Guest KentuckyApeman Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) This is the way I see it. Where species compete on a continual basis, they continually adapt to one another, so changes are likely to be minimal or incremental at best. I only quoted a snippet of your post for the sake of responding. Yes, I agree. There seems to be quantum factors that can push a species way beyond the normal evolutionary timeline. Modern man seems to have been fast forwarded to a level that nature had not intended. And no, I do not accept the 'alien intervention' theory(creating new life forms). Would not an advanced being adhere to the Star Trek 'prime directive' rule? Vacationing from solar system to solar system as some inter-galactic 'Johnny Appleseed' challenges our own experinces here. Pythons wrecking havoc in south Florida, non-native fish in our rivers, etc. Wouldn't an advanced lifeform have learned this? So to sum up: I don't accept the History Channel/George Noory 'Alien connection' premise. Edited February 4, 2012 by KentuckyApeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It's more like an emergent property -- phase change -- than an act of intervention to me. Fully natural yet fully revolutionary. Man is the first creature who can sweep aside his physical limitations with the power of his mind, for a variety of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Right there you're buying into the Skeptic argument. Vocals and tracks ARE "hard science". They are tangible, testable, and analyzable in the laboratory setting. Which is a far cry from saying that malaria itself did not exist. Which is the case with BF. There absolutely IS an "institutional" position in science. It's also called "consensus" or "prevailing theory". It's the body of knowledge that science as a whole accepts as "accurate" or "true". Funny, I hear plenty of scientists do just that...has BF been admitted to the rolls of even the "possible" by institutional/mainstream science when I wasn't looking? Not when it's mind is already made up it's mind and made a definitive statement ("no bigfoot") Skepticism is not neutral. Neutral would be going wherever the evidence leads. Science is going AGANST the evidence (reports, vocals, hairs, tracks, etc) How about truly neutral and honest and admitting there is at a minimum a strong circumstantial case for BF and doing more/better research? There is: hairs, tracks, reports, etc "weasel" words that allow you to simply dismiss any evidence you don't like. Civilian observes X and reports = "hearsay" Scientist observes X and reports = "data". Since we have far more to hand than "speculation" that is a non-argument. Yikes,Mulder, Thankfully I have points left over so I can keep giving them to you! Hugs and well done my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 It's more like an emergent property -- phase change -- than an act of intervention to me. Fully natural yet fully revolutionary. Man is the first creature who can sweep aside his physical limitations with the power of his mind, for a variety of reasons. The mental evolution is an important fact. We reached a point where we could choose to create technology to eliminate selection pressure. Sort of meta-evolution. Those who struggled with the traditional selection methods were replaced by those who didn't need to concern themselves with those pressures. Even if the advantage was %1, that was enough. Now that we're aware of evolution, we see it everywhere. Some people choose not to have children so as not to pass on their bad genes! Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Modern man seems to have been fast forwarded to a level that nature had not intended. I'm struggling with the idea that nature has intent. Nature is aimless, directionless. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm struggling with the idea that nature has intent. Nature is aimless, directionless. Mike It's also said to have an innate tendency towards "balance", which seems to have broken down with the emergence of humans, whose capabilities are such that they can overwhelm "natural" countervailing pressures with catastrophic results no other critter on the planet seems to be capable of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts