Vedicsoc session #2.10 human devolution
In the last Vedicsoc session before the christmas break we talked about the controversial topic of human origins.
I talked about the established theory of Charles Darwin and why it (seemingly) makes a lot of sense. We then watched a part of the Mysterious Origins of Man documentary and I gave examples of some other archeological discoveries and so-called paranormal physical phenomena from Michael Cremo’s books: Hidden History of the Human Race
We then discussed why the concept of the “knowledge filter” which prevents idea that radically contradict established ideas from being taken seriously. People naturally think:
“Modern humans, millions of years old? No, that is clearly impossible, otherwise I would have learnt about it in school. There must be some mistake. Let me ignore the evidence.”
We concluded by discussing the Vedic alternative explanation: humans aren’t ascended apes, instead we are actually fallen angels. The Vedas contain detailed genealogical records documenting human origins from “angels” (sophisticated living entities living on other planets and/or in other dimensions). But those are just absurd children’s stories, right … ?
The result: (much to my surprise) everyone attending the session agreed. “Wow, yes, the Vedic version makes a lot more sense.”
December 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Hello there merry christmas and happy new year:
“I talked about the established theory of Charles Darwin and why it (seemingly) makes a lot of sense” I’m rwondering if you really explained Darwinian theory properly, I would like to know what you did say, cause it is a common ground on all the creationists to say things that are not Darwinian theory, like “evolution is random” and nonsense like that.
“Misterious origin of man” is plain shit. It starts by presenting some marginal (and not accepted by the geologists community) “evidence” of very old human marks on the soil and ends up with complete non-sense theories about glaciations and other civilisations 30.000 years old. What really upsets me is that you do accept cientific authority for some things (you are doing a PhD in computer science, right?) but when it comes to your dogmatic faith you just completely reject it, and you believe anything contrary to all evidence that can remotely support your dogma. And, if in the way you can convince some people that don’t have a clue about evolution that we are actually fallen angels, even better; the more ignorant the people is, the more easily they will accept your authoritarian view of society. Cause, at the end of the day, all this attacks on evolution (why not other fields of science?) is about brain-wahsing people as fast as possible so they accept authority easily, like religious leaders, kings and all that shit.
Once again, I’m going to ask some questions, that nobody will answer, as usual, cause the asnwers are so painfully self-evident that they would make you reject all that creationist bullshit, but anyways ….
1.- How can you scientifically demonstrate that we are fallen angels? If you can’t, why are you criticising scientific theories without scientific tools and procedures? That’s not fairplay at all; honest scientists are rigorous with what they say, they back it up with empirical evidence, and if that evidence (if it is for real, not Charlton Heston’s jambo mambo) turns to reject they theories, the reject their theories. Where is your evidence?
2.- If we don’t come from the apes, why are so painfully similar in anatomy and genetic content? What’s that, a joke?
3.- How can you explain the existence of intermediate fossils (Homo antecessor, Homo erectus, Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, Australopithecus, ….), another joke?
4.-” The Vedas contain detailed genealogical records documenting human origins from “angels†(sophisticated living entities living on other planets and/or in other dimensions).” Which planets? How did they come to the earth? If they have such a technology and power that allows them to travel through space, why not share it? how can you travel from one dimension to another?Why are genealogical records an evidence for anything? They could be perfectly false, how can you demonstrate that they aren’t?
5.- “so-called paranormal physical phenomena ” if they are paranormal and hence out of the realm of science, why not reject the whole science thing? If science can’t work with those assumptions, why do you accept it at all? That’s a big hipocrisy. The typical hipocrisy of all religious movements.
Happy hollidays
December 29th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Mikel makes some interesting comments but has missed the final written work of Charles Darwin himself.
Darwin explained that it was just a theory from his observations and that he himself still belived over all that their was a creator.
If Mikel took some time just to read the vadic scriptures shall we say version of how we came into being we will see that it fits nicely with the accepted science fact.
As we are still discovering living entaties on earth especially in the deep sea were normal science would say life would not exist and so our understanding has changed, we then dismiss the notion of life on other planets, heres a question if we have made the mistake on earth that life needed certain conditions to live then could we be looking for completely the wrong life form.
We should not also discount that Darwins theory has still many gaps that have not been fully explained.
Lets not forget that when the periodic table was first writen their was gaps, these were expected to be filled in over time, infact new gases and natural chemicals are still being found.
But then as vadic scripture says few have the intelegence to understand, but I am glad to say that I know many scientists who still belive in God and Creation.
January 1st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Mikel made a good post and I’d be interested to see if Julian can reply?
