cliches dressed up to look refreshed and new.

Now you've put the decision off to 2002 - awaiting the results of a limiting spectrometer which will 'prove' nothing - only measure, classify, categorize, NAME. Free your minds, gang. You'll won't find the answers where you're looking - only verification. But another's verification won't give YOU the experience and really won't give you the proof you all seem to need. All verfication does is give you PERMISSION to believe. Like waitin for mommie and daddy to tell you when it's safe to cross the street. This 'argument' has run it's course, IMO. Any NEW directions out there?

Well, Mikal, you can dart out into the street without looking if you wish. Personally, I prefer to look both ways before crossing the street. It seems to me to be the prudent thing to do.

You can rest assured that I have no intention of following your lead.

I’m at fault here for not putting my bewigged funny face on that statement, Cliff, and I know I said I’d do that if I thought you were in danger of misunderstanding my sarcasm. §:o)

I am not a Harry Truman admirer. The excuses were highly suspect. Who’s lives were saved by this excess? Allied soldiers - presuming we could not have obtained a surrender without invasion. Warriors wage war. War is a deadly, ugly business, and warriors (primarily) are the ones who pay the price in blood. ...Or they were before 1945. Things are very different now, and whether Harry is directly responsible or just happened to be the guy sitting in the chair, the weapons are evil and the use of them is evil.

I don’t know if "disappear" is the right verb to use when discussing matter-antimatter reactions, Cliff! "Annihilation" describes it better, I think... §:o)

Joy, I think you must have not have read Rosemary's link. The article does not discuss matter-antimatter reactions in which both matter and antimatter is annihilated.

Instead, it seeks to explains why there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe now, although originally there was an equal amount.

I have some difficulty believing that antimatter can just "disappear" leaving only matter, no matter what they think they saw :-)

About Truman, yeah, you can say he saved American soldier's lives if you wish, but Japan had already requested conditions for surrender. If Truman had been a decent human being, conditions could have been worked out that could have avoided either an invasion or the dropping of the bomb on Japanese cities. In my opinion, Truman saw dropping the bomb as a test of manhood. That product of the Kansas City Mob should never have had a position of authority. He was dangerous.

With respect to religious discussion, Mikal, I am, myself, disappointed that we do not have representatives of other religions currently, but it appears we do not.

I still remember with fondness a series of posts having to do with an argument between myself and a couple of Muslim gentlement, Johari MA and Sohail Zia on another board last year with respect to issues that would have been perfect for this board.

The debate I had with these gentlemen with respect to the Koran was very similar to the arguments I have had the Christians on this board with respect to the Bible. As you might expect, I did not convince either of them, and they were unable to convince me, although I have to say I came away from the arguments with a much greater respect for both of these gentlemen, their religion and their holy book. Specifically, the debate with Johari and Sohail highlighted a question Johari asked: "Can somebody on this board tell me, how come a 1400 yrs old scripture, have got (some) of these modern scientific findings"?

Correction: Thinking about it, I now believe I may have been incorrect when I said Japan had already requested terms for surrender at the time the bomb was dropped. I remember reading about it, but I have forgotten the actual sequence of events--assuming the source of the information I read was correct.

After thinking about it, I think the request for terms may have come after the bomb was exploded, not before. Still, I do not think Truman's actions were justified.

Cliff

This is good. I would strongly advise against anyone following me - especially since I am never sure where I may be going at any given moment.

As for darting into the street - I only do that when I 'know' there is nothing to worry about. Most times I prefer to be on solid ground and move quietly. gently and cautiously ahead. Of course 'solid ground' is relative - yes? I would need to show you how I KNOW this or that - and that is what I am currently attempting to dicipher. Your scepticism is helping. Thank you.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that one of the ideas is that for some reason, perhaps those broken symmetries I keep reading about and never quite understand, that there may originally have been a slight excess of matter over antimatter. So most of the matter and antimatter vanished with a whoosh, leaving only the slight excess of matter we see today. (Though it appears that we don't see 90% of the matter that exists, the "dark" matter, but that's another story...)

