Just saw Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled" about the issues of Darwinism......

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

The evolution vs. creationism argument isn't even about science, but about one group wanting to ignore scientific evidence when it suits them, in order to prop up a pre-existing idea they don't want to lose. That's all. The science isn't up for debate, as to do that requires evidence. Creationists have none. None at all.

So......then why all the fighting back against those who want to believe some magic thing put them here? If one group wants to ignore the blue sky so what? Let them ignore the blue sky.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So......then why all the fighting back against those who want to believe some magic thing put them here? If one group wants to ignore the blue sky so what? Let them ignore the blue sky.

Unfortunately, the IDers don't want to just ignore the blue sky. They want to convince everyone else that the sky isn't blue. If they just wanted to ignore the scientific evidence that would be one thing, but they are actively trying to convince people that the scientific evidence isn't real.

-Derek

Originally posted by dave420
No-one's saying anyone can't challenge evolution. In fact, science demands it happens.

It's Mister Dawkins stated view that he will not debate or discuss intelligent design with anyone as it would lend them credibility. Please do not pretend that scientist like their views challenged! If you must claim that the scientific method requires such then do so.

Yet so far the only "challenges" that have faced it from the Creationist camp have been childish at best.

And since you are yet to mention one of those arguments ( while i have mentioned a few very scientific questions that could be raised by even the stupidest ID proponent) that are so 'childish' i will just presume that you are yet again trying to shut down the discussion with blanket statements.

So debating a baseless theory (which Creationism is, as it's based solely 100% on the Bible, which is not a scientific document)

Who said anything about using the bible as scientific document? We are discussing INTELLIGENT DESIGN not the damn book of Genesis! Can't you tell he difference between the religious arguments and the truly scientific question about the origins and evolution of life? If you can't you really have no business discussing ID or evolution as your bias is clearly preventing you from focusing on what i have in fact claimed. Creationism is NOT 100% based on the bible and this is just another ad logic fallacy meant to discourage interaction.

n the same regard as a scientific theory is pandering to religious types who want equality where none should exist.

And that just means that religious people , as other human beings would, use whatever information best suits their self interested agenda. This most certainly does not mean that the field becomes discredited! Should we dismantle all rockets and rocket technology because the Germans made V-2s? Should we dismantle nuclear power stations because some nations used , and plan to use, nuclear weapons? Can't we instead discuss the best ideas and most objective theories of those scientist who have proposed ideas in this field? Why debase it by painting with such a broad brush ?

You want to challenge evolution with everything you throw at it, yet somehow scientists aren't allowed to throw their hands up in the air and laugh out loud at the ridiculous claim that is the unfounded theory of creationism.

The challenging has been done over a century by thousands of biologist who have noted contradictions which either led to refinements in the theory or were simply ignored because there are no evident solutions. Fact is if i go up against the scientific 'consensus' about evolution i will have my work cut out for me even if had multiple degrees from the best universities and decades of experience and tenure. You do NOT upset norms so easily but yet all these thousands of scientist and their establishment power will stage a full on onslaught against the few scientist who dare speak out about their belief in some kind of intelligent intervention? Why does the 'consensus' and 'norm' need so much defending? Don't rome have plenty of legions or are they all mercenaries who will leave abruptly if the tide changes? Why is the establishment so afraid of when hundreds of thousands of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens? Do they REALLY believe a few scientist who gains public platforms will make the American public any more or less ignorant despite their supposed best efforts? It makes more sense to consider the whole scientific establishment a massive house of cards in a house with closed windows in a very windy country.....

When that happens, it's an evil plot by atheists to trample christianity. Oh the irony.

The problem is that they are not merely throwing their hands up in the air about the 'ridiculous' nature of it but are in fact viciously attacking it in academic circles ( as if that would be needed if it was so ridiculous) and doing their best to make sure that no journal will even LOOK at it. They are trying to suppress the discussion which is VERY different from merely laughing , shaking their heads and going back to work. When these people get riled up they use all their contacts to bring a avalanche of criticism, misinformation and lies down on the heads of those stupidly brave enough to say what they know will get them in trouble.

Science isn't a free-for-all where anyone can say anything they want.

I suppose there are two schools of thought here as clearly there seems to be a agenda that funds some kinds of research over others. I think there is a free for all but only after some very powerful figures and educational institutions had largely framed and decided the boundaries of the discussion. Intelligent design is simply NOT part of the decided upon convention thus the tremendous outpouring of anger and bile on those who dare to pose questions outside of the 'box'.

