From the Afterlife Knowledge Forum discussion thread HERE (http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=afterlife_knowledge;action=display;num=1140003630;start=15#22) :
QuoteSo, the question, Chumley's, is why create an eye that is not perfect? For this reason: that in being human we may learn valuable lessons. That nothing stays the same or is permanent other than love. Why would anyone take a trip down to the earth school of hard knocks and willingly wipe one's own memories, in order to experience joy and suffering of the earth plane? Because we are told that this intense imperfect brief existence can give us more rapid progression of our spirituality and soul than almost anything else.
There is evidence of consciousness and intelligence everywhere we look. Some designs are flawed, but we live in a flawed but beautiful universe. Matthew
Absolutely. Very well put. More on this in a while.
QuoteChumley is asking if an imperfect eye blueprint is a proof against intelligent design by a creator (man created in the image of God, etc.). By his reasoning disease, illness, genetic flaws all would be signs of lack of intelligence. He then says, ipso facto - no God designing it.
This so-called reasoning is based on the mis-assumption (which Chumley himself is moving away from, in fact, his anger is clearly projected upon fundamentalists who proclaim this belief) that 'God' is some external, supreme being, and therefore, all his actions and Creations must be perfect.
Thus, I'll point out that Dave is musing on the nature of 'perfection' (indeed, there can be no objective 'perfection', if you say such-and-such is 'imperfect', you're only speaking for yourself, such-and-such can be argued to be 'perfect', insofar as it is what it is, not what someone thinks it's 'supposed' to be).
While Matthew is pointing out the pedagogical or didactic modality by which physical incarnation imposes deliberate limitations, which is part and parcel of the existential value of man, of living as a human being on Earth (we're not human beings in a spiritual body, but spiritual beings in a human body). This is necessary to faciliate learning, evolution and meaningful assistantialty.
Indeed, from such an understanding, the 'imperfect' eye, body or situation, then becomes perfect (for its purpose), does it not? It's always a matter of willingness to see things from a useful, helpful perspective. There is no value to objectivity or subjectivity (of 'perfection', etc) per se, hence, no true meaning on it's own, only meaningful in the context of evolution, assistantiality, both of which are twin-expressions of Love.
And Matthew also points out that there is an incredible level and presence of consciousness and intelligence everywhere in the Universe, which is not always obvious or understood by many. And most truly, intelligence is at the heart of Evolution, not randomness.
While Chumley, is really expressing dissatisfaction for the religious dogmatic simplistic idea of an external, flawless God who is Creator and master of everything. The whole purpose of this thread is his saying, "Such an idea of God is BS!"
At this point, I'll just mention that Evolution as it really is on Earth and elsewhere on other planets, is always is mix of both 'Intelligent Design' (by specialized guides & helpers working on the energetics of morphological fields and directly on species DNA, as well as extraterrestrial assistance or interference, depending on intention or agenda, in the form of genetic manipulation and engineering), as well as the more 'natural' (but of course, intelligent design is also part of a greater scheme of Nature) or mundane modalities of evolution by science (at least 'science' as understood by man on planet Earth at the current time, as compared to say the sciences of other planets), that is to say, due to the inherent genotypic and phenotypic variation within any given species population (due to spontaneous genetic mutation and genetic recombination by meiotic sexual reproduction), competition results in the differential rates of survival and of subsequent reproduction by those organisms best fitted to the environment (ie. natural selection), which over many generations results in the formation of new species (ie. evolution).
Of course this is happening, but hand-in-hand and together with intelligent design by guides & helpers and extraterestrial agencies. Why? Simply to speed up and to facilitate the apporpriate opportunities for incarnation and for evolution. It is a tricky matter for a group race to incarnate into available biological bodies suitable for the lessons the group race has to learn. Thus is the role of Intelligent Design.
In addition, with regards to the 'imperfections' or 'flaws' of the human body; because humanity in particular has gained the interest of so many different groups or races of beings of different natures and agendas, the human genome has been subjected to 'intelligent' or genetic manipulation multiple times throughout the history of man.
Regarding the adverse effects of consuming cooked foods, particularly cooked fats :
"
Now, the understanding of the blending of these races and the importance of raw fats is then understood once the full shift through the Atlantean phase into current physical incarnation is understood. It had to do with becoming more physical, with acknowledging and working with the animal essence. This would be hidden from most of humanity by important Keys, and you are correct in a certain sense in that the ingestion of fat would moderate the nervous system, bringing it into a more aggressive, more fearful, more ego-oriented capacity when the fats were poorly absorbed, as a natural allergic response in the human nervous system. But this must not be understood from the context of anthropology but rather gene splicing and the deliberate attempt to manipulate human consciousness. The reason for this is obvious. The spiritual development, intellectual development, and potential for true awareness was perceived in the Atlantean; this was present to some extent on the Lemurian but not fully physicalized. The physicalization was on route during the Atlantean phase and it was necessary to make these changes if enslavement of humanity was to be a true potential for the future. At the same time the various races that engaged in the enterprise have some contributions to make because the blending of the shadow and the light, the ability for humans to overcome fear, to perceive true deep truth, and to learn the lessons of ego would be a major contribution to all beings (of the Universe) should humanity successfully survive this period."
As described in the passage above, there was genetic manipulation to deliberately exacerbate certain critical 'flaws' in man (genetic-biochemical-psychological-spiritual, all are closely inter-related and inter-causative for the temporary duration of the incarnation or joining of soul to physical body, naturally), in this case, to increase tendency towards fear and ego, when cooked (unnatural) fats are consumed. This was done by races or beings (note : nested or complex intrusion) that had less than benevolent intentions for humanity; but this was allowed by the guardians or higher guides & helpers of humanity, for the grander purpose of overcoming the fear & ego (should humanity succeed as a race in this, this is still up to every human being to decide on the outcome), and consequently a greater contribution to the Cosmos.
For the full article from which the above passage was excerpted from :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/HilarionDiet.html
The genetics and biological body of the first Homo sapiens sapiens Adam, ensouled by the being who would later incarnate as Moses, and later again as Jesus Christ (of course, the name 'Jesus' wasn't his actual name at the time), was in actuality a genetic hybrid of the extraterrestrial Nephilim with primitive man, or the more primitive Homo sapiens subspecies.
Click here to read about reincarnation of Adam as Moses and later as Jesus Christ :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_On_JesusChrist.htm
Click here to read about the Nephilim and Creation of Man (mouse cursor over bottom right of pic to expand it to original size) :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_on_Nephilim.gif
And where is the next step of Man's evolution? By all indications and evidence, it is towards what has been called the Serene ones (ie. once a human soul has evolved beyond the need for physical incarnation, or what some have called 'ascended masters', one charactersitic trait of such evolved human consciousnesses, is serenity), or as scientific name, the Homo sapiens serenissimus :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/Hilarion_Angels_Serenissimus.htm
Kyo
There has been many threads on here about this, here's a recent one:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21594&highlight=intelligent+design
I'm not even going to argue about this, but to say I just really don't see any value in the whole ID concept. I really can't see how people can turn their backs on some of the greatest discoveries in our history of a species because it doesn't fit with their world view. I hate to say this but truth might not be pleasent to our belief systems.
