Not a God, a creator.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

[D'rok]

Charming story. Unfortunately, "feelings" do not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

[trvlr2]

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?
"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe, and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Charming story. Unfortunately, "feelings" do not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.
They are the only means by which you can tell you love something.

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?
:o Already?

"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe,
And you know this for a fact? And who said communicating? I implied an initial outside source. Outside this universe may help explain something one day. I think science is coming around to there possibly being more.

and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.
Well... I guess we know where we stand sir. Where was that again? Just a few words, i'll remember.

[Whiplash]

Computer, end program!

*looks around*

[NobbyNobbs]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.



I don't understand why the ability to personally interfere in the lives of their creations would be limited by scale. Suppose I create a nanovirus. Then I create an antivirus for it and introduce one to the other. I have personally interfered in the life cycle of the nanovirus, despite huge differences of scale.



And you know this for a fact? And who said communicating? I implied an initial outside source. Outside this universe may help explain something one day. I think science is coming around to there possibly being more.


If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible.

[wollery]

:nope:

[Tricky]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

[l0rca]

Speculate to your heart's content, LCL.
You never answered the question, Did you get zapped by the radar?
"outside" the universe is just that, and was answered many times before in your original thread- there is no communication with anything outside the universe, and the question is meaningless, like your diagram.

Well, that depends on your definition of "universe". If the universe is considered to be a manifold containing reality, there may be many universes in different dimensional manifolds. Or, the universe could be considered to be "everything," in which your definition and conviction fits. However, if that's so, it leaves room for a new term, of these manifolds, or things similar in expression, which we may find.

I think it's better to talk about the universe as the set of resonant laws that govern our reality, but does not necessarily include existing states which can not interact with our reality. For an umbrella term, it's safer to use "the metaverse".

[D'rok]

They are the only means by which you can tell you love something.

Charming sentiment. Unfortunately, "loving something" does not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.

[D'rok]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

Bravo. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a1500730.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6323)

[Beerina]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

Yes, but the plan, and its makers, are hardly some kind of flawless, Good entity.

So Bob went down to K-Mart and bought a Build-a-Universe(tm) kit, then hacked it so it could create sentient individuals. Now Bob wants us to "be good" and wishes us well, but really has no control on it other than throwing it in the trash?

[Dorian Gray]

Man, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just answer the spirit of the hypothetical.

Yes. If someone did all those things, then the mini-universe would have been created, and the people in it might consider the creator a 'god', but by our standards he wouldn't be.

If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible. Possible, but probable? Language differences, spectrum differences, scale differences, etc. may preclude communication however 'possible' it may be.

[Dorian Gray]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

Indeed.

[Beleth]

But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.
Unless the box-tweakers' only goal was to slap the box together and see what happened. That is not a plan, and the only purpose would be to be a source of amusement for the box-tweakers.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't understand why the ability to personally interfere in the lives of their creations would be limited by scale. Suppose I create a nanovirus. Then I create an antivirus for it and introduce one to the other. I have personally interfered in the life cycle of the nanovirus, despite huge differences of scale.
I'm saying that you would not be able to direct individual lives, with your own personal whims, like is often said of God.


If this creator can put things into the box and tweak stuff inside it, that means information can pass across the box barrier.
So communication should be possible.
It is, through patterns like math and how we feel.

Charming sentiment. Unfortunately, "loving something" does not constitute a reliable means for enquiry.Yet it is the reason for the enquiry. The "feeling" of an elegant "pattern" that connects everything.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

That is exactly what you have shown they would be wrong about.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Man, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just answer the spirit of the hypothetical.

Yes. If someone did all those things, then the mini-universe would have been created, and the people in it might consider the creator a 'god', but by our standards he wouldn't be.
Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.

[D'rok]

Yet it is the reason for the enquiry. The "feeling" of an elegant "pattern" that connects everything.

Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions. A subjective emotional experience is the quintessential flawed premise of an objective enquiry.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions. A subjective emotional experience is the quintessential flawed premise of an objective enquiry.
We are who we are, surrounded by whatever it is. Emotions are the only way to understand that part of us. We are going to have to do the best we can, but we must do.
Mental/emotional energy is what is driving the interactions of life. They break down into well recoginzed "frequencies and polarities" that we have given names like love/hate, negative/positive, etc. They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do. Once the energy conveying their situation reaches us, we access our file on that, and hopefully, we have a good one. That, and act on it right.

[Tricky]

We are who we are, surrounded by whatever it is. Emotions are the only way to understand that part of us.
No it isn't. In fact, emotions get in the way of understanding by making us believe what we like rather than what has evidence.

We are going to have to do the best we can, but we must do.
I'm not exactly sure what this "must do" thing is. It would be nice, maybe even helpful to know what lies outside of our solar system, but if we don't, we'll still muddle through.

Mental/emotional energy is what is driving the interactions of life. They break down into well recoginzed "frequencies and polarities" that we have given names like love/hate, negative/positive, etc.
No they don't. Things are much more complex than just polarities. But I think this has been discussed in your eponymous thread.

They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do.
Being of the same species, people will have similar tendencies in the way they react to things, but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.

Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do. Once the energy conveying their situation reaches us, we access our file on that, and hopefully, we have a good one. That, and act on it right.
Energy? Are you speaking of actual energy or are you making a metaphor? You need to be careful about trying to disguise philosophy under scientific sheep skins. There are too many people here who are talented at BS detection. As for "acting on it right", that's a moral decision, and I'm not sure you and I would agree on what "right" means.

[Hokulele]

They are very real because even though we may not always feel them the way others do, we know what they are feeling. Our connection to it all allows us to feel what others do.


You have never been married, have you.

[qayak]

Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.

Interesting idea. Of course, the universe the creator was from would have to have the same laws as ours. The creator would not be able to violate the laws of his universe just to create ours unless he was a god (supernatural). That would mean that the life he creates would pretty much have to be the same as the life in his universe as well. If you can't violate the laws, you can't create anything much different than what you already have.

So, this would have to be a mini universe that is the same in all respects except size. Not much chance of that. How would you get something the size of an atom to act the same as something the size of jupiter?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No it isn't. In fact, emotions get in the way of understanding by making us believe what we like rather than what has evidence.
It could do that, but the scientific method was invented to help with that. Yet, it cannot be applied to everything. Emotions cannot be mathematically plotted, but are still a part of the equation.