Evidence talks, and so far Creationists have been vewy vewy quiet.

I am getting the distinct feeling that you know even less than i do about evolutionary biology, anthropology and history in general. Maybe we should start introducing some facts and figures so we can see if you what you defending!

Unless you count rehashing the same debunked points again and again, which only serves to further establish creationism as the wishful thinking of some confused people into the origins of animals as we know them.

Which debunked points? Did anyone ever admit that they had been debunked or is that just the summary of those who once again wish not to discuss it at all?

So please - enlighten us with these "great masses of information and 'evidence'" that contradicts evolution. Please. And be aware I said "contradicts" not "says something evolution doesn't cover", as the two are very different indeed. If you're right, you could win a nobel prize!

I don't even have a personal problem with evolution as such but at least i am aware of the inherent flaws and presumed facts. Obviously i don't think we haven't learnt much by investigation based on it but serious objections can be raised as to the relevance when the following has been known to be possible for decades on end:

The man was 44-years-old at the time, married with two children, and worked as a civil servant. He went to hospital after suffering mild left leg weakness. He was treated by Dr Lionel Feuillet and colleagues, Hôpital de la Timone and Faculté de Médecine, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France, who authored the clinical update.

Analysis of the man’s medical history revealed at the age of six months, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus (water on the brain), of unknown cause. At the age of 14, he had complained of unsteadiness and left leg weakness, which cleared up after the shunt was revised. His neurological development and medical history were otherwise normal.

www.sciencedaily.com...

French doctors are amazed that a 44-year-old civil servant with an abnormally small brain has led a normal life with a slightly lower than normal IQ, according to a report on Physorg.com.

Doctors said the father of two went to the Hopital de la Timone in Marseille with mild weakness in his left leg. He was given a CT scan and an MRI, which showed that his cerebral cavities or ventricles had massively expanded, according a case history to be published in Saturday's Lancet.

"The brain itself, meaning the grey matter and white matter, was completely crushed against the sides of the skull," Dr. Lionel Feuillet told AFP. "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent."

www.foxnews.com...

( even a broken watch get's it right twice a day)

www.alternativescience.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the type of objection that absolutely lays waste to many evolutionary biology fields. It's not that any one of them is sufficient but that there are so many of them that they long ago should have undermined the field enough to redirect and reconsider how it all happened so fast.

And saying Social Darwinism is accepted in science is hilarious. If that were the case, then there would be no medical research, as that flies in the face of Social Darwinism.

Medicine as field does not fly in the face of science as that statement rests on the presumption that those in power can not in many ways regulates who receives help. In North American and much of the developing world only those who either have the money or the government contacts are going to get the help they need with anyone else having to get by ( 50% of US bankruptcy cases due to medical costs ) by whatever means possible. It is also well documented that medicine has on numerous occasions been held up by powerful and influential men in the field due to conflicts with their own beliefs. At least that's the way it's presented but there may obviously have been a larger agenda.

The fact medicine is one of the most exalted fields of science should tell you just how much claptrap that assertion is.

Exaggerated and inflated claims are certainly common and by looking at who gets treated and who does not it's perfectly obvious that capitalism and medicine likes each other and don't serve people.


Continued

Going as far as saying Darwin was a racist, which is a point that has been debunked thousands of times before, shows you are willing to say anything to "win" your debate.

Darwin was a racist ( or a realist as racist likes to claim) and you would only have had to read his 'descent of man' to come to grips with some of ludicrous things he believed. Maybe he wasn't a racist and simply a idiot who really believed all those things about other 'races'?

Banging on about the Congo and the media silence that surrounded it has nothing to do with this argument, unless you paranoically condense media and science into the same entity, which wouldn't surprise me

Well don't you think we would have know more about the flaws and contradictions in science , especially those that affect our health, if the media actually reported on these things often? How do you think GM crops spread around the world at such a alarming pace without media coverage but against public opinion? Don't you see that the same people who own the media are the people who issue the grants and decide where the worlds best minds are directed? Isn't that we the majority of American scientist are working for the pentagon?

Also, if it's not been covered in the media, how do you know about it? Were you there?

Well it's a bit closer to us but mostly it's because i try to keep myself informed about what's happening in the world. It's not that you can't find the news but that you have to be looking for it!

