Staredit Network

The site isn't factually biased, but surely you can't have failed to notice the abundance of sarcasm contained within those pages? Sarcasm is used to devalue the opposing side in an argument, and hence the site becomes horribly subjective on a subliminal level.

But they never use sarcasm to change the facts - that no one has been able to scientifically prove their supernatural abilities in a double-blind test conducted by them. Don't get us skeptics wrong, either. We'd love to see concrete, solid evidence of the supernatural. I think that would be the coolest thing ever. But wishful thinking in the face of scientific evidence is fallacious.

If you have any understanding of subliminal media techniques then you'll see that there is a substantial editorial bias on the site. The facts aren't changed, you're right, but the way that they are presented could be more objective.

Well, first of all, it can work. It could be a mutation. Secondly, who's to say it has to make sense evolutionarily? Refer to my comment about *T.V.*'s and *2000 years ago*.

I can say that any person who has personal experience with seeing Chakras has evidence, even if that evidence means nothing to another. And I don't see why thousands of people would lie about that thing.

Erm... which above? =\

Umm... how did I imply that?

Can you say mutation? Just not to mention Occam's Razor... to that 'wonderful' comment on how evolutionary speakin' it's impossible for a brain to work.
Please present evidences of that claim. *Ponders if it's won't turn into another Creation vs. Evo' thread after this*

See corals as a possible example of systems evolving (common stomach, for instance). So it could happen similar to the nervous network system.

Auras... there really isn't any proof of it, and it also doesn't seem to fit well into the main religions or "logical conclusions" (except hindu or shinto)

P.S. Basan, one thing I have realized most about mutation is that: can't a creature de-evolve? I mean, if a molecule "randomly" mutates into another molecule, can't by chance have it "randomly" change back into the first molecule?

Yes, but it would take thousands if not millions of years for someone to develop the ability to see and interpret things outside the optical spectrum. What you are essentially saying is that someone was, for example, born with the ability to see in infrared.


I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying that evolution wouldn't occur because of Occam's Razor? Because if you are that would be wrong...


Things evolve, but we don't see fire-breathing pigs just because one of them has a mutation.


ADDITION:

Things cannot devolve. For example if over millions of years humans start to turn into more chimpanzee-like creatures and it didn't hurt our chances of survival, we would still be evolving, not devolving. You and I have different DNA, but that doesn't make us different creatures. It would take much more different DNA for one of us to not be considered human.

A- Not necesarily.
B- As I also said, it might not necesarily be an evolution. Though I currently do not believe in God, I believe in the possibility of God, and thusly that he could have meddled with us. Possibly our eyes. Possibly our brains. Possibly just our minds.

Uh-oh... communication breakdown... (>.<) In its most basic form, evolution means "change" correct? Well, when i meant "de"evolve, i was arguing against macroevolution. Let's take this example: Let's say over millions of years, some humans mutated into super-humans (like superheros) ok? Now, even though because they have super-powers they have a BETTER chance of survival and reproduce, normal humans still have a good chance of surviving ok? CAN or CANNOT over millions of years the super-human cells mutate back into normal humans? Think of it like "one step forward, one step back". That is plausible right? That is what I meant when i was using the word de-evolve.

Now, what you are stating in your quote is true. Microevolution (evolution meaning "change") exists and can be easily proven. It DOES take much more DNA for one of us to not be considered human. I still don't understand how evolutionists don't believe in some "divine force" yet wilfully believe that nature will push mankind toward perfection.

NOW ANYWAYS.... what are all your views upon Shakras? (Not Shakuras, thats the DT homeworld) I don't know if they exists... but what do YOU, the people, think?

Perfection is based on human perception and interpretation, not science. If you understand evolutionary theory at all, you should realize that perfection is an impossible circumstance. Do you consider humans to be perfect in our current state, even though we lack the "motivation" (by that I mean circumstances and possibility of gradual extinction) to evolve?

Yep, if the surrounding environment changes back to what it used to be influencing it to do it (in possible time to survive). From where I see it we already have examples of it, in whales n' dolphins. A return to the origin, sorta.



And what's the problem with that? See above for details on why it could happen.



Sorry. I was just trying to see ahead as proves my comment on pondering. Your 1st comment seemed a little too much creationist flame bait for my taste.



Same as above. Environment dictates the paths for evo' to take over.



That's where I divert from you. As my 1st reply paragraph states.



Snap! You've self answered your previous 'doubt'. *Meh*

Edit add:


Ta da! Perfectly summed. *Pats on Nozumu's back*

Of course they are real, they are like vibes u can feel them when u walk into a room or when u get too close to a person... some of them are good some are bad just like music.