I'm not exactly sure what this "must do" thing is. It would be nice, maybe even helpful to know what lies outside of our solar system, but if we don't, we'll still muddle through.
Deal with all of the equation. And emotions are part of our solar system.

No they don't. Things are much more complex than just polarities. But I think this has been discussed in your eponymous thread.
I know that there is a lot of things involved in being angry, but the overall affect is that you are.

Being of the same species, people will have similar tendencies in the way they react to things, but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.
Of course we can't read minds, but body language like "angrily showing teeth" can be read across species.

Energy? Are you speaking of actual energy or are you making a metaphor? You need to be careful about trying to disguise philosophy under scientific sheep skins. There are too many people here who are talented at BS detection. As for "acting on it right", that's a moral decision, and I'm not sure you and I would agree on what "right" means.Sight is our primary means of dealing with our world, and it works through reflected energy.

[Beerina]

Interesting idea. Of course, the universe the creator was from would have to have the same laws as ours. The creator would not be able to violate the laws of his universe just to create ours

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.

[D'rok]

And emotions are part of our solar system.
Wronger than wrong.

[joobz]

Of course we can't read minds, but body language like "angrily showing teeth" can be read across species.
And here is where you go demonstrably wrong. Body language, like spoken langauge, is also easily missunderstood and there are even differences within species that make cross species differences error prone.
For instnace, your showing of teeth example has multiple times had peaceful meanings in some species.

Peaceful meaning for the silent bared-teeth displays of mandrills (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17432285)

and what about species that don't have teeth?

again, As Tricky pointed out,

...but it can be a bad mistake to assume you know "what others are feeling". You are likely to be wrong.

[Lonewulf]

Emotions are part of our brain.

The same way that digital processing is part of my computer.

[Faithkills]

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

If we can know something about our creators then it is merely part of the universe, the universe is just bigger than we thought. Like lightning before it, cosmic genesis then does not require a god. Not magical. Our creators are then just post doc computer geeks in the next bubble up doing their theses in synthetic reality. Explainable. Knowable. If we can know them then they are bounded by our logic, and thus inferior to it.

If we can't know anything about the creators then we cannot logically ascribe any properties to them, including their existence or lack thereof. They are thus entirely logically moot and in reality moot.

This is the problem with the 'unknowable God' thing. People want a magical god but if we can know him he's not magical. If we cannot know him he's not relevant. (and most likely not existent, but I will not assert that which I do not know for certain)

[qayak]

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.

I agree with what you say but disagree that it applies. LCL stated that this was a mini-universe, not a simulation.

That means that anything inside that universe is governed by its laws. In order to change the natural laws in one's universe one must be supernatural. This creator is supposedly NOT a god so they must operate inside the rules. If there was no limitation on the speed of light, how could he put a limitation on it when creating our mini-universe inside his own universe? How would he isolate our universe from his so that the things we see as being outside our universe, but still inside his, do not affect the things inside ours?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And here is where you go demonstrably wrong. Body language, like spoken langauge, is also easily missunderstood and there are even differences within species that make cross species differences error prone.
For instnace, your showing of teeth example has multiple times had peaceful meanings in some species.

Peaceful meaning for the silent bared-teeth displays of mandrills (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17432285)
Of course the same type of body language can have different meanings, but the players involved can read it. A smile can bare the teeth, but the rest of the face helps convey the intent. A nervous smile and looking away conveys uneasy, a slanted one can convey jest, you know how it goes.


and what about species that don't have teeth?
Then they would be unable to communicate in that way. I know that you are not saying that because some life forms don't have teeth, that those that do don't communicate with them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Emotions are part of our brain.

The same way that digital processing is part of my computer.

Okay. But they are an essential part of the lifeform. Life acted on what it felt, before humans (tried) put reason to it. And the programing of life, allows us to pretty much read from the same page.

[qayak]

Of course the same type of body language can have different meanings, but the players involved can read it. A smile can bare the teeth, but the rest of the face helps convey the intent. A nervous smile and looking away conveys uneasy, a slanted one can convey jest, you know how it goes.

What about species with the ability to lie?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If we can know something about our creators then it is merely part of the universe, the universe is just bigger than we thought. Like lightning before it, cosmic genesis then does not require a god. Not magical. Our creators are then just post doc computer geeks in the next bubble up doing their theses in synthetic reality. Explainable. Knowable. If we can know them then they are bounded by our logic, and thus inferior to it.
Science can look magical, but its not. That magical stuff came about because early man did not understand, and did the best he could. That is when he was not purposely lying.


If we can't know anything about the creators then we cannot logically ascribe any properties to them, including their existence or lack thereof. They are thus entirely logically moot and in reality moot.
I don't know about that. I see a patterned process that may, or may not, have had a creator. I lean towards a creator, but can assign no identity to it. I just can't see that just because a creator made the universe, that it can live 14 billion years to see life develop. Or, considering the slow pace of the method of creation, why a creator would speed up to grant people's wishes. So yeah, in reality moot, yet it is everything but that. I think that that has to do with what people feel, like "God wants us to love each other." Only, that feeling could come from being part of a progressive patterned process.

This is the problem with the 'unknowable God' thing. People want a magical god but if we can know him he's not magical. If we cannot know him he's not relevant. (and most likely not existent, but I will not assert that which I do not know for certain)
I know all the religions can't be right, so it is likely none of them are.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, for two reasons.

1. He could create a universe that was an allowable subset. His universe could be massively more powerful, for example, with no limitations on the speed of light or of computation, or at least they're on a scale we can scarcely imagine. For example, you'd probably need a computer on the order of a universe 10^^20 our size, packed with subatomic-sized computer devices just to play a perfect game of chess in a reasonable amount of time.
I thought without the constants being as they are, that the universe would not be able to create life?

Perhaps in that universe, that amount of computing power is trivially cheap.

2. If you create a simulation, you can make any rules of physics you want. There are some limits on this, but they're limits on logic and math, not practical implementation. And, overlapping with #1, you could actually code up a more complex universe, e'en if it ran more slowly.

I wrote an orbital simulator as a lad once. I accidentally coded up gravity as an inverse cube law instead of inverse square. The orbits were these lovely trefoil shapes.
Wow, so I guess people are already working on that. Maybe the next jump in computer technology could give us enough computing power. I once heard that a Japanese scientist was trying to create a mini "big bang."

