You are very welcome. I enjoy a lot of your threads. You are a bit of a rebel, but at least you think, which I find interesting.WanderingLands wrote:Hello Gee - thank you for your insights, especially bringing reincarnation into the issue and even talking about how pigs were used for medicine and the question of genetic similarities with humans.
The problem with science is that it has lost it's respect for philosophy. Science deals with knowns, facts, and it does a good job with what it understands. But it has no damned idea of how to deal with unknowns, as that is the venue of philosophy. Philosophy determines what we can know, and how we know it, which means that it determines truth, truth being a form of wisdom.WanderingLands wrote:I'm not knocking off that species are effected by environment, and that there is some evolution that exists (for example, in Biology class some years ago we were talking about the Amish having additional toes; I've skimped at a documentary of humans still crawling). However, I don't believe in the evolutionary narrative that's propagated in mainstream science; there's no good explanation of how there could be a macro-evolution of all things, as presented in mainstream science. Much of what has been taught by mainstream science concerning [evolution] is false:
So science sees the evidence of evolution and decides that "random chance" causes this evolution, because they can not imagine anything else that could cause it. This is where they screw up; they use imagination, speculation, assumption, and even guesses to form their premises. So you can trust what science tells you, only, if you trace back their ideas to the original premise and check it for accuracy.
The Theory of Evolution is a good example of this nonsense as is their idea that consciousness emits from the human brain. They will admit that other species may be conscious, but will not confirm it. Why? Because the Christian God made humans in his image and gave them a soul, but did not extend this to other life. So whether they believe it or not, science has assumed the Bible's interpretation of evolution and consciousness, while science vehemently states that religion is wrong. It is almost comical.
If you think about it, and consider what religions that believe in reincarnation state, then you will see that reincarnation is in fact an evolution. It is an evolution of the soul, or consciousness. Since I am not religious and have trouble accepting the arrogant and self-serving idea that consciousness is the sole province of humans, I have simply extended this idea to life.WanderingLands wrote:All that being said, I'll look more into this subject matter, and I will definitely consider what you said as it is definitely interesting to incorporate reincarnation into evolution.
There was a time when I would not have given reincarnation a second thought, as religions tend to tweak their facts in order to conform them with the prevailing dogma, but Dr. Stevenson changed all that. He studied reincarnation using scientific methods and came up with evidence. He proved, at least to my mind, that reincarnation does happen. This does not mean that it always happens, or that it is the only way for life to form or continue, but his findings also do not dispute those ideas.
His studies indicate that after the age of seven, people have no memory of a past life, so if it was not discussed prior to the age of seven, we would have no knowledge of it. I used to do a lot of babysitting in my youth, and I remember a few children, who insisted that their name was different than it was, or that they were different people than they are. But these children were very young, and that passed. It was assumed that they were just imagining, but were they? We really do not listen to children.
If a Western mother was giving her son a bath and noted a birthmark on him, and said, "Where did you get that mark?" The child might respond, "That is where I got shot." The Western mother would assume that it was imagination and assure the child that no one was going to shoot him. If the same scenario happened to an Eastern family, the mother might ask, "When did you get shot?", and the child might respond, "When my name was George." Further questioning might reveal a full name, a town, and occupation. Then Dr. Stevenson would be called and his team would investigate, and may find that a man by that name and with that occupation lived in that town about a year before the child's birth, and he was shot dead. Then the medical records of the dead man may show a bullet hole in the body that is located in the same place as the child's birthmark. In the really interesting cases, there is sometimes an exit wound that matches up with another birthmark on the child's back. Very few cases have a physical manifestation, but that it occurs at all is relevant -- science has no idea of how or why most birthmarks form.
If you decide to investigate Dr. Stevenson, don't bother with Wiki. The last time I looked him up, the article had been changed and showed his admittedly weaker cases, but did not show his stronger cases. So it has been rewritten with clear bias. Go online to the University of Virginia in the Psychiatry section. There is a full write up there and an offer for different articles and books. There are also some interesting videos on YouTube regarding Dr. Stevenson's work.