And I thought religion was strange! :)

In my own discussions I use the Judeo-Christian writ as my baseline because I happen to be a Christian. While I expect that most (if not all) human religious expression arises from the same collective, most (if not all) lack the straightforward approach the Bible presents to the matter of humanity’s relationship to its creator. The Bible was intent upon meaning, so did not start out by deliberately hiding behind enigmas. The enigmas are there only because they exist in the contemplation of God and language is inadequate to express these things as clearly as we’d all like.

As for things scientific, I am not up to snuff on the latest goings on. I find myself bored quickly because this circular logic hasn’t changed in 20 years and isn’t likely to change anytime soon, for reasons of self-imposed blindness. The toys are getting fancier, though...

I’ve introduced the subject of consciousness, and since the elves have not deleted those references and have refused to give us a separate forum for the discussion of consciousness, I’d guess they believe the topic to be pertinent to the subjects of science and religion. Where would you like to go with it?

That was very funny Mikal. I laughed until I sat on the floor and then I laughed some more. But what I want to know is how you can know it is safe if you do not look both ways (and sometimes all four ways).

BTW, Mikal, you are A-okay in my book.

Well, maybe so, for all I know. But it seems more reasonable to me that the antimatter is still out there. If it got separated soon enough, what is the problem? I'll listen to E.C. if he says anything on it, of course, but I still think I will wait on the AMS.

As a agnostic, I am used to not knowing. Knowing just to know, even when one really does not know, just does not get it with me. When I know, I want to have a reasonable chance of being right."

Cheers.

Physicists believe the antimatter asymmetry will be explained somewhere in the "Desert" of descending bosons, and it might. Dark matter is a gravity-related postulation, so its existence or nonextistence depends on what gravity ‘Is’ in the unification of forces (what role it plays in symmetry) whether galactic engines (black holes) are universal, and whether other singularity-based "gravity wells" exist to regulate the congregations of matter in the universe. Space-based research tools are one definite benefit of recent science, if one believes this kind of knowledge to be useful to humans.

Joy

I used to be Christian (actually catholic) and have studied the Bible somewhat - but if enigmas are the stumbling block - I find plenty of enigma in the 'scriptures' of all religions - all those precepts we are asked to take on faith. The 'scriptures' of all religious organizations are extremely limiting in their descriptions of God and his 'powers'. All personalize God (and therefore limit him/her/it to a personal level of understanding). But all this aside - in my 45 years on the road to metaphysical understanding of universal principles - The religious path to that understanding has always been the most effective. Mere belief - it seems - in a diety or entity or power beyond ourselves is enough to raise our 'consciousness' to a level where we can at least begin to understand the infinite in light of the finite. I'm rambling a bit - but I guess what I am ultimately trying to say is that I respect all beliefs and all paths as long as they keep evolving towards the unkown or unknowable. Like I've said before - I prefer - of all the terms - The Great Spirit - given to us by the Indian medicine men and their African and South American counterparts - or the Australian aborigines. It, the Great Spirit, seems to include more - to describe more - to encompass more. All I'm really sure of is that there is a vastness that we are only just beginning to understand. I can feel it, touch it, taste it, smell it, see it and know it - but I can't prove it . . . yet.

Cliff

One more post before I run off - Looking all ways is the path to knowing - (unless you take leaps of faith). Either way - 'knowing' allows one to proceed with impunity. And even those who act with the greatest impunity - have a back up system of 'spirit guides' and 'guardian angels' and other sentry systems to protect them and keep them safe. All is knowable and do-able except that we do not as yet know exactly what that means.

I do happen to agree with you on the issue of waiting on the results of the AMS experiment in order to gain a better understanding of the amount and distribution of antimatter in the universe. Much of the current knowledge that has been obtained relates to x-ray and gamma ray observations of possible matter-antimatter reactions. However, this serves as a poor proxy in terms of ascertaining the actual abundances of antimatter in the realm of galaxies. The AMS does allow the direct detection of antiprotons which is a significant step in realizing verifiable means of observing baryonic antimatter abundances.