And then talking about Iraq? You know who masterminded Iraq? Christians. Great job there, folks. Jesus would be proud.

And i think this reveals how easily you can associate without reason. To suggest that George W, Donald Rumself, Dick cheney, Karl Rove and Richard pearl are 'Christian' is patently ludicrous. I can see now why you so easily confuse the fundamentalist religious creatist with the more logical and scientific ID.

Read what a certain Dr. Dawkins wrote to a confused person who saw the movie in question. It's pretty concise.

I actually read three of his books so i am well aware of his views and how he contradicts even himself if given enough pages to do so.

Stellar

Originally posted by derekcbart
Unfortunately, the IDers don't want to just ignore the blue sky. They want to convince everyone else that the sky isn't blue.

SOME of them do just as SOME 'scientist' do not want anything related to ID appearing on TV or be discussed in school classrooms. Thing is despite the so called 'fundamentalist' nature of the religious masses they are allowing their children to be taught about evolution and i think it's only fair that if some now demand SOME time to discuss the very real possibility that life or humans have been tampered with the science establishment has no business going into a frenzy. If you can't trust kids to be able to tell the science fiction from the science fact then your either very bad at teaching or backing the wrong horse.

If they just wanted to ignore the scientific evidence that would be one thing, but they are actively trying to convince people that the scientific evidence isn't real.

-Derek

And this is exactly what the science establishments of the world are doing by suppressing dissent and generally ensuring that those who speak out wont easily find a good day job again. Again the presumption is unilaterally made that ID does not appeal to scientific observation when nothing can be further from the truth. There are plenty of holes to poke at and it's really not the fault of the ID crowd that they can reach the guts of the evolutionary theory trough them. If 'scientist' can't plug the holes or come up with solid reasoning i don't know why they should be protected from the due criticism.

Stellar

Here's a few good proofs...

video.google.com...
video.google.com...

I see the media has done a bang up job of infecting peoples minds with rubbish concerning this issue.

NEWSFLASH - Intelligent Design is NOT creationism, one is related to a biblical tale the other is about the incredible biological code within DNA, and the amazing molecular machines within cells. None of which was known by Darwin, the discovery hasn't changed the underlying (19th century) theory one bit, it still has no explanation as to how the inorganic became organic.

The biological code is far more complicated than any software created by man. You can hold all of the DNA biological information for every single life form on Earth in a teaspoon and still have room for every single book ever written.

Random chance? I don't think so. Nature is still trying to produce a species that is capable of understanding the code, obviously it hasn't achieved this yet. Nature is still a vastly better coder than man by many magnitudes.

Nature more INTELLIGENT than man? of course!



[edit on 23-4-2008 by squiz]

reply to post by StellarX


As soon as ID comes up with anything scientific then it can be discussed in a science classroom. So far, it hasn't. Keep in mind that NO ONE is saying that the bible cannot be taught in a sociology class, or a literature class, or a comparative religion class. It is fine in any of those classes, but not in a science class because it is not science.

Also, please keep in mind that science teachers have actually lost their jobs because they refused teaching non-scientific claims in the science class. These people have actually lost their jobs, unlike any of the claimants in the "Expelled" movie.
www.youtube.com...
www.nytimes.com...

Hey Dave420,

You said something to the extent of this debate being logic & reason vs. faith & imagination.

I would have to challenge you and say that for me it's logic & reason vs. transcendence & direct experience (i.e. knowing)

Being a spiritual man who has experienced the divine directly as a result of reading holy writings, meditation, and practicing other spiritual excercises....... I have to say that I do not live off faith but I live off knowing directly the divine to be true and existant.

While there is allot of dogma, faith that there is more, and literal interpretations of "things," I gotta say there is large number of people on this planet perhaps in the millions, that have also experienced what I have and know that there is things beyond logic, reason, the here, the now, and all this physical matter, including life after death (consciousness continues)

So not to be an elitist or anything of that matter because I am be NO MEANS WHAT SO EVER, better than anyone here. But I was super blessed to be able to exprience these realities, whereas the majority of scientists havent and they remain in the confines of the mere limits of logic and reason....the very 2 things that wont allow you to see past the here now...to the divine.

Is it an objective thing on my part???? I think not because I share what I know beyond faith through experience with countless others have...leading to some level of objectivity...and definately out-numbering the scientists that are agreeing on logic/reason "things"...I say this in terms of numbers and percentages.