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What about species with the ability to lie?
That just makes them harder to read.

[wollery]

I thought without the constants being as they are, that the universe would not be able to create life?It would not be able to create life as we know it. That's not the same thing at all.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I agree with what you say but disagree that it applies. LCL stated that this was a mini-universe, not a simulation.
They could stimulate it first. I came in with them having already had a mini-universe up and running.

That means that anything inside that universe is governed by its laws. In order to change the natural laws in one's universe one must be supernatural. This creator is supposedly NOT a god so they must operate inside the rules. If there was no limitation on the speed of light, how could he put a limitation on it when creating our mini-universe inside his own universe?
We have to use what we know about our own universe because it has already proven to be able to create life.

How would he isolate our universe from his so that the things we see as being outside our universe, but still inside his, do not affect the things inside ours?
I don't understand this. What do we see that is outside our universe?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It would not be able to create life as we know it. That's not the same thing at all.
Do you mean something like silicon instead of carbon being basic to life?

[wollery]

Do you mean something like silicon instead of carbon being basic to life?No, I mean all the atoms having different properties, there being no such thing as Carbon or Silicon, even assuming that there are atoms at all. I mean the Universe having totally different properties.

[qayak]

I don't understand this. What do we see that is outside our universe?

Unless they were supernatural (a god), a creator would have to create our universe inside their own. Because everything inside a universe affects everything else within that universe, everything in their universe would affect ours. But we cannot see outside our universe, so we would see the effects inside our own but we would not see what was causing them.

So, let's say they make our universe and put it in space in theirs. Then one day a comet passing through their space, comes close to our mini-universe. Everything we see in our universe would shift off toward the side the comet was on. So we would see everything shift but we wouldn't see the comet (it is outside our universe).

Wouldn't that be a strange phenomenon? Wouldn't we notice that? It seems to me that it would be a direct indication that there were things outside our universe and they were on a much larger scale.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Unless they were supernatural (a god), a creator would have to create our universe inside their own. Because everything inside a universe affects everything else within that universe, everything in their universe would affect ours. But we cannot see outside our universe, so we would see the effects inside our own but we would not see what was causing them.

So, let's say they make our universe and put it in space in theirs. Then one day a comet passing through their space, comes close to our mini-universe. Everything we see in our universe would shift off toward the side the comet was on. So we would see everything shift but we wouldn't see the comet (it is outside our universe).

Wouldn't that be a strange phenomenon? Wouldn't we notice that? It seems to me that it would be a direct indication that there were things outside our universe and they were on a much larger scale.
From what I read on other threads, some would take that as a sign of God, writing its name with stars. "Nothing could have done that, it must be God." Now, it would be just a sign of another (larger) universe. Okay, you seem to have a handle on that stuff, what would that type of movement do to us here? I mean, the sudden movement of clusters and clusters of galaxies? Would their be a "ripple" or something?

[qayak]

From what I read on other threads, some would take that as a sign of God, writing its name with stars. "Nothing could have done that, it must be God." Now, it would be just a sign of another (larger) universe.

Many people would say it was god but a few would try and figure out what would cause it based on know information. Understanding what our universe is and what could affect it in that manner is very important. We have the ability to understand some of this now, whereas before people did not.

Okay, you seem to have a handle on that stuff, what would that type of movement do to us here? I mean, the sudden movement of clusters and clusters of galaxies? Would their be a "ripple" or something?

I assume that it would be catastrophic to have a billion, billion stars and their accompanying planets, all plastered against one small area on the edge of the universe. :D

[Faithkills]

Science can look magical, but its not. That magical stuff came about because early man did not understand, and did the best he could. That is when he was not purposely lying.

Exactly. Purposely lying, or willfully believing the lies. If believing took no effort at all we would not have so many people upset by skepticism about faith.

I don't know about that. I see a patterned process that may, or may not, have had a creator. I lean towards a creator, but can assign no identity to it.

I understand many people like that idea, but that is the only reason for people to believe it. There is no evidence, or else this would not even be discussed here.

I just can't see that just because a creator made the universe, that it can live 14 billion years to see life develop. Or, considering the slow pace of the method of creation, why a creator would speed up to grant people's wishes.

Is it a creator God or just a creator? If it's not a god we'll likely find evidence eventually.

So yeah, in reality moot, yet it is everything but that. I think that that has to do with what people feel, like "God wants us to love each other." Only, that feeling could come from being part of a progressive patterned process.

I don't understand how it is not moot, except from a social/psychological perspective. Can you explain?

I know all the religions can't be right, so it is likely none of them are.

Indeed. There are more reasons than that however.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Exactly. Purposely lying, or willfully believing the lies. If believing took no effort at all we would not have so many people upset by skepticism about faith.
Some people have a problem explaining away the "felt connection" they feel. I think it comes from the fact that everything is connected. Humans can put (or try to put) those feelings into words.
Somebody in another thread talked about how people need explanations, even incomplete ones.
I think that in ancient times people were more willing to accept anything, and some religions were strong enough to keep flawed ideas going.

I understand many people like that idea, but that is the only reason for people to believe it. There is no evidence, or else this would not even be discussed here.
Order is my reason. Though I am fine with that order being produced by four forces accidently. I just can't rule out it not being an accident.


Is it a creator God or just a creator? If it's not a god we'll likely find evidence eventually.
I vote creator. The image of an all-powerful, all-knowing, forever living, meddling, jealous, lesson teaching God, is a human invention and the source of a lot of trouble.


I don't understand how it is not moot, except from a social/psychological perspective. Can you explain?
God working throughout creation evenly should make it moot. Afterall, no one talks about the air we all breathe favoring someone over another, yet men sees its Gods/God showing favor, more powerful, etc.


Indeed. There are more reasons than that however.
Like what?

[wollery]

God working throughout creation evenly should make it moot. Afterall, no one talks about the air we all breathe favoring someone over another, yet men sees its Gods/God showing favor, more powerful, etc.And you have it favouring humans over cows.

[qayak]

I don't know about that. I see a patterned process that may, or may not, have had a creator. I lean towards a creator, but can assign no identity to it.

You must have some idea of the attributes this creator would have. If not, what do you base you leanings on? People have assigned an identity to the "standard" creator and that is "god."