Anyway, the above thread covers a lot of arguments either way.
hmmm... what makes you think evolution is a product of guides and external forces. It can be exaplined naturally by adaption to other climates and environemnts, and genetic mutations.
Ok. If you want a proper discussion on this please go and read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Then give me your idea's/opinions/evidences against it in terms of ID.
Evolution cannot be explained on its own, there are far too many things in this world which could not slowly evolve over time, but would require a quantum leap in evolution to even exist.
Quote from: LogicEvolution cannot be explained on its own, there are far too many things in this world which could not slowly evolve over time, but would require a quantum leap in evolution to even exist.
Such as?
The reason I find ID absurd is that it tries to use a lack of empirical data on a few aspects of evolutionary theory (and the theories that contains) to prove that it itself is true. Yet, ID has not got a single shred of evidence behind it, and is a belief based system.
Evolution is a work in progress, to ignore everything it has discovered to date on the basis it can't explain a few things
yet seems either incredibly short-sighted, or reeks of a desperation for it to be false.
I just don't understand how people can point at science as if it is a complete theory of everything, and then use that basis to take on board a belief system such as ID.
Before people talk about irreducible complexity, please go read Stephen Wolframs "A New Kind of Science", and research his work, because he has shown again and again how intricate and seemingly designed complexity can be produced by iterating simple rules over millions of generations.
MJ
I do not particularly subscribe to any theory of how life came to being, I dont think anyone has properly nailed the question yet, although I kinda see an alternative little known about explanation, involving the work of Reich, but wont go into that here. I could give some info if you like but thats not really why I am posting.
QuoteI really can't see how people can turn their backs on some of the greatest discoveries in our history of a species because it doesn't fit with their world view.
QuoteSuch as?
I used to believe in evolution theory because that what I was taught and it seemed reasonable. But then I read just one article that made me change my mind on this, I think I found the right one, I strongly recommend you take a look it:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.1.html
Rob
Quote from: IngumaMJ
I do not particularly subscribe to any theory of how life came to being, I dont think anyone has properly nailed the question yet, although I kinda see an alternative little known about explanation, involving the work of Reich, but wont go into that here. I could give some info if you like but thats not really why I am posting.
QuoteI really can't see how people can turn their backs on some of the greatest discoveries in our history of a species because it doesn't fit with their world view.
QuoteSuch as?
I used to believe in evolution theory because that what I was taught and it seemed reasonable. But then I read just one article that made me change my mind on this, I think I found the right one, I strongly recommend you take a look it:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.1.html
Rob
Hi Rob,
I fully agree that we perhaps haven't got the 'definitive' theory of life yet.
Regarding that article, I've read this previously, and first I would like to state that I am not totally agaist the idea we could have had our DNA altered by external organisms (aliens).
A few things I would note about that article are:
Firstly he doesn't discount darwinism evolution, he just dicounts humans evolved in this manner.
Secondly, his proof mainly resides in inconsistencies in the Fossil Record (which every one admits is not complete - ie we haven't found every fossil on Earth).
Rather than repost quoted material I'll supply some links which regard others views (people who know the ins and outs of what LLoyd Pye used as proofs). Let me know what you think. I should warn you that a lot of these are hardened evolutionists, so they might be a bit critical of other more alternative approaches, but if we look past that to the science we can decided if it's sufficient to counter LLoyds claims.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.atheism.moderated/browse_frm/thread/2f97ef2c31ebe3ec/1f610f26e69ad479?lnk=st&q=Lloyd+Pye&rnum=4&hl=en#1f610f26e69ad479
Just some short FAQs which might be of interest in regards to 'natural selection' and 'chance':
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
And some answered questions, I used these as at least one mentions LLoyd:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov99.html
Quote from: LogicEvolution cannot be explained on its own, there are far too many things in this world which could not slowly evolve over time, but would require a quantum leap in evolution to even exist.
Actually, we still in this modern age find new species. The question is: Were they here the whole time or did they spontaneously appear due to changing environments caused by us? And even though the original Darwinian evolutionary theories postulated long times for mutations to take effect, it is apparent that catastrophic events seem to spawn 'new' species. And we do know of a few catastrophic events in earth's past. (Not to mention 'us'.)
People keep saying that there is things missing in the fossil records, but I don't quite see this. If you look at Homo Sapiens Idaltu, you can clearly tell it is a transitional species between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern humans). I don't think aliens have enough time to alter our DNA, since there are so many species on Earth, and if ET's did make us, then what made them? Personally I highly doubt, in fact, I'm sure that there is nothing supernatural about evolution, its a natural process of life.
Wheels did not evolve, they were engineered. Computers, etc..
wheels are not alive, they do not adapt to their environments. With all the species that have evolved on this planet, people seem to think something extraoardinary must have happened to bring us about. Really its arragant to think so. From A. Afarensis, to Neanderthal Man and Sapiens, there is nothing extra-special about how we came to be, we evolved just like every other animal. Your name says Logic, yet I fail to see how your thinking in this matter is logical at all. You, like many people, have an emotional need to believe our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens came about under paranormal circumstances, when that is hardly the case.
As for Kyo's explanation, Adam did not exist, and no aliens came down and altered our DNA from H.S. Idaltu's to make us. We evolved from Idaltu just like Idaltu, Neanderthals and H. Floreniensis evolved from Homo Erectus. We evolved from other species just like EVERY other creature on Earth has. Think about, does it make any sense to say aliens made us, but they didn't make all the other species on the planet?
QuoteYou, like many people, have an emotional need to believe our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens came about under paranormal circumstances, when that is hardly the case.
As perhaps some might have an emotional need to deny other possibilities or circumstances that makes more sense?
QuoteAs for Kyo's explanation, Adam did not exist, and no aliens came down and altered our DNA from H.S. Idaltu's to make us.
That statement sounds as convincing as, "As for NickJW's explanation, it should be advised that Adam did in fact exist, and some aliens did in fact had a hand in the modification of the human genome".
QuoteWe evolved from other species just like EVERY other creature on Earth has. Think about, does it make any sense to say aliens made us, but they didn't make all the other species on the planet?
Drop the ego identification of "us" with "human beings" here. Imagine you're one of many races of beings exploring the galaxies. Having the technological capacity to assist/interfere in the genes of other races, for various agendas of your own, wouldnt it be logical that you would do so? Afterall, mankind is already doing this (selectively breeding and genetically engineering and modifying the genomes of) to the other species (bacteria, protista, fungi, plants and animals) on his own planet.
