> > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
> > > Sal: > > > It's all about what explanations you accept, some ancient authority that > > > didn't know about things like evolution and the laws of physics or > > > something a bit more nailed down and understood in relation to everything > > > else. And preferably not contradicting everything else. That's an > > > important bit. > > Ray: > > Here is where my idealism comes to the fore. I give my predessors on this > > rock, more credit. > Salyawin: > Oh, I give them tons of credit, I just think they were wrong because they > didn't have a method of testing that would eliminate poor explanations. > That's our best invention. > > I think they were probably just as determined to understand the whys and > > hows of the world around them worked, and so they used the only means they > > had available which was to go within, or possibly go out, in terms of the > > celestial. > Salyawin: > Absolutely. > > But since I am not much of a proponent of astrology, or jyotish, or > > whatever you want to call it, let me focus on the going in part. > > I don't pretend to understand the symbolism of the vedas, but I've read > > enough of the upanishads and texts like the Gita, as well as other bits of > > knowledge from that time to come to the conclusion that their inner > > research was on target in many ways. > Salyawin: > You mean you like their explanations? > > > Sal: > > > Yes and no. All life on earth is connected, the earth may as well be > > > connected to the sun because gravity aint going anywhere. But does > > > everything rely on everything else in some symbiotic sort of way? No, we > > > are here despite the atmosphere and conditions on this planet, and it was > > > trying to survive that made us smart not any creative intelligence. Life > > > crawled out of a swamp and ended up with us and our experiences. > > Ray: > > Yes, that is the theory of evolution. But, I don't buy that particular > > version that you espouse here, at least as the development of humans. My > > version is more esoteric. If you ask me to provide some evidence, I can't. > > > I know, because there is none. > > On the other hand, your version is just a theory too. You are not able to > > provide any definitive proof. > Just a theory? There's no "just" about it. A theory is an idea that hopes to > explain a set of data points. Evolution by natural selection has no contrary > evidence and has a well understood method by which it works. You can test it > by the fossil record, DNA and some of Darwin's experiments. It explains all > complexity in life and all adaptations that any animal has. Life on Earth is > descended from one cell, I think that's one of THE major discoveries. > I think a lot of the problem people have with it is that it isn't explained > well enough at school or in the media. Not enough to really get to grips with > how it works. But it's the class leader in terms of explanations which is why > everything else has to fit in with it. The ever expanding fossil record, proved the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of doubt. The discovery that a small mutation in the hox genes can trigger massive changes in the organism, gives insight into how evolution actually works on the genetic level. > > > Sal: > > > Some would say the size of the universe and the loss of all our precious > > > beliefs about our superiority makes us mere insignificant specks, but > > > maybe the ugly facts of nature make us the most important things in > > > existence? > > Ray: > > Well, fortunately more evidence seems to be coming in all the time. > > On the other hand, just a few months ago everyone in the scientific > > community was all a twitter about the instant after the big bang when > > things were expanding faster than the speed of light for an instant, which > > accounted for the gravitation waves we see. > > And then, almost just a quick, it was found to have flaws. > > Maybe the knowledge we acquire on the inward stroke is more reliable. > If it is in fact knowledge at all ;-) > Knowledge about why we think this knowledge is superior would be more > interesting to me! > > > Luckily my tea breaks dictate the amount of waffle I can fit into a day. > > Is it "High Tea" or just a little break? (-: > High tea of course old chap! But I'm foreswearing the cakes at the moment due > to an expanding waistband. Earl gray only this week.