But to get to the main point. I have experienced numerous times what Steins documentary claims, and have seen so with my own eyes before the docu ever came out.

Call it what you want lies, deception, fake, etc....thing is there is a ton of truth in there.....I would go as far as to say that I can have one of you naysayers hold a camera and ask questions around scientific academia...and you'll get 2 sides of the story.

1. The elitist evolutionists defending evolution while bashing I.D. as well as denying that an I.D., and for that matter a free speech blockade exists.
2. On the other hand the sympathizers will all tell you that what Steins documentary is claiming, really is happening.

Like one poster claimed a few posts ago......while still in school the hunt for truth is rampant....then when the realizations of needing grant money comes to fruition.....these scientists throw it all out the window and become the "yes-men" that the funders what them to be.

And the people at the top funding these things, the true global elitists, are nothing nice with very bad agendas for us as a global society....some say they are more akin to social and racial darwinists that say the high population is a threat and they'll go through any means to "reduce" this issue.

Now that's what some say, authors, scholars, and quite a few politicians from around the world.....but thats a whole different topic I accidentally branched out on. Let's just say the current issues the U.S. and the rest of the world are facing, are mostly pre-planned and pre-constructed by a select few at the very top....the same few who give the grant funding to academia, and this is all factual matters that can be researched!!!!!!!!

And now, theft!

This just in: Ono sues over Imagine film clip.

Yoko Ono is suing Ben Stein and his pals for stealing one of the greatest works of one of the world's greatest songwriters for use in their contemptible little film.

reply to post by Astyanax


and a song that has this line it it, at that:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

eh?

honestly, this thread is the ignorant arguments against evolution repeated ad nauseum...

to StellarX:
go to this thread if you think ID is science

i can already tell you that it's nothing of the sort, it's just as scientific as astrology (even Behe admits that)
unfalsifiable, no predictions made, entirely ignoring the problem that it's a circular argument

yes, it's a circular argument. it provides no independent proof for the designer
the supposed appearance of design is proof of the designer...that's a recursive loop.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
eh?

honestly, this thread is the ignorant arguments against evolution repeated ad nauseum...

In many cases, yes.

to StellarX:
if you think ID is science

i can already tell you that it's nothing of the sort, it's just as scientific as astrology (even Behe admits that)

I don't thinking is really required to understand that anyone who excludes the possibility of intelligent ( call them ET's if you have a problem with whichever god) design/changes in our DNA. Frankly it's more fundamentalist to exclude such thinking than it is to consider the possibility while reading the main stream evolutionary biology/archaeology books that i do!

unfalsifiable, no predictions made, entirely ignoring the problem that it's a circular argument

Unfalsifiable may be a requirement of scientific process but it has no bearing on the ultimate truth. Behe does make predictions and while at least some have been seriously undermined that in itself can never discredit the theory that there were intelligent interventions. If the 'science' establishments wishes to exclude certain tracks of investigation that is most certain part and parcel of what they have been doing for centuries but it's never changed the ultimate outcome and discovery of what most closely approaches a objective truth.

yes, it's a circular argument. it provides no independent proof for the designer the supposed appearance of design is proof of the designer...that's a recursive loop.

In ten thousand years we have not added one grain crop to the table ( despite the fact that dozens suddenly appeared on the scene all around the world introducing the agricultural revolution) and i have yet to see a convincing argument as to which hunter gatherer groups spent hundreds of years trying to create modern grains from wild inedible one's. Since this seems to generally agree with the almost complete absence of transitional forms in the known fossil record it has led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain why the places where the fossil record is most complete also happens to show no traces of transitional forms.

Thus the original theory of evolution have been adapted when it's original premise has been consistently shown to be false. If the few scientist who are actually engaged in investigation of intelligent design is granted these same right to change their theories to reflect a absence of evidence we wouldn't have half the problem and ID could easily be called 'science' in the best tradition of the unscientific methods of scientist in general.

Basically the science establishments have since Darwin's time tried to employ science towards promotion of a anti-religious philosophy which is ironic given the fact that science claims that discussion about god to be non-scientific and thus not within it's realm. There ARE at least a few philosophers of science that have gone on record in stating that inferring design is NOT unscientific as it's done every day in other fields.

