why DID we evolve into humans?

Well, I doubt it.No, seriously. Maybe you've heard of people like me? They're called "atheists", or sometimes "agnostics." Basically we're people who demand a somewhat greater burden of proof be met than just some dude on the internet telling us "there is no doubt."

No, actually, the forum is to explore the controversy between evolution and creationism. This particular topic is in the category of "human origins", which refers to the sciences of paleontology and anthropology (and obviously to their union, paleoanthropology) in regards to the specific origins and history of the human species and its precursors. I don't get why that seems so reasonable to you that you don't feel the need to defend that. Things that actually happen leave evidence. If we experience something for which there is no evidence, that's a pretty good reason to question the authenticity of the experience.I mean, every one of us experiences hallucinations every night. Literally, we experience events - often with incredible realism, clarity, and a sense of authenticity - that aren't actually occuring. Is it so unreasonable for someone, then, to be skeptical of an apparently authentic event for which there was no evidence? Well, I think I pretty much did. There's a whole host of explanations for why someone would have an experience that "proves" to them that there's a God; almost every alternate explanation is considerably simpler and therefore much more reasonable than the proposition "there actually is a God." Sure. But that's hardly a reason to abandon the tentative conclusion that they don't happen, or to stop reasoning from that premise.

That's hardly my position. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "skepticism"? Skepticism is merely the position that we don't rush to judgement about something in the absence of any evidence for or against it. Not that we rush to dismiss the stuff we don't have ironclad proof for.But, nontheless, some "experiences" are so out of the realm of probability given our current understanding of the universe. So, which is more reasonable to you:1) Rejecting as tenatively false one single, unsubstantiated report of an experience by one person.
2) Rejecting as tenatively false the rest of our physical knowledge about the universe, which has been verified by countless experiments, on the basis of one single unsubstantiated report of an experience by one person. But that's just nonsense. It's devoid of meaning. "An expanded state of consciousness?" Expanded to what? Expanded where? He's using words that sound like they mean something, but it's just the metaphysical hocus pocus words that people have used for centuries to talk about something they don't know anything about. What evidence does he present for these claims?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-18-2006 11:09 AM