Without ego identification, it's an easy matter to see why extraterrestrial intervention, interference or assistance, is a logical and natural (not 'supernatural', everything is natural in the greater scheme of things, including intervention by other species) occurrence, whether for the plant, animal or human species on Earth.
The fact of the matter is (and it's of course up to you do agree with this or not), from various evidences (such matters are not made public for obvious reasons), different groups of extraterrestrials with different agendas were indeed involved with the genetic modification/alternation of many species on Earth (not merely human), including the 'seeding' or 'terraforming' process of the planet.
Why would they do this? The agendas vary. But why not leave it to simple Darwinian evolution for the earlier hominid species to evolve on their own? Why the need or usefulness for the Nephilim to create a more intelligent hyrbid that wold become the
Homo sapiens sapiens of today?
The answer is really common sense. Letting go of ego identification, if you imagine taking the role of the guides & helpers of humanity, you now have on your hands a race of evolving spirit beings (in the extraphysical) that require suitable biological bodies to incarnate into. The physical bodies of the dinosaurs and earlier hominid speices had served their purpose, and it was time to move on to a more intelligent brain that could more effective or efficiently serve the purpose of human incarnation. This includes a brain that could allow the intelligence of the incarnating souls to express themselves better (imagine how a 640KB computer would limit the functioning of a more advanced, self-evolving software that ideally ran on a 640MB or 64,000KB computer).
So from the higher, *natural* perspective, interaction between beings, including extraterrestrial or trans-planetary assistance/interference, is actually not only a common occurrence, it is one that makes perfect sense.
Quote... and it was time to move on to a more intelligent brain that could more effective or efficiently serve the purpose of human incarnation.
In case some readers are thinking, "
So what *is* the purpose of human incarnation?"
It is explained very succinctly and clearly here, by the International Academy of Consciousness (pages 67 & 68) :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/IAC/index.htm
And further elucidated by Hilarion, in reference to the meaning of the fingertip whorl patterns on your hand :
http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/Hilarion/BodySigns/index.htm
You just ignored all my points and stuck to your illogical non-sense. Like I said, why would humans not evolve naturally like every other creature on Earth? What makes you think this is so impossible? And then how did the aliens who alter our DNA get their DNA altered for intelligence? What your saying makes no sense. How can you say it's logical that aliens altered our DNA? You, like many people, only see the facts that support your own crazy theories and ignore the rest of the facts that make the theory false.
You just ignored all my points and stuck to your illogical non-sense. Like I said, why would humans not evolve naturally like every other creature on Earth? What makes you think this is so impossible? And then how did the aliens who alter our DNA get their DNA altered for intelligence? What your saying makes no sense. How can you say it's logical that aliens altered our DNA? You, like many people, only see the facts that support your own crazy theories and ignore the rest of the facts that make the theory false.
And they did not terraform the Earth, the atmosphere gathered here naturally just like it does on many planets. You have a bunch of false theories with nothing to back them up, and once again, who made the aliens? Other aliens? Then who made them? And how come nearly every creature on Earth has 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a head, a mouth, same organs? Its because we're all related, becasue we all evolved from the same single celled organisms, with no outside influence from extra-terrestrial beings.
QuoteLike I said, why would humans not evolve naturally like every other creature on Earth?
If you've read Lloyd Pye's ""Darwinism : A Crumbling Theory" article ( http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#Darwinism ), you'd realize that scientific evidence points to *many* species on Earth, certainly not only
Homo sapiens sapiens, were either imported (seeded) from other planets, or genetifically modified here on Earth. In other words, by no means are human beings the only speices with extraterrestrial connections.
This is not surprising, if you consider that many species of plants and animals cross continents on Earth, so crossing planets is only a logical next step of this.
QuoteAnd they did not terraform the Earth, the atmosphere gathered here naturally just like it does on many planets.
Again, many planets were actually 'terraformed' by civilizations from yet other planets. And when these planets have evolved to a certain stage, they will 'terraform' others. Humanity on Earth is already planning to do this, once they have the technology to do so.
See the bigger picture. It's not merely a matter of 'evidence' (for which the majority of scientific evidence points to Interventionism over Darwinism and Creationism), it's a matter of the next, logical, commonsense step to take once a biological species has advanced to a certain stage of readiness.
The bottomline being, humanity has many connections with our extraterrestrial brothers, sisters and cousins, including on the genetic level. It's about time we acknowledged this and moved forward to take our place in the galaxy, rather than being a self-absorbed egotistical race that cannot see the overwhelming intelligence everywhere around them.
FYI, I posted this very same topic on all three of the following forums. Those interested in the subject matter being discussed, might wish to check out all the discussion threads.
Astral Pulse forum :
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22128&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0&sid=404f81183ca9144123435f01c0cb1ecf
Near-Death forum :
http://neardeath.ipbhost.com/viewtopic.php?t=3191
Afterlife Knowledge forum :
http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=afterlife_knowledge;action=display;num=1140358883
On the Near-Death forum here (http://neardeath.ipbhost.com/viewtopic.php?p=37324#37324), EP wrote :
QuoteAre you convinced there are aliens who are interacting with Earthlings? Must admit I haven't read the articles you've posted this time as I must be off to work. I'll read them at the next opportunity. I don't have any personal experience with aliens, though I consider it highly probable that there is conscious life elsewhere in this gigantic universe.
There are many lines along which excellent materials on the subject matter can be found, among which the following 3 are particularly strongly recommended :
From the insider perspective of a ex-US Govt employee :
http://www.aboveblack.com
From the perspective of intelligent science and evidence :
http://www.lloydpye.com
From the perspective of an evolutionary advanced soul (who was incarnated as Plato the Philosopher) named "Hilarion (http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#Hilarion)" :
http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/cart.cgi?store=hilcat&product=Books+Channeled+by+Jon+C.+Fox
The 3rd url above, is a direct link to the book "Starlight Elixers and Cosmic Vibrational Healing", a book project comissioned by Fred Rubenfeld of Pegasus Products (//www.pegasusproducts.com), in which Hilarion (http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#Hilarion), channeled by Jon C Fox, describes in detail many *dozens* of extraterrestrial civilizations and their connections (direct or indirect) to Humanity and Earth. If you're open to the possibility that Hilarion (http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#Hilarion) is the 'real deal' (which he is, I say this from direct personal experience), then this is a treasure of a book that is an absolute must-have, for anyone interested in the topic of Extraterrestrials.
Quote from: Kyo KusanagiQuoteLike I said, why would humans not evolve naturally like every other creature on Earth?
If you've read Lloyd Pye's ""Darwinism : A Crumbling Theory" article ( http://infinity.usanethosting.com/Heart.Of.God/main.htm#Darwinism ), you'd realize that scientific evidence points to *many* species on Earth, certainly not only Homo sapiens sapiens, were either imported (seeded) from other planets, or genetifically modified here on Earth. In other words, by no means are human beings the only speices with extraterrestrial connections.
