Immortal4life

We must clarify the word evolution. I of course believe and understand that Evolution in general can be considered a much higher and Universal Law beyond science's specific "theory of evolution". Evolution occurs on many levels, it occurs to the Universe itself, on the mental plane, in people's thinking, and in development on spiritual planes. The theory of evolution however states that random mutations combined with an intangible phenomena they call natural selection cause one species to turn into another species, that the first fish was born of a non-fish, the first frog of a non frog, the first bird of a non bird, the first mammal born of a non mammal, and that organisms more primitive than bacteria have evolved into man. I don't think I am forcing anyone to read or believe anything. I try to point things out that I think are the in a sense, the way of the now and the way of the future, that are progressive and evolved, yes. So I can't make anyone change in any way, only Time can force change, only can Nature and the way things naturally end up can force change.

I have seen Dawkins and his fans attack many things, almost anything spiritual that comes their way. If he has not attacked Taoism, it is only because it is not popular enough and not relevant enough to popular culture yet. If Taoism were to get popular, then there would be people like Dawkins denouncing it. If you would like to see Taoist ideas become more popular and relevant, then you should also prepare to face people who would attack it. In my view, to not prepare for these people is naive.

He is a geneticist. If you fully buy into certain theories such as evolutionary theory, then you believe Human genetics and Tree genetics are related. I see no reason to think he is not knowledgeable about all the various experiments and research being conducted around the world that are relevant to his point.

If you watch the video it is not so much anti-science, but rather, it is about making a more even battlefield between science and spirituality. Like the man explains, a lot of atheists like Dawkins like to take the best of science, and compare it to the worst of religion. They have started to gain a presence in the public circle. This is about making the playing field more even.

A another page examining this find- http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/esp_electricidad_egipto_1.htm

The fact that this skull was buried 60 feet underground does not support the idea that it was shot recently.

Heh, anytime you talk about The Pacific Islanders and Pre-history, you've got to think about the lost pre-historic civilizations of Mu, Lemuria, Atlantis, etc.

Although this topic seems to be kind of 6 months ago.... Haterz gonna Hate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr05oHLt5fs Alright stop....Hating's bad.....

Today it is generally accepted that Human beings have been around for about 200,000 years. However, some people seem to believe that Human civilization is less than 12,000 years old. This has never seemed very logical to me. To think that humans existed as tribal hunters dancing around fires and painting their bodies for 190,000 years, and only then in relatively recent times have they developed civilization and culture, seems to be a theory that is lacking. I don't think it is at all impossible or unreasonable to theorize about the possibility that civilization or even technology could have existed in prehistory.

So, something I keep hearing from people, is that they want to see articles cited in threads that are "Peer Reviewed". Some people will say "I only accept peer reviewed journals. I don't accept articles from popular media outlets or popular science magazines". Although I have no problem accepting such sources as legitimate most of the time, as they are legitimate and cite their sources, people certainly have the right to decide their own standards as far as what they will accept. With that being said, the question becomes "What exactly is peer reviewed research, and what constitutes peer reviewed research?" Here is an interesting Article from the Peer Reviewed Journal PNAS. It demonstrated how researchers in Israel have disproven the notion that Australopithicus, or "Lucy", is an ancestor to humans. For several decades in the later 1900s some scientists claimed that "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. Even in the 2000s a few scientists held out and still believed that notion. However, today very, very few believe this to be true. No Missing Link to link Humans to Apes exists! Australopithicus proven not to be an ancestor of humans From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, or PNAS- link Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c....icle%2FShowFull No missing link, or so called "common ancestor", ever found. Bonus material and further reading- African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray African skulls find throws story of human evolution into disarray - Scotsman.com News So there is nothing to link homo erectus to humans. Humans didn't evolve from apes or animals of any kind. I mean look, they can't even name what Homo Erectus evolved out of itself let alone naming what it evolved into. That is putting the cart before the horse. Figure out how animals allegendly evolved before you make claims about humans. Humans did not come out of Homo Erectus. More about why man made finds place humans here even before the apes, or at least co-existing side by side (translated) Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth (1):Introduction | Pureinsight Removing the Veil from Prehistoric Civilizations</i>, (Part 1) Preface—Ages You Never Knew http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1324 Will the Real Human Ancestor Please Stand Up! Please stand up! Please stand up!- http://www.theosophical.org.uk/31HidHist.htm