January 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Dear Mikel, hope you had a nice Christmas and New Year,
I must admit that some parts of Mysterious Origins of Man are questionable (I didn’t show those parts in the session). The documentary gives the viewpoints of several people, not all subscribing to the Vedic world-view. However, just because one part is questionable doesn’t mean the ideas should be rejected completely. That is the scientific knowledge filter in full effect:
“Oh, we’ve found some wrong point in the presentation of the people with alternative explanations, so clearly they are all wrong and let’s ignore those brain-washed idiots.”
To your points:
). So much useful science does not conform the the text-book definition of science. I certainly find this to be the case in Computer Science: just because I can’t put a number to something that is clearly useful means that that isn’t science and therefore I can’t get a PhD for it; so I have create some construed evaluation and half-invent some numbers to satisfy the antiquated definition of what science should be. This same things crops up in other fields. For example, quantum physics must take into account the consciousness of the observer and is therefore not longer empirical. Astronomy is often not repeatable - they speculate about the origins of the Universe and strange undetectable particles. Science could be so much richer if it embraced the Vedic knowledge rather than fight it.
1. The scientific method is limited (Popper isn’t God, you know
So, yes, with the current limited definition of science one can’t demonstrate fallen angels. But, if it actually was angels that created us, then with science, as it currently stands, would never figure this fact out. An inferior living entity cannot understand a superior living entity. The ant will never understand the human, unless the human teaches the ant (and even then maybe not). So, the “proof” of angels is in their teachings: the Vedic literature! You must surrender to their terms and not try to impose your limited world view on something it cannot grasp.
2. Why are a Mercedes and a Fiat so painfully similar? What’s that? a joke? Surely the Mercedes must have evolved from the Fiat.
3. Those so called intermediate fossils are just various species of extinct ape. Some species of chimpanzee or gorilla still exist, others are now temporary extinct. No problem. Cremo’s books document hundreds of cases of fossils that call into question the nice clear step-by-step ancestry that we learn in school as “evolution”.
4. Which planet? I’ve been studying the Vedic knowledge for 6 years and I still can’t understand the many intricacies of Vedic version of the structure of the Universe. Sufficient to say, there is a lot more to “space” than modern astronomy tells us. If you want to understand, do as David suggests and study the Vedas. Astronomy is primarily covered in the 5th Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam.
The besides explaining the different planets in the Universe the Bhagavatam also describes the many different means of interstellar travel. Read and learn.
As previously stated, genealogical records from more advanced species are proof because otherwise they know better than we do. Your mother’s word on who your father is is (hopefully) all the proof you need (the complete fossil record, without ignoring half the evidence because it is “impossible”, also confirms it, but more research is needed to show this - hey, you could do it).
5. So-called paranormal physical phenomena have been studied and documented by such prominent scientists as Marie Curie, Pierre Curie and Alfred Russell Wallace (co-author of Origin of Species). I only call them paranormal because that is the language I was taught in school. Perhaps a better term is: “phenomena not explainable by physics as it currently stands”.
Science is well and good if used in the right way, i.e. not set up in such a way that makes it impossible to “scientifically” accept a personal God. Broad-minded, humble, non-envious science that is free from false-ego is a very good thing. I wouldn’t want anyone to blindly accept anything; nor do the Vedic literatures require believe without proof: read the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad-Bhagavtam and see, it all makes sense.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 am
Nice reply!
January 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hello;
“1. The scientific method is limited (Popper isn’t God, you know
). So much useful science does not conform the the text-book definition of science.” Well, Kuhn himself, who was the leading figure of what you are tryin to say with his “paradigm shifts” or scientific revolutions, didn’t mean that the new stuff of the new textbook is accepted without passing trough the usual filters; what is known today is going to change a lot, but because of empirical evidence, and even someone as relativist and postmodern as Kuhn accepts that. The hardcore scientific criteria is amazingly usefull, otherwise in Europe we would still be thinking that the earth is flat: what you are saying is that we should accept anything as it comes.
“For example, quantum physics must take into account the consciousness of the observer and is therefore not longer empirical.” What? That’s plain bollocks! What quantum mechanics say is that when you meassure a system it changes, and therefore you can’t meassure it in its original state, or, more clearly, you can’t meassure different parameters of the same system in the same instant. Qantum mecaanics makes perfect scientific sense, even if it defyes common sense; empirical evidence is there, including predictions and everything that makes a scientific theory a theory about reality.
“Astronomy is often not repeatable - they speculate about the origins of the Universe and strange undetectable particles.” Exactly, they speculate, and they say it clearly and loud, they don’t say that they know what happened in the origin of the universe. The particles are detectable, and in fact there lots of predicted particles that have not been detected and therefore no one accepts that exist till they are detected.
“2.- ” We are similar to apes in exactly the opposite way as a fiat and a mercedes are: imagine that you see a piece of software with 1000000 lines, and those lines are exactly similar to another code, in exactly the same way: the same comments, the same coding style, the same errors, … they are similiarities astronomically improbable if we are not talking of the same origin.