Hi Kyo,
First I would like to say that the above just links to biased incorrect material. Did you get any chance to look over the links I posted which disproves all these claims (which once again are posted in the above website?). To further make me suspicious, there is even information on "the hollow Earth theory", which can be disproven simply by earthquake propogation (ie the waves would travel differently if the earth was predominantly hollow).
Quote
This is not surprising, if you consider that many species of plants and animals cross continents on Earth, so crossing planets is only a logical next step of this.
There is a big difference between crossing continents and crossing solar systems. Most species didn't cross continents, they simply travelled when there was a 'super-continent', before most land mass split off in the way we see the globe today.
Quote
QuoteAnd they did not terraform the Earth, the atmosphere gathered here naturally just like it does on many planets.
Again, many planets were actually 'terraformed' by civilizations from yet other planets. And when these planets have evolved to a certain stage, they will 'terraform' others. Humanity on Earth is already planning to do this, once they have the technology to do so.
Can you please point out evidence that our atmosphere was terraformed? Such a drastic procedure would have surely left some form of huge evidence, rather than the natural evololution we can see in todays atmosphere composition.
Quote
See the bigger picture. It's not merely a matter of 'evidence' (for which the majority of scientific evidence points to Interventionism over Darwinism and Creationism), it's a matter of the next, logical, commonsense step to take once a biological species has advanced to a certain stage of readiness.
The bottomline being, humanity has many connections with our extraterrestrial brothers, sisters and cousins, including on the genetic level. It's about time we acknowledged this and moved forward to take our place in the galaxy, rather than being a self-absorbed egotistical race that cannot see the overwhelming intelligence everywhere around them.
I certainly agree that there are other intelligences out there, but I don't agree that they have visited Earth. Even if they had the technology to do so, we are literally a needle in a near infinite haystack.
If we were visited, where are the structures? Or are they so advanced they removed all traces of their involvement?
Why are we so genetically similar to all lifeforms on this planet, including the plants and trees ie we don't contain any 'alien' DNA which isn't elsewhere in nature.
Where is the evidence of terraforming?
The websites you post contain very biased agenda driven information. Please browse the websites I have posted here and see.
If the universe is full to the brim of spacefaring intergalactic beings, why don't we recieve communications on our vast arrays of satalite systems and radio communication systems? We've been scanning the heavens for a long time and we just find background noise from the bigbang and various solar phenomenon. Are we being shielded so we don't see any signs of this? If so, then why?
One possibility is that life can only evolve in certain conditions, and even though there might be a alrge number of intelligent species, they might be a very long way apart. So no signal has reached us yet, and certaintly no spacecraft.
Here's an interesting article which debunks one of the of the main arguements used by ID proponents:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
QuoteFirst I would like to say that the above just links to biased incorrect material.
That is not accurate. To be precise, my website offers material that communicates a *perspective*. To say "the website's material is biased" is itself, of course, a form of bias or prejudice.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and to sharing it. Just as others and myself, are as well. There is no right or wrong, only perspectives.
Quote"the hollow Earth theory", which can be disproven simply by earthquake propogation (ie the waves would travel differently if the earth was predominantly hollow).
Not so. The so-called "disproof", is only based on current models and current understanding, which is itself incomplete. Therefore, it is misleading to say that "science has proven it wrong", because the calculations are based on models, which may or may not be accurate.
In addition, it is also biasness, to prejudge all ideas or information on a website or book or channeling, simply because you disagree with one or some of the other ideas within. That's fallacious thinking (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html).
QuoteThere is a big difference between crossing continents and crossing solar systems.
It is the same, in principle. If human beings can build transport vehicles that can bring him to new lands on Earth, he can do so to bring him to other planets in the galaxy or beyond. Substitute "human beings" with "any race of beings", and you get the idea.
QuoteThe websites you post contain very biased agenda driven information. Please browse the websites I have posted here and see.
This point has already been addressed. The agenda of my website is to assist by sharing a certain perspective, a perspective that is largely in line with Hilarion's, and the International Academy of Consciousness's, for instance. And those by itself, is considerable indeed. That you do not agree with the perspectives is perfectly fine (individuality and free will is always honoured), but to make misleading, prejudicial statements to "poison the well", is not particularly helpful.
Notwithstanding, your effort to make your post in a courteous manner, as well as your sincerity in sharing your own perspectives on the topics in discussion with everyone else, is noted and respected. Thus, stances given, it is pointless for me to continue point-by-point rebuttals or reply your posts, because I have never adopted the approach of debate-to-reach-truth, but have instead chosen let-each-man-speak-and-everyone-decide-for-yourself.
Take care and good day.
Quote
That is not accurate. To be precise, my website offers material that communicates a *perspective*. To say "the website's material is biased" is itself, of course, a form of bias or prejudice.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and to sharing it. Just as others and myself, are as well. There is no right or wrong, only perspectives.
Not so. If it was a perspective, Lloyd Pye would not be stating his views as fact, and would not be trying to find fallacies in evolutionary theory to backup his views. He would also not be using the pretence of scientific principles if all he was stating was simply a perspective.
I said it was biased because Pye uses scientific terminology to try and 'bamboozle' the layman, and through this, pushes his opinion. The only problem with this is that firstly, Pye's entire theory of alien intervention is based on problems he currently sees in Darwinism, and secondly, these deficits he uses have been addressed, and so his argument falls flat. Some of the links I provided can fill in these gaps Pye perceived to push an alien intervention agenda.
Quote
Not so. The so-called "disproof", is only based on current models and current understanding, which is itself incomplete. Therefore, it is misleading to say that "science has proven it wrong", because the calculations are based on models, which may or may not be accurate.
The disproof is based on many things. Such as hollow Earth theory states at the poles there are huge holes leading into the hollow centre of the earth. No satellite has seen any evidence of these to date – you would think to a satellite mapping the earth with radio waves, it would notice such things. Also, increasing numbers of people have been to the poles, yet they haven't seen these huge holes.
Secondly, its beginner science regarding wave propagation through a material. You could build a model yourself to detect the difference in propagate effect of waves (Earthquakes) through a solid object and a hollow one.
Thirdly we know the mass of the earth, and it would be glaringly obvious if it were hollow. Also Earths gravitational field would be a lot weaker.
Quote
In addition, it is also biasness, to prejudge all ideas or information on a website or book or channeling, simply because you disagree with one or some of the other ideas within. That's fallacious thinking.
Of course it isn't fallacious thinking. The principles I pointed to were attacks on Darwinism by Pye (which have countless times been rebuffed) and the hollow Earth theory. Both of these make pretence at scientific theory. Are you saying it's fallacious logic to state tested and known scientific fact which shows both of these to be false?
If these theories were pure speculation then it might be different.
Quote
It is the same, in principle. If human beings can build transport vehicles that can bring him to new lands on Earth, he can do so to bring him to other planets in the galaxy or beyond. Substitute "human beings" with "any race of beings", and you get the idea.