If you are saying it is not the standard god with all his standard godly qualities what do you propose in his stead?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And you have it favouring humans over cows.I don't really. I know that everything plays a part, but only one form of life (as yet) has reached the level of humans on the evolutionary scale. They are another level of the process. Something like life leaving the water, becoming warmbloodied, or taking to the air. They became conscious of the process, giving it another range of possibilities.

[D'rok]

I don't really. I know that everything plays a part, but only one form of life (as yet) has reached the level of humans on the evolutionary scale. They are another level of the process. Something like life leaving the water, becoming warmbloodied, or taking to the air. They became conscious of the process, giving it another range of possibilities.


Please define "evolutionary scale" along with what constitutes "levels" on this scale.

[Faithkills]

Some people have a problem explaining away the "felt connection" they feel. I think it comes from the fact that everything is connected. Humans can put (or try to put) those feelings into words.

People have feelings. About all sorts of things. I've had women tell me they could just feel that I was really in love with them I just couldn't admit it or they could feel that I was thinking about them or that they could feel that we had a connection. Those were not valid either;P

Psychics have feelings all the time and tell us about them.

People have feelings they want to feel. That doesn't mean there is any objective reality associated with them. It just means they want to feel something.

Somebody in another thread talked about how people need explanations, even incomplete ones.
I think that in ancient times people were more willing to accept anything, and some religions were strong enough to keep flawed ideas going.

Order is my reason. Though I am fine with that order being produced by four forces accidently. I just can't rule out it not being an accident.

I am guessing that you are more drawn to intention than lack of accident. If a hammer falls, it is not accident. It is doing what is required by natural processes. If life evolves it is similarly behaving according to natural processes. This requires neither intention nor god. The hammer does not intend to fall, it merely falls. Life does not intend to evolve it merely evolves.

In this context I will stipulate we are not here by accident. It is likely that life is inevitable given the right circumstances. That doesn't mean god, or light, or the universe made it so. With intention or without.

I vote creator. The image of an all-powerful, all-knowing, forever living, meddling, jealous, lesson teaching God, is a human invention and the source of a lot of trouble.

But then an explicable creator is not nearly as fun. There could be one, absolutely agreed, but then what created it? And then what created that? It is as easy to imagine a null creator as an infinitely recursive one. But it is more parsimonious to imagine a null creator.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Please define "evolutionary scale" along with what constitutes "levels" on this scale.
Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.

[D'rok]

Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms. This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such. This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You must have some idea of the attributes this creator would have.
I'm not burying that mini-universe thing where the scientist/creator lives pretty much like we do, only in the clouds, meddling when he sees fit.
And I have already said what I think the creators attributes are: negative, positive, attraction and repulsion.


If not, what do you base you leanings on?
I see (and science confirms) a patterned process.

People have assigned an identity to the "standard" creator and that is "god."
They blended two different words. The creator of something is not necessarilly a God, which seems to mean an "all powerful" being. Something that comes with all types of flaws. The women need not be a saint, to give birth to a pope.

If you are saying it is not the standard god with all his standard godly qualities what do you propose in his stead?
A patterned process, with humans "trying" to explain how they feel, see, and theorized it.

[wollery]

Now this is an example of that "Evidence!" thing going on in that Poll Thread. I didn't make levels up. Germs, bugs, crablike things that look like bugs, mammals, things naturally break down into levels... and stuff.No, he's asking you to define your terms.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms.
I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.


This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such.
More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.
Clinging? I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution. Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was had to happen though, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, he's asking you to define your terms.
That gives me a lot of unnecessary paper work. He knows my view. Tell me why it is wrong-in reference to what is being said here.

[sackett]

Suppose we could capture
The Flying Spaghetti Monster on a plate.
Would we learn then the secrets
Of Perfect Parmisan?
Of Godlike Garlic?
And would we find ourselves with
A Noodly Appendage?

They don't call him Tricky for nothing: Notice how he just happens to leave out any mention of the Trinity: Olive, Tomato, and Holy Basil.

Vile heretic!

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

They don't call him Tricky for nothing: Notice how he just happens to leave out any mention of the Trinity: Olive, Tomato, and Holy Basil.

Vile heretic!
Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.

[D'rok]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.
Nope. There is no necessity for evolution to increase complexity. If a decrease in complexity is naturally selected as advantageous, that too is evolution.

Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.You sound like you've read too much Kurzweil. The technological activities and "creations" of humans are not part of the evolutionary process. You are making an unsupportable rhetorical and philosophical leap.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.See above.


More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others. See both above.

Clinging? I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution. Humans can't be the purpose of the process.
That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.

"Something" developing consciousness was had to happen though, it just "happened" to be them. Nope. Completely without merit. Just because something happened does not mean that it had to happen. There is nothing about evolution that mandates consciousness. Consciousness is not the "purpose of the process" any more than humans are. This is the source of your delusion.


And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks.Would you prefer egregious error?

[Hokulele]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.


This is completely wrong. Research the evolution of parasitic worms for the classic example of how evolution can lead to less complex forms.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

People have feelings. About all sorts of things. I've had women tell me they could just feel that I was really in love with them I just couldn't admit it or they could feel that I was thinking about them or that they could feel that we had a connection. Those were not valid either;P

Psychics have feelings all the time and tell us about them.


People have feelings they want to feel. That doesn't mean there is any objective reality associated with them. It just means they want to feel something.
Be careful with your feelings. Check them in reference to other people, know that they are not always rational, but proceed. They are a part of you. Perhaps the best part.


I am guessing that you are more drawn to intention than lack of accident.
You would be wrong. I believe in luck. If it happens just the right way, nothing else is required. I don't like that puppet thing at all. An accident would give us a "creator-less" character. Something that is great for the egos that need that. It also piles on us the responsibility to "make it work," for those who need that.


But then an explicable creator is not nearly as fun. There could be one, absolutely agreed, but then what created it? And then what created that? It is as easy to imagine a null creator as an infinitely recursive one. But it is more parsimonious to imagine a null creator
What came before the big bang? And before that?

[Faithkills]

Be careful with your feelings. Check them in reference to other people, know that they are not always rational, but proceed. They are a part of you. Perhaps the best part.

Feelings untempered by reason are useless at best and destructive at worst. Logic without emotion isn't much fun. We are evolved to enjoy and respond to feelings, ie excited neurochemical states. We would be animals without reason and angels without emotions. Only knowing what being human is like and having no other choice I'll stick with human.

