On Sep 28, 4:28 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

Giving it another name does not mean it is false or unscientific
though still remaining slightly fanciful.

The religious aspects should be ignored

It's precisely the "religious aspects" that make it unscientific. Just
as the "orchard theory" of evolution did not arise from open-minded
objective study of nature, but instead was concocted for the shoehorn
monstrosity that is Intelligent Design, so the original post gives
strong evidence that the "farm theory" of evolution originated to give
a scientific appearance to the religious teachings of Hinduism. (As
opposed to Buddhism, which the poster lumps in with misguided
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.)

Any "theory" that is transparently spawned from a religion as a way of
appropriating for that religion's beliefs the respectability of
science is, rightly, rejected out of hand from consideration. When,
and only when, there are legitimate grounds, originating from
observation and objective thought, for its consideration will it be
considered.

The _argumentum ad hominem_ is indeed a fallacy, but that is because
the presence of bad advocates for a statement does not make it less
likely to be true; the absence of good advocates for a statement still
does make it less worthy of consideration.

John Savard