“As previously stated, genealogical records from more advanced species are proof because otherwise they know better than we do.” Assuming that those entities exist, something you haven’t demonstrated.
“3.-” Evolution is not step by step. Why don’t you listen to what I say?
“5. So-called paranormal physical phenomena have been studied and documented by such prominent scientists as Marie Curie, Pierre Curie and Alfred Russell Wallace (co-author of Origin of Species). I only call them paranormal because that is the language I was taught in school. Perhaps a better term is: “phenomena not explainable by physics as it currently standsâ€.” Well yes and Newton literally believed in fairy tales (he was psicologically very unstable); so what?
This is the best bit:
“Broad-minded, humble, non-envious science “. What about all the religions that say all they want about the realitiy, without any evidence, and deny what science say? Are they humble? Or all the religions that imposse sexual repression and hypocrisy around the world? I’m not going to go on with this discussion. This is completely useless.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“hardcore scientific criteria is amazingly useful”
I’m not saying it isn’t useful, but there are some things it doesn’t work for.
“Qantum mecaanics makes perfect scientific sense”
That is just one interpretation of the ramification of quantum weirdness. Other scientists have other opinions (like the one I presented). Those people that think they must take into account the very thing that is doing the studying: namely consciousness. Doing so violating the principle of objectivity in the definition of science. I don’t think that this makes these researchers any less credible. Others, of course, disagree, as evidenced by the previous comment.
“similiarities astronomically improbable if we are not talking of the same origin.”
Or the same designer…
“What about all the religions …”
I’m not talking about all religions. I can only speak for Krishna Consciousness. The Vedic literature go way beyond ordinary religion.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to surrender to particular processes of learning. Some people surrender to normal schools and universities, listen to and learn from their teachers there. Other people surrender to Krishna and listen to and learn from his teachings (while respecting the normal process where it is useful). Both processes require a degree of surrender, both offer a degree of scientific proof. However, devotees of the former process tend to categorically reject the latter. What can be done?
January 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Proposed doctrines such as this should be required to have a large warning label attached. Caution: “Those who believe in absurdities will always commit atrocities.” [Voltaire]
January 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“The besides explaining the different planets in the Universe the Bhagavatam also describes the many different means of interstellar travel. Read and learn.”
Hi, where can I find that information. I scrolled through your link but couldn’t work out the part where it talked about how to travel?
January 6th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Right, the link just goes to a description of various planets. Descriptions of travel are more distributed. The Bhagavatam doesn’t make a big deal out it. Its main emphasis is spiritual realization, meaning of life, etc. Other topics are covered in that light. So, there will be a story of some spiritual significance and interstellar travel will be mentioned as an aside. For example:
The great sages known as the four Kumaras travel to the bottom of the Universe to Lord Sankarsana a question. They transport themselves by taking advantage of an interstellar river that connects all worlds/planets/dimensions.
http://vedabase.net/sb/3/8/5/
The demon Salva acquires a powerful airship/flying saucer with various weapons, a cloaking device and the ability to teleport instantly between locations. He uses this vehicle to attack the city of Dvaraka.
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/76/summary/en
King Priyavrata would rather meditate all day than accept responsibility for ruling his kingdom, so, because he is a very exalted personality and was living in a time when contact with alien life was more frequent, Lord Brahma (from the highest planet/dimension in the Universe) visits him and enlightens him as to how to do his duty without giving up his spiritual practice. Brahma travels in a swan-like biological aircraft.
http://vedabase.net/sb/5/1/8/en3
Fairy tales by some 5000-year old science fiction writer aiming to delude the masses, or evidence of advanced technology and mystic powers that we refuse to accept might exist?
Those are just some examples. There are many more in the pages of the Bhagavatam. You might also want to check out a book called “Easy Journey to Other Planets“
January 13th, 2007 at 6:57 am
There are people shorter than me, and taller than me
There are people dumber than me, and people smarter than me.
There are spicies dimmer than me, there must me spicies more intelegent than me.
logic. right? is there some rule that cancels out the posibility of there being somthing smarter than man?
even if Mik were the smartest person on the planet wouldn’t all reason, logic and scientific data show that there most likely is something somwhere smarter?
say its a fish….. call it Matsya
But if Mik can’t see Matsya does that mean the Fish doesn’t exist? If Mik can’t see his mind does that mean … uh….. well there’s proof right?
mind or never mind, Mik wants to know more.
…… say the Fish finds a way to teach Mik in a way that a lesser intelect could understand. But Mik won’t begin to try and take his teachings ’cause a teaching Fish dosn’t fit into Miks Smartest-Man-on-the-planet veiw. Is that a problem with the Fish or with Mik?
knowledge is out there its just a mater if you want to take it or not.
it’s all up to you to figure out. For your sake. Do you realy want to understand? or do you just want to act like you do.