There is a very big difference in moving a few hundred miles and then producing a machine which can travel trillions of trillions of miles through a hostile environment.
There is also the question of why they found Earth, the amount of estimated planets, and the amount of stars in our galaxy alone is simply staggering. The amount of galaxies is simply impossible to comprehend.
Unless space is literally overflowing with space faring races (which we would have seen evidence of now), how (in the fifteen billion years of this universes age – although we should take 5-10 billion years off to give stars time to form, nova and produce the materials needed for planets, then the time for intelligence to develop and then produce space faring vehicles) in such a short space of time, and a window of literally a hundred thousand years or so, did these aliens find our planet out of the countless others, in countless solar systems, in countless galaxies?
I just think the chances of such a thing, out of so many potential exploration targets, in such a minutely narrow window of time is too staggeringly remote to even contemplate. Add to this we see no evidence of terraforming machines, no radio waves from alien civilisations polluting space, no DNA evidence for them having tampered with us, no evidence in all the samples we've taken to gauge the atmosphere though earths history.
While there could be aliens out there, I just don't see anything which could remotely suggest they've been here, let alone tampered with us.
Quote
This point has already been addressed. The agenda of my website is to assist by sharing a certain perspective, a perspective that is largely in line with Hilarion's, and the International Academy of Consciousness's, for instance. And those by itself, is considerable indeed. That you do not agree with the perspectives is perfectly fine (individuality and free will is always honoured), but to make misleading, prejudicial statements to "poison the well", is not particularly helpful.
I would say theories which parade as science in order to convince less educated people is more a poisoning of the well than countering attacks on science which further a specific agenda.
If those articles on your site didn't mention science, didn't attempt to find fallacies in science to back up their claims, then they would simply be theories and that is fine.
But to be truly impartial, why not include all the counter arguments too?
Quote
Notwithstanding, your effort to make your post in a courteous manner, as well as your sincerity in sharing your own perspectives on the topics in discussion with everyone else, is noted and respected. Thus, stances given, it is pointless for me to continue point-by-point rebuttals or reply your posts, because I have never adopted the approach of debate-to-reach-truth, but have instead chosen let-each-man-speak-and-everyone-decide-for-yourself.
Take care and good day.
Firstly, I didn't realise this was your site, else I would have been more courteous. Secondly, surely by posting scientific theories you are advocating the 'debate-to-reach-truth' approach as that is how science works. If you truly advocate the 'let-each-man-speak-and-everyone-decide-for-yourself' approach, why not post the rebuttals to these theories and truly let people decide?
I'm not saying we are arragant or self-centered, i do believe there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy and universe, but there is still no reason whatsoever to think aliens altered our DNA, for example when Homo Erectus evolved to Neanderthalensis in Europe, we know that it adapted naturally becasue Neanderthalensis was built for the cold conditions. And once again, if aliens made us, then who made the aliens? Right now there is proof that evolution took place (no i don't care what creationists say, they have no argument agaisnt proof) and it is quite clear that adaption played the biggest part in evolution. The aliens just fit nowhere into this equation, especially if you can't answer an essential question such as 'who made the aliens then?'
http://www.venganza.org/
I still think the Pastafasarians have a point....
Quote from: CFTravelerhttp://www.venganza.org/
I still think the Pastafasarians have a point....
ahah I was reading this just yesterday! It's a fantastic website :D
Hi runlola,
I think the 'RNA protein chains in a primative soup forming more complex protein chains' theory is not too seriously considered as a start to life in recent times. In experiments I think the protein chains kept binding to the clay particles which would have been found in primative mud pools and so stopping them from binding with other chains.
Just a quick addition, the walk in theory would still require a 'genesis' at some point. That is, there must still have been a moment where life began - so it doesn't answer that question. it just adds more time to the equation.
Ps regarding the fossil records, we are finding more key records which do link us to more primative ape like creatures on Earth. I think the talkorigins website covers evidence for this (i'd have to double check).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
more info on transitional records can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I think, before the debate even begins, that we get our terms straight. "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not at all two contrary theories. Intelligent Design is the theory that we, and the universe in general, were made by a supernatural agent. The theory of evolution explains how we evolved from that first living cell to all the different species on the planet. Remember, it says nothing of HOW we got here, just how animals evolve AFTER that. It seems to be a common misconception among creationists. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, DOES try to show how that first living cell got here by naturalistic means. So, I think it would be more accurate if we say "Intelligent Design" verses "Abiogenesis"
I know this is the fourth page, but I only read a few posts on the first page before I found something that I liked. So sorry if what I say has already been said in the previous posts that I passed over. I would like to go back to the whole evolution topic.
When it comes down to what we as humans being should believe it's hard for me to understand how people can't trust science more. Granted, there are many things that science can't explain. That's what philosophy is really for. Once it can be proven then it no longer remains philosophy, but science. Everyone is searching for so many answers in God and the great grand scheme of it all. But even every member of the same church would have a slightly different opinion of what that really was anyways. Scientific proof, in things like evolution, are right in front of all of our eyes.
Evolution has been proven almost to a ridiculous level. We can clearly see it how it works, what shapes it, that it's always a work in progress. To argue if evolution is real or not is simply not having all the facts.
Now with that said, if science is real, then that would make certain parts of the Bible somewhat short of impossible. Take Noah's arc for example.
The Bible tells us how big Noah's arc was. 30 cubits x 300 cubits x 300 cubits. A cubit in todays terms measures out to be a foot and a half. That makes Noah's arc just a little smaller in measurements with the Titanic. A pretty amazing feat at that time to say the least, and given the level of progression humanity was at during the time for someone in Noah's life, to build an arc that size would be possible.
But now we're faced with the event of getting one sex of every animal on the planet, and Noah's two sons and their wives, safely into the arc so that when the 40 days and nights of rain stops, and the flood dissipates, they will all be able to repropogate the planet.
Now Biblical scholars date Noah's life to have been around 3,000 b.c. (before common era). In evolutionary terms 5,000 is not even a blip in the timeline. Remember, work in progress. So here are the flaws in the Noah theory.
1. Either Noah managed to get one of each sex of African elephants, Indian elephants, Savannah elephants, forest elephants, black rhinos, African rhinos, tigers, lions, bears... the list goes on, onto his smaller than the Titanic arc, then we are missing something in the laws of physics.
2. That noah only got some species on the planet into his arc and in 5,000 years they have re-evolved into the same variation of species they were before the flood, and that includes Noah and his grandchildrens, grandchildren. You see eventually they would have had to turn into blacks, whites, chinese, irish, all over again in a much shorter (also impossible) time span.
I guess it's also possible to have an option 3. That is, you don't believe in right in front of your face, will work whether you believe in them or not, it's the laws of the natural universe (which a Perfect God created in Perfect Order), science.
So... any other impossiblities (and there are many) of the Good Book that would like to be shared?
And just so nobody gets offended by this article it might ease your mind to know that I am a faithful Christian.
