You tell me.
What I could tell you is what type of evidence would actually confirm the existence of ghosts.
Someone would need a way to reliably and consistently observe some sort of essence that leaves the body upon death, and they would need to be able to track this essence reliably. They...
Knowing full and well the tendencies of people's associative train of thought, it doesn't count as evidence for the paranormal. Their interpretations don't need consideration. A solid connection needs to first be made with dead people.
That should go for people's alleged ghost experiences too...
Macroevolution doesn't require hybridization. I don't know where you got that from. No one has claimed that the diversity of lifeforms is due to hybridization.
Like I said, argue against what evolution claims. Don't say it claims something it doesn't, then argue against that claim. I don't know...
That runs into a problem when most people's anecdotal claims are due to having the same mentality I've described. i.e. they don't know how to say "I don't know" and automatically... automatically associate strange occurrences (stuff move by it self, shadowy figures) as the work of dead people...
You keep talking about evidence when you haven't presented any.
It sounds more you believe your so called "theories" only because it's the only one you've taken the time to look into. More-so than both the well understood explanations (such as hallucinations), as well as the other equally...
Your point? Like I said, evolution works by organisms splitting into various subsets. Nothing stops being what it is. Humans never stopped being apes. Apes never stopped being primates. Primates never stopped being mammals. Mammals never stopped being vertebrates.
Be less vague please. If you see a chair float in the air by it self, and a shadow figure float by a moment later, how do you confirm it's a dead person? As oppose to any other radical claim? (such as an alien or a time traveler)?
Never mind hallucinations or mistaken assessment. We're gonna...
Could you, like.... elaborate on that? Just saying it dovetails nicely and that nothing else is more "reasonable", doesn't really tell me anything.
I'm asking you why you think it's more reasonable. Responding with "because I heard nothing else that's reasonable" isn't an answer. That's just...
Why is that the most reasonable theory? People who see weird stuff like to claim they are sensitive to the supernatural, and they like to think they are. Schitzophrenic people do it. People who have a knack for intuitively assessing people psychologically -- by asking them questions and slowly...
I'm reading post 123 and I don't see where exactly you address that. There's no reason to leap from "I see scary apparitions, stuff move by it self, etc..." to "it's dead people".
No. I said they don't conclude that. =P Did you misread what I wrote?
I don't believe in a literal soul that lives on after death. But I might use the word soul metaphorically from time to time.
Of course they look for the truth, but in the mean time, they say they don't know if there's...
In which case, scientists simply say they don't know what it is. They don't take random leaps in logical steps and conclude it's disembodied dead people.
So then you do indeed recognize different levels of consciousness. What life form to you, then, would have the lowest level of consciousness that you would still consider conscious? And why do you draw the line there?
Why not? Drawing a random line at some level of consciousness while...
A mammal is forever a mammal. A vertebrate is forever a vertebrate. A cat is forever a cat. Evolution doesn't predict that squirrels will turn into eagles. However, clades branch off into different subsets. It's why a monkey and a cat are both still considered mammals. It's why a mammal is still...
If the difference is sheer magnitude rather than some fundamental/intrinsic difference, then we're forced to draw the line arbitrarily of what is and isn't conscious, if we're to draw any line at all. Maybe we're not conscious to some alien species who's neural-cognitive capacity dwarfs ours by...