You would be wrong. I believe in luck. If it happens just the right way, nothing else is required. I don't like that puppet thing at all. An accident would give us a "creator-less" character. Something that is great for the egos that need that. It also piles on us the responsibility to "make it work," for those who need that.

You believe in luck? You believe probability can be skewed by consciousness or some other way? I can be lucky or I can be unlucky? I can be predisposed to have good or bad outcomes?

What came before the big bang? And before that?

Exactly my point. Null creator is less of a stretch than infinite creators.

But before the bang could have come the crunch and before the crunch could have come the bang, etc. If there is a creator likely it had a creator. Thinking there is no creator is thus less problematic.

I still don't know what you mean by creator tho.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. I'm asking you to come clean about your attempt to make evolution a teleological process. You are implying that evolution is purposeful in terms of human value judgments and that humans are more "highly" evolved than other life-forms.
I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.


This is nonsense. There is no scale with an "end goal of evolutionary perfection" guided by a creator or some such.
More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

This is a human conceit which you are clinging to. It is an anthropocentric delusion.
Clinging? Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was something that had to happen, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks. I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is completely wrong. Research the evolution of parasitic worms for the classic example of how evolution can lead to less complex forms.
Mutations are all about "exceptions," and evolution is about mutations. So, are you saying that because that of that example (and I'll give you others) that the direction of evolution is not towards more and more complex forms of ....

[Hokulele]

Mutations are all about "exceptions," and evolution is about mutations. So, are you saying that because that of that example (and I'll give you others) that the direction of evolution is not towards more and more complex forms of ....


Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.

[Tricky]

Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.
An excellent example. Tapeworms, for example, have no digestive system, though they evolved from organisms with digestive systems. Since they live in digestive tracts, having their own was just excess baggage and accordingly, selective pressure favored the direction of a reduced system.

And no, LCL, evolution is not "about mutations". Mutation is just one important aspect of what drives evolution. Selective pressure, complex interactions, changing ecosystems, gene pools and a whole multitude of things that have nothing to do with mutation are critical to the various paths (upward and downward) of evolution.

[D'rok]

I am saying that evolution is a patterned process. A process that evolves more and more complex forms of energy, matter, and information. Humans represent a point where the process is able to create "artificial" forms of matter, energy, and information.

Being part of the process, they can't help but work in accordance with it.


More complex is never ending, but the process does guide its creations. One part more than others.

Clinging? Humans can't be the purpose of the process. That has to be true even if they reigned for a billion years. "Something" developing consciousness was something that had to happen, it just "happened" to be them.
And I think the word delusion is a bit strong... its a view-far from comparing airplanes to sticks. I have never said anything about humans being the end product of evolution.

What's with the dupe post? My response is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2739221#post2739221

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope. There is no necessity for evolution to increase complexity. If a decrease in complexity is naturally selected as advantageous, that too is evolution.
Duh.

You sound like you've read too much Kurzweil. The technological activities and "creations" of humans are not part of the evolutionary process. You are making an unsupportable rhetorical and philosophical leap.
What about genetics? God I hope that they don't mess around and give germs another advantage, like they did when they made some more willing to kill us.

Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.
So you have an insecticentric view? (I had to make the the word.)

Nope. Completely without merit. Just because something happened does not mean that it had to happen. There is nothing about evolution that mandates consciousness.
I'm going to have to disagree. If someone were able to read the whole genetic code, saw it when it started, he may have. Science thinks that most of the genetic code is "junk," I bet it ain't.

Consciousness is not the "purpose of the process" any more than humans are.
I never said that they were, I just posted that I didn't.

This is the source of your delusion.
Considering that you either accidently, purposely, or delusionally miss me posting about humans not being the "purpose of the process," just one post ago, I would not be throwing that word around.
Hey. Are you trying for an emotional response, even though you said emotions have no "whatever" that was?

Would you prefer egregious error?
It ain't that bad. Your type tend towards the "gloom and doom" thing, its not that bad.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Absolutely. Mutations do not necessarily result in more complex forms. Parasitic worms being just one example.
Okay, the process isn't perfect.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What's with the dupe post? My response is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2739221#post2739221
Dupe post?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

An excellent example. Tapeworms, for example, have no digestive system, though they evolved from organisms with digestive systems. Since they live in digestive tracts, having their own was just excess baggage and accordingly, selective pressure favored the direction of a reduced system.
Okay, and someone said that the brain of the panda bear shunk due to nonuse. And I am sure there are plenty of other examples.

And no, LCL, evolution is not "about mutations". Mutation is just one important aspect of what drives evolution. Selective pressure, complex interactions, changing ecosystems, gene pools and a whole multitude of things that have nothing to do with mutation are critical to the various paths (upward and downward) of evolution.
Okay... mutations are an important part of the process? Mutations help in adaptation?

[qayak]

I'm not burying that mini-universe thing where the scientist/creator lives pretty much like we do, only in the clouds, meddling when he sees fit.
And I have already said what I think the creators attributes are: negative, positive, attraction and repulsion.

Okay, I understand. Now can you explain how a creator with negative, positive, attraction and repulsion could create the universe we see around us?

They blended two different words. The creator of something is not necessarilly a God, which seems to mean an "all powerful" being. Something that comes with all types of flaws. The women need not be a saint, to give birth to a pope.

No. What they did was to say: "If this universe had a creator, he would have to be supernatural, with all the attributes that go along with supernatural beings. Supernatural beings are gods by definition. The creator of the universe was a god." And, depending on which religion they subscribed to, their particular god was credited with the creation of the universe.

So, you are claiming a non-supernatural being with the attributes positive, negative, attraction and repulsion is what created the universe and I am asking you what evidence you have that would lead you to that conclusion. I am also asking how a being with these attributes could create the universe.

[Tricky]

Okay, and someone said that the brain of the panda bear shunk due to nonuse. And I am sure there are plenty of other examples.
Plenty indeed. In vact, vestigial organs are one of the things that is used as strong evidence for evolution. The human appendix is one example of an organ that once had a use, but now is more likely to kill you than do anything useful for you. Also, snakes evolved from lizards with legs. Some primative snakes (like boa constrictors) still have rudimentary hips. I'd call losing limbs a definite step down in complexity, yet it is still adaptive.

Okay... mutations are an important part of the process? Mutations help in adaptation?
Really, they are unrelated. Mutations give a wider variety of traits for adaptation to "choose" from, but they would occur even if none of them were advantageous.