Quote from: ChineseRoomI think, before the debate even begins, that we get our terms straight. "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" are not at all two contrary theories. Intelligent Design is the theory that we, and the universe in general, were made by a supernatural agent. The theory of evolution explains how we evolved from that first living cell to all the different species on the planet. Remember, it says nothing of HOW we got here, just how animals evolve AFTER that. It seems to be a common misconception among creationists. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, DOES try to show how that first living cell got here by naturalistic means. So, I think it would be more accurate if we say "Intelligent Design" verses "Abiogenesis"
The problem regarding this debate is that
many creationists and ID'ers refute huge areas of scientific theory or are just plain oblivious to it. There is still an incredibly large number of people who believe the world is a few thousand years old, fossils were put there by God to test us, and the world was built in 7 days (there was a program on UK TV about this in the previous week, it regarded fundamental christians and their views).
It seems anything which deviates from a literal interpretation of the bible cases many people to dismiss it outright.
Quote from: The AlphaOmegasnip
You might find the following link interesting AO:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
It seems some religious leaders accept the bible as moral guidence rather than a literal truth. So stories such as noah, in their eyes, are meant as a form of allegory rather than actual series of events. But the problem is, as mentioned above, there are equally as many who accept religious texts as literal truth.
MJ, I finally got round to reading that discussion you linked to. Sorry but I really dont see how it "debunks" Pye at all - basically, all they say is that evolutionary theory has extended beyond Darwinism and into contemplating new interesting models. As well as giving him credit on the genetic point Pye makes, at the start of their discussion. If the points Pye makes are facts, then they still stand strong. Like pointing out the cambrian explosion (why so much life appearing so suddenly?), the other explosions of life after major disasters, the extra chromosone pair in human DNA compared with other primates, the fact that the same extremophile organisms exist today (sure there are more and different ones, but that we have exactly the same one today as well which have not evolved?) etc etc. I dont think the article you posted addresses any of these or other points Pye made. Would you mind filling me in on what arguments have been placed against these facts, if thats what they are?
And, errr, do me a favour and dont use the word "debunked". I hate that word!!! :wink:
Just another point u made:
QuoteThere is a very big difference in moving a few hundred miles and then producing a machine which can travel trillions of trillions of miles through a hostile environment.
There is also the question of why they found Earth, the amount of estimated planets, and the amount of stars in our galaxy alone is simply staggering. The amount of galaxies is simply impossible to comprehend.
Unless space is literally overflowing with space faring races (which we would have seen evidence of now), how (in the fifteen billion years of this universes age – although we should take 5-10 billion years off to give stars time to form, nova and produce the materials needed for planets, then the time for intelligence to develop and then produce space faring vehicles) in such a short space of time, and a window of literally a hundred thousand years or so, did these aliens find our planet out of the countless others, in countless solar systems, in countless galaxies?
I just think the chances of such a thing, out of so many potential exploration targets, in such a minutely narrow window of time is too staggeringly remote to even contemplate. Add to this we see no evidence of terraforming machines, no radio waves from alien civilisations polluting space, no DNA evidence for them having tampered with us, no evidence in all the samples we've taken to gauge the atmosphere though earths history.
While there could be aliens out there, I just don't see anything which could remotely suggest they've been here, let alone tampered with us.
Ok lets see:
-The earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old, and the universe 15 billion (though I believe this figure is being pushed further back all the time). Now, life on earth appeared 2 billion years ago, and humans are supposed to have evolved primarily in the last 1 million years (generous). So, from primate to us, in 1/2000'th the time since life appeared. And we have come up with our major technological advances, again to be generous, in the last 1000 years, which is again 1/1000th the time of the evolutionary period. Thats TINY!! And 1000 years is only 1/2,000,000th of the evolutionary time scale since life first appeared. Give our civilisation another 1000 years (another irrelvantly small fraction) and I see no reason why we could not become an inter-galactic civilisation. Looking at these sort of numbers, there is no reason another intelligent civilisation could have appeared, been given a few tens of thousands of years to complete advanced technology, and be flying around the galaxy today. They only need the slightest edge, in evolutionary timescale terms, to get ahead of us. Infact, there is no reason to think that another planet could not have formed and evolved a couple of billions of years before us - our estimates for the universe forming at at best weak estimates, 2 billion in 15 billion IMO is a realistic error, even given our currently knowledge which is changing all the time (as you said "give 5-10 bilions years for the stars to form - but 5 billions years is quite a lot of error!!!!!!!! More than enough for out purposes). However, IMO its not really necessary to argue this point:
- From that point to the greater timescale of the universe, bing bang theory is increasingly getting into seriously hot water. Red shift, if you consider the evidence coming in (well, evidence which has in actuality been around years and years now, just mainstream doesnt like considering it, big bang is taught in schools, and the former ideas are not being allowed an easy death due to how much science has invested in them, but now we have better telescopes, which are showing some rather telling anomalies which are becoming increasingly hard to ignore), has been well shown to be caused by something other than relative velocities, and indeed all our models for how space works are coming under heavy heavy strain. Gravity is looker weirder and weirder by the day, for instance, and the electric theory of the universe is gaining more and more ground - either of which would, in themselves, necessitate some redical re-evaluations of current theories. Erm I am sure there are other direct reasons to take big bang theory from its current dogmatic-truth status, but cant remember them. So anyway our age of the universe is based on red shift, which many forward thinking scientists realise is plain dodgy (red shifts occuring in discrete jumps, rather than continuous scales, finding heavily red shifted stars in binary systems with non-red shifted stars, quasars being right next to stars and galaxies with no red shift in them, there's more I cant remember but thats a taster). Given that, our timescale for the universe is thus entirely fallacious. Again, there is therefore no reason why another civilisation could have got ahead of us by billions of years, not just thousands.
- Imagine, your civilisation has reached a technological peak. You have had aeons to perfect technology that allows you to completely master the physical universe. You have perfected your own physical form to give yourself effective immortality, and have thousand even millions of years to play with. What is there to do next? The only thing left, create!! You start creating myriads of new life forms, on new planets - life is, after all, the most complex mechanism in the known universe, and certainly one of the most interesting to study. And heck, sure there are a lot of planets in the sky, but you have an eternity to play with, and your civilisation is already vast, probably spread over many times many solar systems. You keep monitoring there planets you've seeded, probably leaving equipment behind to keep a watch over your creations, maybe returning every few thousands or millions of years to see whats going on and make tweaks here and there.
- The technological barriers. Every time a scientists says something is impossible, new inventions and experiments prove these silly statements wrong. If you'd have described to the average joe one or a few hundred years ago the state of technology today, they would have laughed at you. If you'd described it to the intelligencia of those times, they'd have declared you insane. This is just one reason I have no doubt that we will become an inter-stellar civilisation, if we survive long enough without killing ourselves first. I mean, look at what we have done in the last 100, or even last 50 years!! We've come so far. Antigravity is in the works, zero point is waiting in the wings, there is so much more for us to explore.