Stellar

Mwahahahahaha

Almost the only words of MiMS's post not quoted in the preceding post:

go to this thread

As the author of said thread, I must say I feel a bit left out.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by StellarX
In ten thousand years we have not added one grain crop to the table (despite the fact that dozens suddenly appeared on the scene all around the world introducing the agricultural revolution) and i have yet to see a convincing argument as to which hunter gatherer groups spent hundreds of years trying to create modern grains from wild inedible one's. Since this seems to generally agree with the almost complete absence of transitional forms in the known fossil record it has led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain why the places where the fossil record is most complete also happens to show no traces of transitional forms.
Stellar

Have you ever eaten corn? Corn, also known as Maize, as it exists today is an evolved plant. It started as a form of grass that was domesticated and modified through the evolutionary process to become the food that we eat today.

en.wikipedia.org...

On the larger scale almost every form of food that we eat today is the result of evolutionary change that was created due to selective breeding (en.wikipedia.org...).

So, your statement that "we have not added one grain crop to the table" is simply not correct. For more information you can read about neolithic founder crops (en.wikipedia.org...) and overall agriculture history (en.wikipedia.org...).

-Derek

Originally posted by derekcbart
Have you ever eaten corn? Corn, also known as Maize, as it exists today is an evolved plant.

Obviously so but where did it come from and why don't we know how they achieved the feat of turning wild growing inedible plants into staple foods?

It is unknown what precipitated its domestication, because the edible portion of the wild variety is too small and hard to obtain to be eaten directly, as each kernel is enclosed in a very hard bi-valve shell. However, George Beadle demonstrated that the kernels of teosinte are readily "popped" for human consumption, like modern popcorn. Some have argued that it would have taken too many generations of selective breeding in order to produce large compressed ears for efficient cultivation. However, studies of the hybrids readily made by intercrossing teosinte and modern maize suggest that this objection is not well-founded.

en.wikipedia.org...

It started as a form of grass that was domesticated and modified through the evolutionary process to become the food that we eat today.

en.wikipedia.org...

IS what scientist have been claiming for long time! As for evidence they just don't have it but have naturally assumed that it must be evolution since intelligent design or meddling can't be considered. Can scientist effectively investigate reality when they are excluding some areas in favor or others?

On the larger scale almost every form of food that we eat today is the result of evolutionary change that was created due to selective breeding (en.wikipedia.org...).

Selective breeding with what i ask? If you can't eat it from day one why on earth are you hunter gatherers going to spent a hundred years or more trying to breed certain varieties HOPING that it may become edible? Was the knowledge of the possibility of how to do this even available ten thousand years ago? It's PRESUMED that that is what they must have done but as to why they would have kept at this for generations with no great benefit is any persons guess! Please don't tell me the standard explanations as i am well aware and actually used to believe in them just as you still do today.

So, your statement that "we have not added one grain crop to the table" is simply not correct.

So, if you don't mind, please show me a plant/grain that was not edible twenty thousand years ago, but is today, and then please refer me to how it's alleged that this was managed and how it's proposed they did it. Obviously modern chemically processes can't be used to make it safe for eating as i think we are presuming that they had no such technologies back then?

For more information you can read about neolithic founder crops (en.wikipedia.org...) and overall agriculture history (en.wikipedia.org...).

-Derek

Well it's not like this is the first time i read about this issue but thanks for going to all that trouble. As i said 'domestication' happened far too fast and in far too many isolated places at once and i have yet to hear a explanation as to how many of these 'crops' became edible in the first place.

For instance:

Among the world's cultivated species this tribe has some of the most complex genetic histories. An example is bread wheat, which contains the genomes of three species, only one of them originally a wheat Triticum species. Seed storage proteins in Triticeae are implicated in various food allergies and intolerances.

en.wikipedia.org...

Werren and Clark are now looking further into the huge insert found in the fruitfly, and whether it is providing a benefit. “The chance that a chunk of DNA of this magnitude is totally neutral, I think, is pretty small, so the implication is that it has imparted of some selective advantage to the host,” says Werren. “The question is, are these foreign genes providing new functions for the host" This is something we need to figure out.”

Evolutionary biologists will certainly take note of this discovery, but scientists conducting genome-sequencing projects around the world also may have to readjust their thinking.