[Tricky]

Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.
No, he's making a light-hearted comment on my humorous free verse.

But really, my poem is not just a joke. It has meaning that is appropriate to this thread. Do you want to discuss it?

[D'rok]

Duh.
Precisely. So have you now changed your tune about complexity?

What about genetics? God I hope that they don't mess around and give germs another advantage, like they did when they made some more willing to kill us.Germs have wills?

So you have an insecticentric view? (I had to make the the word.)Nope. Just trying to dispel your anthropocentric fluff.

I'm going to have to disagree. If someone were able to read the whole genetic code, saw it when it started, he may have. Science thinks that most of the genetic code is "junk," I bet it ain't.What in the wide world of sports does this unsupportable assertion have to do with your other unsupportable assertion that consciousness is evolutionarily inevitable?

I never said that they were, I just posted that I didn't.Right. By posting that consciousness had to develop. Thus my reply. Which I don't think you comprehended. Oh well.

Considering that you either accidently, purposely, or delusionally miss me posting about humans not being the "purpose of the process," just one post ago, I would not be throwing that word around.Re-read for comprehension and you'll see that I was replying to your assertion that evolution has to produce consciousness. You admit that humans are not the purpose. Fine. Neither is consciousness.


Hey. Are you trying for an emotional response, even though you said emotions have no "whatever" that was?I have emotions. You have emotions. The solar system doesn't. Light doesn't. The universe doesn't. Emotions are not the means to understand reality. Observation and experimentation are. You can't "feel" your way to the "truth" about life, the universe and everything.

It ain't that bad. Your type tend towards the "gloom and doom" thing, its not that bad. Your misuse and misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is that bad. And that has nothing to do with doom and gloom. I'm quite happy knowing that I'm cosmically insignificant.

[D'rok]

Dupe post?

These two:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2739106#post2739106
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2739881#post2739881

Word for word the same response to the same post.

[wollery]

Light, I thought we'd gone over all this anthropic principle stuff ages ago. :nope:

[arthwollipot]

Nor can we be the process. And reigned what? We don't even reign on this planet. Insects have that one in the bag.

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Returning to lurk mode.

[D'rok]

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Returning to lurk mode.

Pedantry is one of the JREF-ian virtues. Kind of like Aristotelean virtues but more dorky. ;)

[Lonewulf]

To be pedantic, bacteria outweigh insects by quite a large margin.

This is not the Age of Man. It is not even the Age of Insects. It is the Age of Bacteria, and it has been for four and a half billion years.

Population size/weight is the only thing that matters? Not sure I agree.

[arthwollipot]

What criteria would you use?

[Lonewulf]

What criteria would you use?

Do I really need to explain? Sheesh.

Influence. If you have a lever big enough, you can move the world; that lever would be obviously superior to a lever that could lift a pebble.

I can wipe out a whole slew of insects using poison, bombs, and other weapons. Insects don't even have the intelligence required to even know that they need to fight back for their own survival.

Humans can go to space. Insects can't.

Humans can willfully influence the world. Insects can't. They can influence the world, but not willfully, and definitely don't do much individually. Ten humans can research a major scientific discovery, 10 insects get stepped on unintentionally by me daily, on average.

So, why should population size be the only criterion for superiority or "The Age of <blank>"? Do you have any particular reasons as to why population = superior, even with a lack of influence?

Just remember how superior insects are when humans colonize space...

[arthwollipot]

There are more species of bacteria than there are of any other organism on earth.

Bacteria exist in more locations on Earth than any other organism.

Bacteria adapt to new circumstances better than any other organism.

If it weren't for bacteria, the Earth would be filled with the dead corpses of every other creature in existence.

And far and away the most important, if it weren't for bacteria, humans (and other organisms) would not be able to influence anything because they'd all be dead.

If you want influence, check out how bacteria influence the world. It's possible that the earth wouldn't even have a breathable atmosphere if not for the influence of bacteria.

Anyway, this is all off-topic. On with the show!

[Tricky]

Population size/weight is the only thing that matters? Not sure I agree.What criteria would you use?

Food chain! Food chain! Rah rah rah!
:cheerleader5

[qayak]

Just remember how superior insects are when humans colonize space...

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.
Near space perhaps, Mars and the moon. And humans may make it possible for bacteria to. If it is riding on the rockets.

[cyborg]

What is it with humans and their need to personify everything?

[arthwollipot]

It's all about the humans, isn't it?

[cyborg]

That's what they seem to think.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, he's making a light-hearted comment on my humorous free verse.

But really, my poem is not just a joke. It has meaning that is appropriate to this thread. Do you want to discuss it?
Hell no. Why would I help you fit me for a "fool's hat?" You say light-hearted, I may not think so. Do you honestly think I read that thing? You must know that a nasty letter can only bother you if you read it. Don't do it. You have to read a little of it to see what it is, but you don't have to read the rest. Spare yourself the experience. If they call you on the phone, hang up.

[MRC_Hans]

Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.

Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans

[cyborg]

Put another way god becomes an impotent word that tells us nothing.

Choosing to personify the universe does not make the universe like a person.

[Lonewulf]

There are more species of bacteria than there are of any other organism on earth.

So?

Bacteria exist in more locations on Earth than any other organism.

Bacteria adapt to new circumstances better than any other organism.

And?

If it weren't for bacteria, the Earth would be filled with the dead corpses of every other creature in existence.

And humans can make the earth be filled with dead corpses of every other creature in existance, willfully. Bacteria can't decide, 'cause they're stupid.

And far and away the most important, if it weren't for bacteria, humans (and other organisms) would not be able to influence anything because they'd all be dead.

Bacteria has it's place. But are you saying that humans are meaningless? That they've accomplished or done nothing?

If you want influence, check out how bacteria influence the world. It's possible that the earth wouldn't even have a breathable atmosphere if not for the influence of bacteria.

And humans can modify and change it, or destroy it, willfully. Bacteria cannot do that.

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

Uh, okay, if you say so.

Somehow, hitching a ride on a human-made shuttle is "beating them to space" in your world...

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.

And you will probably lose that bet, and I'll be laughing.

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?

[D'rok]

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?


I like humans. Especially when they're in a vindaloo with mango chutney. :eek:

[wollery]

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?It's not about hating humans, it's about pointing out that considering humans to be in some way "more evolved", or "superior", or "more important" than other forms of life is only valid from a particular viewpoint, and from other viewpoints other forms of life can be seen to be "superior".