However, the question as to whether antimatter may not obey the laws applicable to "normal" matter is not as nebulous as it appears to have been before the recent announcement from Fermilab. Charge-parity relationships are fundamental to all forms of matter. If the group of high-energy physicists have detected a very real C-P violation in observing regarding mesons then then it could lead to an overhauling of current cosmological principles regarding the broken symmetry between matter and antimatter synthesis. The implication is that a small excess of matter need not have been present shortly after the big bang in order for the realization of the matter excess we observe today. Equal amounts or even more antimatter than matter could have been synthesized. The fact that charge and parity is not conserved for antimatter would imply that the conditions in the early universe would not favor the continued existence of antimatter. In other words

P(-x) does not equal P(x)

(continued)

and

psi(x) does not equal -psi(x)

where p is an arbitrary parity operator and psi is the an antimatter particle wavefunction.

I hear what you’re saying, Mikal. I spent some years looking around at the choices as well, and ended up back where I started, no worse for wear and tear. The Bible speaks clearest to me in the Western (empirical) tradition of thought and culture, so I am able to understand it better. I’ve got respect for everyone’s beliefs, unless they’re demonstrably harmful.

I recall a ‘lesson’ Don Juan taught to Carlos late in the series (a fictionalization of real antropological work on shamanism), long after Carlos had learned to switch his consciousness (phase transition) and Don Juan pushed him through a "door." Although Don Juan accompanied Carlos on his ‘journey’ - actually more of an active dream-vision - when Carlos later described it for his master to ascertain what the images "meant," Don Juan told him the vision was his alone. The master wasn’t really there in consciousness seeing the same things. Only Carlos could interpret the vision.

This seems to be true of human consciousness on direct connections to the collective in all traditions which recognize and honor these connections. We’re all hardwired, but we perceive it in individual ways (if we allow ourselves to perceive it at all). I am also aware of the Eastern tradition that says when the student is ready to learn, a teach will appear. This is analogous to "knock and the door will be opened. For levels of consciousness waiting to be explored, one has to want to know what it has to teach.

Mikal,

Something just occurred to me. For what it is worth, in an intersection, there are four directions, but Joy's mention of circular logic reminds me that there is also traffic circles, in which case there are an infinite number of directions to look. Just four directions will not do it always.

Joy,

Your description of the "Desert" of descending bosons, symmetry, and singularity-based "gravity wells" reminds me of the Ptolemaic astronomical system with the retrograde motion of planets all mapped to perfection, as right as observations would permit, and which--although it was basically wrong, since it assumed the sun, moon and planets revolved around the earth--was able to withstand the tests of observation for 13 centuries.

I mean, how can you argue against retrograde motion of planets when it is right there for all to see? And, of course, there will always be people who understand the physics of retrograde motion.

I suspect that what they have observed is the equivalent of Jupiter traveling backwards for a period of time in it's orbit.

I think the AMS will find an equivalent amount of matter and antimatter.

I am hopeful that the symmetry model is not seriously erroneous, though if it leaves no room for a redefinition of gravity it’s not going to fit together as it should. And I agree with your point about retrograde motion. The Newtonian description of gravity works predictably on all levels of observation until we get to subatomic and galactic scales. Science has ignored the first rule of metaphysics too long - ‘As Above, So Below.’ It’s not applicable across all observable levels, there’s something wrong. The models change as our tools improve, allowing us to see farther or deeper, thereby adding levels of observation to those we perceive only with our 5 senses.

Symmetry wasn’t my idea, though. It’s just a physical model I happen to know about. Because it has puzzle pieces missing, it may be seriously erroneous. How would the results of the AMS experiment effect the model either way, except to eliminate the question of asymmetry on the particle level?

Actually, people don't usually ask me this kind of question on this subject, but I suppose it would depend on the results of the experiment. I indicated earlier that I think there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe and I thing AMS will show this.