Before this study, geneticists knew of examples where genes from a parasite had crossed into the host, but such an event was considered a rare anomaly except in very simple organisms. Bacterial DNA is very conspicuous in its structure, so if scientists sequencing a nematode genome, for example, come across bacterial DNA, they would likely discard it, reasonably assuming that it was merely contamination—perhaps a bit of bacteria in the gut of the animal, or on its skin.

www.eurekalert.org...

So that's basically my question to everyone who can't see the relationship between monolithic type constructions all over the world in the same era of domestication of crops. Where did all the knowledge comes from so suddenly and how did such useful gene transfers take place over such a short space of time?

Doesn't it look like a intelligent intervention to you? Doesn't all these societies talk about the 'gods' who brought them all this knowledge? Do you at least see where i am coming from without having to presume that i am religious or don't know how science should work?

Stellar

[edit on 25-4-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX


There is a "design" to nature, but it is a bottom-up type of design that occurs naturally and not a top-down type of design that would occur by a "designer".

We see the bottom-up design in bacteria as well as plants and animals. ID proponents tend to say that a particular object (eyeball, flagellum, etc.) is so perfect that if you removed any part that it wouldn't work anymore. What is typically misunderstood is that you do not need the current design of an object to be the only design. The flagellum may not work the same way if you take part of it away today, but evidence shows that another earlier form of the flagellum provides another perfectly usable function. It was adaptation that changed the earlier flagellum to the modern flagellum (or eye or whatever object you choose).

-Derek

originally posted by StellarX
Unfalsifiable may be a requirement of scientific process but it has no bearing on the ultimate truth

I think that is really the crux of the whole issue. The Atheistic scientists are whining about ID not meeting the requirements of formal "science". The scientific method is just a method, it seems likely that it is inadequate for the determination of origins. Are we searching for science or truth?

BigWHammy,
Exactly my pont.....the current state of science is limited by all its rules, methods, and regulations.....on top of which the hunt for truth gets trown out the window when its time to get that grant money.

Being in this position, our scientific progress is by defualt limited by all these pegs in place. If it were not this way, it would all move much quicker.

But it is what it is. At least for me knowing directly that Intelligent Design is truth, I know that eventually I will get the last laugh.

When i was studying Geology, at the very beginning i emailed my lecturer once asking him on his thoughts on Atlantis, and the bastard never wrote back but he sure as hell replied to other emails regarding my marks.

Its all BS, universities that are public are funded by the govt..there is your answer.

im sure he has an opinion about atlantis but he didnt want to share it with me fearing that if i forwarded his reply to his peers or something to that degree he would be ridiculed.

i will not go to uni because i have a brain and do not want my thinking to be "shaped" by idiocy and total BS that they "teach" you

you know what i mean, i'll clarify if anyone wants me to. right now im 2 mins past my lunch break and im going home for a bit.

O

Originally posted by dominicus
Myself having experienced spiritual enlightenment first hand, I know subjectively and objectively that God is real....objectively because others I know have shared my experiences. You see God cannot be found and seen using Logic and reason....the two most important and fundamental faculties used in science.

God is found in the sytematic surpassing/transcending of these faculties (logic/reason) using a number of different techniques and excercises. Of course if you dont do them and you are still staying within the limited confines of logic and reason...then yes I see how most of you do not have room for God. I was once there myself in the limited way of being, until being spiritually freed.

Friend, I was with you whole-heartedly up until these paragraphs.

After all, what is science if not subject to new ideas and change? It would be a religion, of course.

However...I don't buy anyones "spiritual enlightenment", no matter how they feel it happened or what the event or outcomes area. I'm sorry, it didn't happen. Your brain spazzed and you hallucinated whatever it is you saw.

Perception is so dodgy that if you walked into a room and watched a distinctive-looking guy murdering someone in cold blood, your personal testemony would not be enought to get them locked up.

When I was doing A-level Psychology, we were asked to watch a video of a mugging (staged, of course!), and basically remember the major points. Only one woman in the classroom even noticed the robber had a gun! (I was staggered, and burst out "what the hell did you think he was threatening him with then??" at the women).

The brain's chemical balance gets funny under certain conditions, and your pineal gland is responsible for some odd stuff too. I'm sorry, you can't say "reason and logic don't apply" because they apply to everything, without exception (other than organised religion!) and there is no escaping them.

I realise I'm throwing good words after bad here, as I won't have changed your point of view, but I say this in the hopes that you might listen, because I was so impressed with the eloquence of your post and so staggered by the "folksy" belief from someone who seems quite on the ball.