Bacteria "won" the space race from the point of view that they were the first terrestrial organisms to leave the Earth's atmosphere. They are "more successful" from the point of view that they inhabit a far wider range of habitats than any other organism. They are "superior to humans" from the point of view that they existed long before we did, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. They are "more important than humans" from the point of view that they are essential to life on Earth, whereas we are not.

Conversely humans "won" the space race from the point of view that we were the first organisms to create a means to leave the atmosphere. We are "more successful" from the point of view that we can create means to live in habitats that we would not naturally be able to survive in. We are "superior" from the point of view that we can wilfully alter our surroundings to make them more comfortable for our lives, and have developed the abilities to subjugate almost all other organisms for our own purposes. We are "more important" from the point of view that we hold the fates of all terrestrial organisms in our hands.

Similar arguments can be made for insects, sharks, cephalopods, arachnids......

In point of fact, there's no such thing as a "superior" life form in terms of the whole picture. Yes, we could destroy all the insects, or all the bacteria, or all the other animals on earth with our "intelligence", but that would actually be a very stupid things to do, because they are all utterly essential to our own lives. Also, there's no such thing as "more evolved" since organisms evolve to fill a niche, and if they have no further pressure to evolve will not do so - such is the case with sharks, crocodilia, horseshoe crabs, coelocanths, and several types of insect and bacteria. We are just another part of the complex system of life on this little rock, no more, no less, and certainly no more or less important than any other part.

[Tricky]

Hell no. Why would I help you fit me for a "fool's hat?" You say light-hearted, I may not think so.
You won't know if you don't read it. Yes, it is poking fun at you, but gently.

Do you honestly think I read that thing?
Probably you scanned it. It's very short. Most people read all the posts in the threads they start.

You must know that a nasty letter can only bother you if you read it.
Not true, especially in forums. You could have someone say, "What did you think of that letter somebody wrote about you?" In fact, this very thing happened here. Sackett referenced the poem and you responded in a way that sounded distinctly like you were bothered. You said:Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.

But I'll summarize it anyway and you can read it or not as you choose. The poem points out that trying to speculate on whether or not humans could be like gods is a tad premature since gods (and flying spaghetti monsters) would first have to be shown to exist.

[nescafe]

I like humans. Especially when they're in a vindaloo with mango chutney. :eek:

Mango Chutney? (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/chutney/)

[D'rok]

Mango Chutney? (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/chutney/)

I love the Internet.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It's not about hating humans, it's about pointing out that considering humans to be in some way "more evolved", or "superior", or "more important" than other forms of life is only valid from a particular viewpoint, and from other viewpoints other forms of life can be seen to be "superior".
They are more "more evolved" "superior" and "more important" in reference to what I be talking about.

Bacteria "won" the space race from the point of view that they were the first terrestrial organisms to leave the Earth's atmosphere. They are "more successful" from the point of view that they inhabit a far wider range of habitats than any other organism.
Knowing this, humans will probably add "purposely" sending them off into space, to them going anyway.

They are "superior to humans" from the point of view that they existed long before we did, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. They are "more important than humans" from the point of view that they are essential to life on Earth, whereas we are not.
I salute them. They do a great job in forming the foundation for more complex life.

Conversely humans "won" the space race from the point of view that we were the first organisms to create a means to leave the atmosphere. We are "more successful" from the point of view that we can create means to live in habitats that we would not naturally be able to survive in. We are "superior" from the point of view that we can wilfully alter our surroundings to make them more comfortable for our lives, and have developed the abilities to subjugate almost all other organisms for our own purposes.
Who said we were racing? Why can't we be working towards a common goal, spreading life?

We are "more important" from the point of view that we hold the fates of all terrestrial organisms in our hands.

Similar arguments can be made for insects, sharks, cephalopods, arachnids......
We are the only ones who know it. That is something new. Knowing has added another level to the process.

Also, there's no such thing as "more evolved" since organisms evolve to fill a niche, and if they have no further pressure to evolve will not do so - such is the case with sharks, crocodilia, horseshoe crabs, coelocanths, and several types of insect and bacteria.
I have heard where some bacteria can "hypermutate" and you are saying that some can turn it off. How did they do that, if the lifeform has no input to the process?

[Belz...]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

Gosh, not you again.

[D'rok]

LCL, what would it take for you to seriously consider the idea that life does not have a purpose, goal, destiny, fate, or whatever it is you want to call it?

[Belz...]

Don't bother, D'rok. Light is unable to store new information.

[wollery]

They are more "more evolved" "superior" and "more important" in reference to what I be talking about.Which is precisely the point! :rolleyes:

Knowing this, humans will probably add "purposely" sending them off into space, to them going anyway.Eh, I have no idea what you mean! :confused:

I salute them. They do a great job in forming the foundation for more complex life. :nope:

Who said we were racing? Why can't we be working towards a common goal, spreading life? Curious about that sound you just heard? That was the point whizzing over your head.

We are the only ones who know it. That is something new. Knowing has added another level to the process.Yet more anthropocentrism. *sigh*

I have heard where some bacteria can "hypermutate" and you are saying that some can turn it off. How did they do that, if the lifeform has no input to the process?And still you attribute to evolution some form of intent on the part of the organism. Please read what i said again, carefully this time, and note the phrase "pressure to evolve". It's of vital importance to the context.

Look up Lamarckism on the internet, and then read all about why it's a load of cobblers. If only you actually searched for truth rather than looking to confirm your own preconceptions you might, just possibly, have the vaguest chance of learning something worth knowing. :rolleyes:

[qayak]

And humans can modify and change it, or destroy it, willfully. Bacteria cannot do that.

So, how does this make humans superior? It just makes them different.

Somehow, hitching a ride on a human-made shuttle is "beating them to space" in your world...

Well, the race was to see who colonizes space first. Bacteria have a huge head start, they are already there. Humans sit here dreaming, unable to make it a reality.

As many scientist have pointed out, even if we find life on Mars, or any other planet we have sent probes to, we can't be sure that life didn't come from Earth, transported by the very probes doing the searching.

And you will probably lose that bet, and I'll be laughing.

I doubt it. Have you read up on the problems of human colonization of space? Didn't Bush say the US was going to Mars several years ago? How much closer are we now? Have you ever wondered why the ISS is limited to low Earth orbit?