I think this is probably true because it permits what appears to me to be the simplest model--with no need to explain why there is more matter than antimatter. But, of course, I don't know. I will say that if, 1. The AMS finds an equivalent amount of antimatter and matter, And if 2. The current experiments confirm the observations that antimatter appears not to conform to normal laws of physics,

Then I think it is confirmation that one of our major assumptions is wrong.

As a hint, in the case of the Ptolemaic astronomical system, it was that instead of the cosmos traveling around the earth one time each universal day, the earth rotates one revolution each earth day.

Although only rhetorical, the following link argues against matter-antimatter symmetry

In addition, the following link discusses CP violation of B-mesons in a more quantitive matter. A colleague of mine would dub the argument essentially "Baby Physics". Although simplistic in nature it does hold some merit.

Thanks, I think.

Uh, huh.

Neandertals evolved first, and erectus doesn’t have much to do with modern humans. I’d also take issue with Cro Magnon.

Cro Magnons were giants. "There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Gen.6: 4.

I know this is from an older thread. Since I've never been convinced, we evolved, from anything. I guess, I would not have ever thought about linking Cro-magnon man to the Giants in Genesis. Since anything I could offer on this would only be conjecture, I can't say one way or another.

The term "sons of God" was used to designate angelic beings, in other places in the Old Testament. So if that is what Genesis refers to, then the spirit angelic beings would need to take a physical form to be able to co-habit with women. Sounds so bizarre. I guess, sometimes, I've wondered if the text is the origin for all the mythology we get from Greek and Roman cultures.

Like in Gen. 6:4 :...the same became mighty men,which were of old; men of renown".

Conjeurs up things like Hercules, the Gorgon, and Satyrs, and Centaurs.

It's interesting:)-

I am certainly not convinced we were evolved from animals either, Marie. I am convinced we are animals (biological organizms with signs of life), and I can’t imagine anyone denying that. I am fairly convinced by the fossil evidence that "modern" human beings appeared on this planet while the last Neandertals and Cro Magnons were still present. They shared a period of just a few thousand years (a drop in the evolutionary bucket), after which time modern human beings were the only humans on the planet.

The generations of Cain, we might presume, were as lengthy as the generations of Seth. 4 to 5 thousand years of pre-flood coexistence isn’t unreasonable. "Sons of God" is interpretationally debatable, but it should be remembered that the words have specific meaning in their context. Russell would know more about this particular thing than me. Interpretations won’t change the fossil record, though, or all the good work done and being done establishing this record. It seems that if you can believe humans shared the planet with dinosaurs, accepting the evidence that they shared the planet with at least 2 other subspecies of humans shouldn’t be so hard.

I checked out the Nephilim link, Mary. I have the same problem with this that I have with possession by demons (as angelic beings). If Satan and his fallen hoardes could inhabit human bodies and rob them of free will, that’s all they ever had to do to thwart the plan. If angels can breed with humans, they have to be human. It’s one of those "kind" limitations. If "evil" humans are angels and/or nephilim, are "good" humans also angels and/or nepilim? When did we get promoted to angel-hood?

Joy, Marie,

According to the conventional view, when we speak of Neanderthal man, we are generally referring to a European phenomenon--although variations of Neanderthal have been found in Israel and elsewhere. According to the fossil record, Neanderthals appeared in Europe about 230,000 years ago and disappeared about 35,000 years ago. Fully modern humans (Cro Magnons) arrived in Europe about 40,000 years ago.

The two species appear to have co-existed for about five thousand years, after which, the Neanderthals completely disappeared. We do not know why. What we do know is that modern Europeans are direct descendents of Cro Magnons. The big question is, where did the Cro Magnons come from. Our best evidence is that they must have come from Africa. The fossil evidence is scant, but the DNA evidence indicates that all of mankind is descendent from an African Woman who lived about 100,000 years ago.