- UFO's - if you havent thoroughly researched this field, you really should!! Since you say you dont think there are aliens here now, my guess is you have not looked into this too deeply, you might even rely on societal opinions to come to your conclusions on this. But the evidence that there are advanced craft around is
utterly mountainous! Society is in denial of this at the moment, for the most part, which is a real real shame. I have videos stored on my computer and have seen many more, police videos, military videos, civilian videos, nasa videos, photos, descriptions from credible witnesses, books by highly credible people, government documents by the truckload and we know there's much more they keep hidden. Aye, I am in no doubt about UFO's, which display very advanced technology, and even sometimes more life like characteristics.
So yeah, I dont think we should discount any theory yet, not even ID
:grin:
Rob
Quote
MJ, I finally got round to reading that discussion you linked to. Sorry but I really dont see how it "debunks" Pye at all - basically, all they say is that evolutionary theory has extended beyond Darwinism and into contemplating new interesting models. As well as giving him credit on the genetic point Pye makes, at the start of their discussion. If the points Pye makes are facts, then they still stand strong. Like pointing out the cambrian explosion (why so much life appearing so suddenly?), the other explosions of life after major disasters, the extra chromosone pair in human DNA compared with other primates, the fact that the same extremophile organisms exist today (sure there are more and different ones, but that we have exactly the same one today as well which have not evolved?) etc etc. I dont think the article you posted addresses any of these or other points Pye made. Would you mind filling me in on what arguments have been placed against these facts, if thats what they are?
And, errr, do me a favour and dont use the word "debunked". I hate that word!!!
Ok. Firstly Pye uses what he terms the "warm pool" theory as an attack on Darwinism. Simply because we don't know how life started yet, does not mean we never will, or that aliens started. He makes mention of Panspermia which in its undirected form (ie bacteria brought to earth on meteorites) is still a possible theory as it has been shown that bacteria can survive in the vacuum conditions of space and survive the impact to earth (the recent 'red rain' falling on Kerala is currently being analysed to see if it could be a form of biological life which was seeded from a meteor). This in no way means it was seeded by intelligent life. And it no way explains how such intelligent life was first created. Was their planet seeded too? And the aliens which seeded their planet had their planet seeded who had their planet seeded etc? This simply moves the creation of life to another location with and throws no life on the creation process what so ever. Pye seems to argue because he thinks early earth was a pretty inhospitable place, he finds it hard to believe anything could develop there. Then he questions why the things which were the precursors of life were so tough (because they evolved in an extremely hostile environment perhaps?)
For his information prokaryotes and eukaryotes read here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Quote
Cambrian "explosion" was not a short period of time, but tens of millions of years and as new evidence shows, it's beginning seems to be farther in time that once was believed - fossils of older animals haven't survived because their lacked hard parts, because rocks predating the Cambrian "explosion" are rare and etc. - as new fossils have been found, like the two fishes in China couple of years ago that were about 530 million years old and so distanced from one other that they must be tens of millions of years away from an common ancestor. During the Cambrian era happened first time what has since seen several times after mass extinctions - rapid evolution as lifeforms evolve to fill new niches that opened for them. Why the Cambrian "explosion" happened? Before it Earth experienced one of periods of extreme glaciation, when most of the surface of the Earth was filled with ice except the areas near the equator where life survived and when conditions changed, life evolved rapidly as more possibilities emerged to living organisms.
Links about the Cambrian explosion read here (the top two links should be read if none of the others):
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/86bb273e107600c1/fbdfac042ee7f0c7?lnk=st&q=cambrian+explosion+explanation&rnum=2&hl=en#fbdfac042ee7f0c7
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/fc2a6f9a2bd65b49/1b79e55a4491a020?lnk=st&q=cambrian+explosion+explanation&rnum=4&hl=en#1b79e55a4491a020
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
Rather than type everything out, the above cover this in far more detail (I don't want to write a 10k + word count post :P). If there's anything you disagree with in any of the links we can talk about them on a point-by-point basis.
I'd be interested if you could point me to some scientific journals on Pyes next claim of: "bacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rockbacteria, preserved in 4.0-billion-year-old cratonal rock" as I'm having trouble finding anything outside of Pyes article and so can't comment on it yet.
Pyes critique of the Cambrian explosion firstly omits several large pieces of scientific research to make his point. This imo is using selective knowledge to prove a point. What's worse, the knowledge he omits is not readily available on the public domain, so the layman would not have read it, and would take Pyes statements at face value. Please read the above links to show alternatives to Pyes critique.
If you want me to critique Pyes primate evolution points I will, but I don't have time right now, and 5 minutes on google will counter his claims and provide alternatives which do not require genetic modification by aliens.
Pye uses emotive prose, he chooses to ignore time periods of 500 million to 1 billion years as irrelevant to prove points (they're not).
Regarding your points on aliens visiting Earth, I will answer them later as there was a lot of science overlooked or misinterpreted. I have got to go out soon so don't have time right now.
Inguma and MisterJingo, compliments to you both on the way you are handling this discussion. You both sound like knowledgeable, well read folks and both have some valid points. Posts like yours are very interesting reading! :grin: I also greatly appreciate you avoiding personal name-calling and the like. Keep up the good work!
All I can add is personal opinion -- admittedly not worth much. :lol:
We know absolutely that natural selection is real. Evolution (meaning mutational changes rather than selective breeding) is harder to demonstrate, but signs are there that it might exist. Science has done so much with genetic manipulation, I am almost afraid to think what they would do if we found the answer to genetic mutation! :shock:
I don't discount that some intelligent agent may have first seeded life on Earth. However, it is just as likely that everything on Earth resulted from chance chemical reactions. Not as good for the ego, but quite possible.
IMO, we will never know how everything first began. No matter how far back we go, there is always the question, "What happened before that?" For instance, given that the Big Bang is valid, what existed before that -- what caused it?
Quickly
QuoteThis in no way means it was seeded by intelligent life. And it no way explains how such intelligent life was first created. Was their planet seeded too? And the aliens which seeded their planet had their planet seeded who had their planet seeded etc? This simply moves the creation of life to another location with and throws no life on the creation process what so ever. Pye seems to argue because he thinks early earth was a pretty inhospitable place, he finds it hard to believe anything could develop there. Then he questions why the things which were the precursors of life were so tough (because they evolved in an extremely hostile environment perhaps?)
I agree with all this completely. However, it is still useful to consider these things, since the question of how life started on earth may be different to the question of how life started in the universe as a whole - they dont have to have the same answer. And for now, the only one we have any hope at all of addressing is the former - how here?
And yes, of course the first life on earth will have been tough, but thats no reason to think it could and indeed should not have evolved by now. But yeah, it being tough is no reason to promote ID.