Ok thank you very much. I am very interested in Buddhism, because I naturally am inclined to believe in many of the things it talks about. The problem is, I know nothing about it really. I have no idea where to start. I don't even know the difference between Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. But I want to learn all the most powerful styles and systems including those 3. I also in addition want to learn Pure Land Buddhism. I don't know how to go about that. I also want to learn Tibetan Buddhism, including Yoga methods. I want to get Tummo, like this here. This video shows Tummo by a westerner, so we know that westerners can get it. How do you get it?- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNjiHNUMKdY I also want to get Trulkhor Tibetan Yoga, it is something that I am drawn to and very interested in- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG6w036k8u4 I am also extremely attracted to the changing mudra postures made by Tibetan Buddhists, I want this- Buddhism is certainly extremely powerful. I am so attracted to it, and yet, I don't know how to go about getting it. Where do you learn it? I find some of the concepts hard to fathom and sometimes my mind turns to mush. Any help in explaining the whole thing might be useful..........

Ok so something I hear a lot, especially on this thread is "Read the Sutras". "The" Sutras? Got any links?

If physicalism were true it would mean there is no spirituality. It would mean there is no objective meaning, purpose, beauty, or morality in the Universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0v5nd1bJXM

Very interesting OP. Yes I think it can be possible for a human to act virtuously and in alignment with Tao, but they must know how, and it is not easy for a human.

Totally. It's crazy to think that's how it was not even so long ago. Some people who remember that might even still be alive today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-OVVxdj8Wo

A common expression is that human beings are "In the Image of God". So what exactly is that phrase saying? Some people will say that human beings were created by a higher being in the Image of a God. Some people will say that it means human beings possess a soul, a fundamental spirit which gives the material body shape, and of which the material body is the manifestation. Some people say that a human body is a microcosm of the universe, and the universe is a macrocosm of the human body. Some people will say there is no meaning or purpose in the universe, no gods, no intelligence behind the formation of structure and shape, and the phrase is just saying that humans are programmed by evolution to see their own bodies as beautiful. What does the saying "In the Image of God" mean to you? Here is a cool Documentary about this issue, "Human Origins- The Image of God"

Lol!

It can mean different things to different people, at different levels. One of the lower levels is trying to change the physical world with ritual. Above that is probably attemting to change the physical world with material science, at that level magic is just what people call scientific knowledge who don't understand it. After that is probably affirmation, and repetition, as explained in the video in the OP. But the highest form of magic, is affecting the physical world through visualization.

I think it balances out. If there are people who are outkasts, then there will also be other people who are very productive and more social than average too.

I hate Voodoo. They kill animals. I saw a documentary about Voodoo in Africa and they sacrificed a puppy and a kitten. So from that just there, I hate Voodoo. I'm sure people can say things like I'm judging based on a biased documentary, it's a diverse belief and they dont all kill puppies, blah, blah, blah. I don't care. One puppy was enough for me not to care about any alleged benefits such a superstition could possibly pretend to have. I don't respect people who believe Voodoo, it's superstiiton. I also heard of a guy from Africa who would have to cut a chicken's head off each time before he would compete in sports. Ridiculous. Voodoo gives me the creeps, and not because I believe it has any validity. Voodoo should disappear like so many other ancient superstitions in other parts of the world have disappeared.

That was a good post by Sloppy Zhang +1

goldisheavy has contributed a lot to this forum recently, and I am not offended by his comments. I am not offended by people's opinions, even if they are stated emotionally or harshly.