Homo Erectus is a much earlier version of man, which existed as far back as a million years ago. Homo Erectus fossils has been found all over the old world in Africa, Asia and Europe with fossil ages ranging from 1 million down to about a half a million years. It is now generally believed that only the African version of Homo Erectus evolved into modern man. The rest of them were evolutionary dead ends which were eventually replaced by the modern humans who evolved from the African version of Homo Erectus. And after evolving into the modern version of man in Africa about 100,000 years ago, the modern version spread throughout the world.

Again a limitation on keeping up with all the latest, Cliff, I have one of my kids’ anthropology textbooks (college level) dated 1990. This text tells me Cro Magnons consist of exactly 1 skull found in southern France. This skull, dubbed the "Old Man" [Cro Magnon I] became the type specimin for the Upper Paleolithic race of Europe. It goes on to say that there is no such race, and that CM I wasn’t even typical of the 2 other male skulls found at the site. The other two display Neandertal and a.m. (anotomically modern) traits. CM I is more gracile than his companions, but still displayed archaic traits.

The skull is 25k years old and displays a Neandertal ~1500cc brain capacity. Its concurrence with other skeletons displaying archaic traits is not surprising, as many such skulls have been found in many places. Whatever rituals Neandertals had developed, these ‘crossbreeds’ were held in high esteem and carefully buried. Neandertal takes its name from the Neander Valley in Germany. France has produced a number of Neandertal sites as well. Neandertals are also found in Israel, Iraq, Turkey and Uzbekistan. The most skulls have been found in Europe, but all this means is the Europeans who went looking looked in their own back yard first.

This book lists 4 separate models to explain the evolutionary history Neandertal. Reading this, I see a lot of presuppositions that are unsupportable by anything but bias in the writer. We are the "successful" species, therefore must be descended from the "successful" Erectus. We are not descended from Neandertal. This presents a missing link. A time gap of about 200,000 years in the tree branch supposedly linking us with animal evolution, the time between Erectus and sapiens sapiens.

In other words, Cro Magnon cannot be established as the missing link, since its existence rests on exactly 1 skull buried with contemporaries who did not share his gracile trait, but with whom he shared Neandertal traits. 5,000 years is not enough time for anything but assimilation. There is evidence of isolated crossbreeding, but not of assimilation.

Well, Joy, I have a Time-Life Book entitled Early Man written by F. Clark Howell, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, Copyright 1965, 1973. Professor Howell, wrote: "The first representatives of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, occupied every part of the world, New and Old. In Europe, they were almost identical in appearance to today's Europeans. Known to us as Cro-Magnons, they developed a culture..."

According to Professor Howell, the "Old Man" of Cro-Magnon was about 50 when he died. The name Cro-Magnon was applied generally to contemporary modern looking people who lived in Europe at the end of the last ice age. I believer the only significant difference between the contents of Professor Howell's book and the summary I presented above is the new information that the "Out of Africa" scenario appears to have prevailed with modern man descending from a common ancestor in Africa about 100,000 years ago and that we did not descend from Neanderthal. (Professor Howell did allow for that possibility.) But the new DNA evidence indicates that there was too much distance, approximately 600,000 years, for us to have descended from Neanderthal.

Good Morning All - or perhaps more traditionally I should say, "Greetings".

Joy:

I, too, set out some 40 years ago to 'seek the truth' and find a system of beliefs to comfort and guide me and provide a safe place for me to wait for death [and the subsequent rewards of joy, happiness and eternal bliss]. I divested myself of earthly goals and considerations - like college, career, marriage and everything else that pertained to the living of that other 'ordunary' life. After all, I was extra-ordinary and destined for a 'higher road'. And after all, Christ did tell us to give it all away and 'come follow me'. But at every turn, at every moment of truth, in every religious and esoteric system there came that requirement to accept the rest on Faith - the 'trust me' part of the Grand Scam or ultimate cosmic joke. Couldn't do it - nnnot because I didn't trust or have faith in the Great Spirit - but because I didn't trust its representatives who I suspected had ulterior motives and were therefore tainted. Result: I've been rejected my every system - black or white - that exists on this planet. Or I rejected them - depends on one's point of view.