Honestly, I dont put any more credit in ID theory than others. Pyes article was simply useful to me as it provided an alternative viewpoint, and some good attacks on evolutionary theory.
Will read your articles when I too have more time.
Rob
Quote from: runlolaQuote from: MisterJingoJust a quick addition, the walk in theory would still require a 'genesis' at some point. That is, there must still have been a moment where life began - so it doesn't answer that question.
I would have to go with the "big bang"
Interestingly, some modern theoretical physicists believe that there have been an infinite number of big bangs and will continue to do so. That would explain why gravity and base elements were present at the perfect ratios/measurements necessary for gases and stars to form, eventually leading to life.
Each time gravity was too strong, the universe would collapse back in on itself. Too weak? It would expand too fast, nothing would form and quickly it would reach its limits. Perfect? Well thats now.
Maybe "life' comes before the big bang. Maybe 'life' is inherent if the effect of 'the big bang'. LOL.
Why do I need to scroll horizontally to read this thread ?
(I have closed any lateral parts.)
Quote from: gdoMaybe "life' comes before the big bang. Maybe 'life' is inherent if the effect of 'the big bang'. LOL.
maybe the physical big bang created the universe and life.
so what did create souls, and all the rest of the spiritual stuff?
another big bang?
QuoteWe know absolutely that natural selection is real. Evolution (meaning mutational changes rather than selective breeding) is harder to demonstrate, but signs are there that it might exist.
How about viruses ? They mutate. How about new diseases that are genetic ? How about Tchernobyl causing mutations in human and vegetable DNA ? How about PCBs in the Grand Lakes causing mutations in fish ?
Quote from: Inguma
Ok lets see:
-The earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old, and the universe 15 billion (though I believe this figure is being pushed further back all the time). Now, life on earth appeared 2 billion years ago, and humans are supposed to have evolved primarily in the last 1 million years (generous). So, from primate to us, in 1/2000'th the time since life appeared. And we have come up with our major technological advances, again to be generous, in the last 1000 years, which is again 1/1000th the time of the evolutionary period. Thats TINY!! And 1000 years is only 1/2,000,000th of the evolutionary time scale since life first appeared. Give our civilisation another 1000 years (another irrelvantly small fraction) and I see no reason why we could not become an inter-galactic civilisation. Looking at these sort of numbers, there is no reason another intelligent civilisation could have appeared, been given a few tens of thousands of years to complete advanced technology, and be flying around the galaxy today. They only need the slightest edge, in evolutionary timescale terms, to get ahead of us. Infact, there is no reason to think that another planet could not have formed and evolved a couple of billions of years before us - our estimates for the universe forming at at best weak estimates, 2 billion in 15 billion IMO is a realistic error, even given our currently knowledge which is changing all the time (as you said "give 5-10 bilions years for the stars to form - but 5 billions years is quite a lot of error!!!!!!!! More than enough for out purposes). However, IMO its not really necessary to argue this point:
- From that point to the greater timescale of the universe, bing bang theory is increasingly getting into seriously hot water. Red shift, if you consider the evidence coming in (well, evidence which has in actuality been around years and years now, just mainstream doesnt like considering it, big bang is taught in schools, and the former ideas are not being allowed an easy death due to how much science has invested in them, but now we have better telescopes, which are showing some rather telling anomalies which are becoming increasingly hard to ignore), has been well shown to be caused by something other than relative velocities, and indeed all our models for how space works are coming under heavy heavy strain. Gravity is looker weirder and weirder by the day, for instance, and the electric theory of the universe is gaining more and more ground - either of which would, in themselves, necessitate some redical re-evaluations of current theories. Erm I am sure there are other direct reasons to take big bang theory from its current dogmatic-truth status, but cant remember them. So anyway our age of the universe is based on red shift, which many forward thinking scientists realise is plain dodgy (red shifts occuring in discrete jumps, rather than continuous scales, finding heavily red shifted stars in binary systems with non-red shifted stars, quasars being right next to stars and galaxies with no red shift in them, there's more I cant remember but thats a taster). Given that, our timescale for the universe is thus entirely fallacious. Again, there is therefore no reason why another civilisation could have got ahead of us by billions of years, not just thousands.
- Imagine, your civilisation has reached a technological peak. You have had aeons to perfect technology that allows you to completely master the physical universe. You have perfected your own physical form to give yourself effective immortality, and have thousand even millions of years to play with. What is there to do next? The only thing left, create!! You start creating myriads of new life forms, on new planets - life is, after all, the most complex mechanism in the known universe, and certainly one of the most interesting to study. And heck, sure there are a lot of planets in the sky, but you have an eternity to play with, and your civilisation is already vast, probably spread over many times many solar systems. You keep monitoring there planets you've seeded, probably leaving equipment behind to keep a watch over your creations, maybe returning every few thousands or millions of years to see whats going on and make tweaks here and there.
- The technological barriers. Every time a scientists says something is impossible, new inventions and experiments prove these silly statements wrong. If you'd have described to the average joe one or a few hundred years ago the state of technology today, they would have laughed at you. If you'd described it to the intelligencia of those times, they'd have declared you insane. This is just one reason I have no doubt that we will become an inter-stellar civilisation, if we survive long enough without killing ourselves first. I mean, look at what we have done in the last 100, or even last 50 years!! We've come so far. Antigravity is in the works, zero point is waiting in the wings, there is so much more for us to explore.
- UFO's - if you havent thoroughly researched this field, you really should!! Since you say you dont think there are aliens here now, my guess is you have not looked into this too deeply, you might even rely on societal opinions to come to your conclusions on this. But the evidence that there are advanced craft around is utterly mountainous! Society is in denial of this at the moment, for the most part, which is a real real shame. I have videos stored on my computer and have seen many more, police videos, military videos, civilian videos, nasa videos, photos, descriptions from credible witnesses, books by highly credible people, government documents by the truckload and we know there's much more they keep hidden. Aye, I am in no doubt about UFO's, which display very advanced technology, and even sometimes more life like characteristics.
So yeah, I dont think we should discount any theory yet, not even ID :grin: Rob
I really like what Robs saying here.
Remember that at the turn of the 19th century, some very "smart" influential people suggested to close down the patent offices because "every thing has already been invented".
Setting aside all the layman's condensed morphology of popular theories,
What are your views of the moral justification for "creation" to have existence?
Suppose you were to uncover the torture chamber of a terrible psychopath. You discover many intricate and ingeniously designed implements of torture.
SO, this torture chamber contains evidence of a highly intelligent, genius master of torture technology.
Does the fact that the sadistic creator of the torture chamber is an intelligent genius make the design morally right?
Complete annihilation and dissolution of this system of creations can not come too soon.
(sorry for being such a whaa-whaa whiner but I'm sure there are plenty of tormented creatures who want some responsible intelligence to have revenge against. ) :confused:
Perhaps life is inherent. Whether you call it evolution or anything else.
Forms change but life is constant. Everything is alive but not conscious.