Even if you do win the bet, you won't be laughing. Neither will many generations of your descendants.

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?

Only humans who think the universe holds them in special regard.

[arthwollipot]

Bacteria has it's place. But are you saying that humans are meaningless? That they've accomplished or done nothing?

Putting words into my mouth, there? Er, fingers? I never said any such thing.

And humans can modify and change it, or destroy it, willfully. Bacteria cannot do that.

So wilfulness is your criterion then. We can act wilfully and bacteria cannot. I suppose you don't have much truck with predestination.

Actually, for that matter, neither do I.

Somehow, hitching a ride on a human-made shuttle is "beating them to space" in your world...

I think you'll find the "them" here was referring to insects, not humans. Bacteria can survive in deep vacuum. Humans cannot, and neither can insects. Bacteria can survive in acidic springs, at the edge of undersea volcanoes, deep underground, and a lot of other places we can't.

I'll assume that you're not claiming that humans' ability to destroy the planet is a good thing?

[Belz...]

And humans can modify and change it, or destroy it, willfully. Bacteria cannot do that.

Bacteria can eat you from the inside out. Humans can't do that.

[Lonewulf]

Y'know, I get into enough mindless arguments with people on this forum as it is.

People think that it's logical to claim that bacteria are superior to humans.

People think that ALL species of bacteria should rationally be compared to ONE species of animal.

People think that... you know what? Forget it.

I'm beginning to see just how "rational" people are on this forum. :rolleyes:

Unsubscribing. I have no wish to kill more braincells. I'd rather read another creationist thread for that.

[Belz...]

People think that it's logical to claim that bacteria are superior to humans.

Never said that. The idea of "superiority" is meaningless, anyway. You're the one arguing superiority, not me.

People think that ALL species of bacteria should rationally be compared to ONE species of animal.

Actually I was talking about just the one.

I'm beginning to see just how "rational" people are on this forum. :rolleyes:

What's irrational is your apparent unwillingness to challenge your own opinions.

Unsubscribing. I have no wish to kill more braincells. I'd rather read another creationist thread for that.

Suit yourself.

[wollery]

Y'know, I get into enough mindless arguments with people on this forum as it is.

People think that it's logical to claim that bacteria are superior to humans.

People think that ALL species of bacteria should rationally be compared to ONE species of animal.

People think that... you know what? Forget it.

I'm beginning to see just how "rational" people are on this forum. :rolleyes:

Unsubscribing. I have no wish to kill more braincells. I'd rather read another creationist thread for that.I love the smell of anthropocentrism in the morning!

[Belz...]

Says the man with the Owl avatar with glasses and a hat...

[Faithkills]

Says the man with the Owl avatar with glasses and a hat...

That would be anthropomorphism not anthropocentrism

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Okay, I understand. Now can you explain how a creator with negative, positive, attraction and repulsion could create the universe we see around us?

They are the basic forces at work. Two charges bring on two reactions.



No. What they did was to say: "If this universe had a creator, he would have to be supernatural, with all the attributes that go along with supernatural beings.
Supernatural is fine, all-powerful is not. Like my posted example, one does not have to follow the other.


Supernatural beings are gods by definition. The creator of the universe was a god."
Supernatural could also mean "outside the universe."


So, you are claiming a non-supernatural being with the attributes positive, negative, attraction and repulsion is what created the universe and I am asking you what evidence you have that would lead you to that conclusion.
The four forces created the universe, and their attributes are: a binding force, a force of decay, an attractive force, and one that was attractive and repulsive.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Never said that. The idea of "superiority" is meaningless, anyway. You're the one arguing superiority, not me.

I'm not trying to argue superiority, everything plays a part. But, if humans are a part of the process, their consciousness and intelligence came out of it, and added another lever to it.
The process could have started by accident, but because of the direction of its flow, consciousness and intelligence had to come from it.

[Faithkills]

The four forces created the universe, and their attributes are: a binding force, a force of decay, an attractive force, and one that was attractive and repulsive.

What could this theory be used to predict? How can it be falsified?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

You won't know if you don't read it. Yes, it is poking fun at you, but gently.
Says you.


Probably you scanned it. It's very short. Most people read all the posts in the threads they start.
My scan did not like it, and I trusted the opinion.

Not true, especially in forums. You could have someone say, "What did you think of that letter somebody wrote about you?" In fact, this very thing happened here. Sackett referenced the poem and you responded in a way that sounded distinctly like you were bothered. You said:
I do not have to read it to be annoyed by the attempt.

But I'll summarize it anyway and you can read it or not as you choose. The poem points out that trying to speculate on whether or not humans could be like gods is a tad premature since gods (and flying spaghetti monsters) would first have to be shown to exist.
I don't believe humans can be Gods, nor do I believe that Gods can live up to all the things humans have heaped on them.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What could this theory be used to predict? How can it be falsified?
Those are the forces that the "big bang" set inot motion.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Precisely. So have you now changed your tune about complexity?
Life uses whatever works, but the process is about an ever increasing pattern of matter, energy, and information.

Germs have wills?
To live.


What in the wide world of sports does this unsupportable assertion have to do with your other unsupportable assertion that consciousness is evolutionarily inevitable?
With 20/20 hindsight, yes.


Re-read for comprehension and you'll see that I was replying to your assertion that evolution has to produce consciousness. You admit that humans are not the purpose. Fine. Neither is consciousness.
Humans and consciousness are stages/levels of the process.

I have emotions. You have emotions. The solar system doesn't. Light doesn't.
The percursors for them has to be tied to light energy.

Emotions are not the means to understand reality.
How about experience it?

Observation and experimentation are. You can't "feel" your way to the "truth" about life, the universe and everything.
You could be emotionally involved enough to search.




I'm quite happy knowing that I'm cosmically insignificant.
Me too

[Tricky]

Those are the forces that the "big bang" set inot motion.
LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?

[Darth Rotor]

They don't call him Tricky for nothing: Notice how he just happens to leave out any mention of the Trinity: Olive, Tomato, and Holy Basil.

Vile heretic!
Correction: Olive oil, not Olive. ;)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?
There was no "before," since there was no Time yet. :)

By the way, LCL's first post shows me that he has been rummaging about in some old Phillip Jose Farmer books about pocket universes. (Can't recall the name of the series, but there were five books in it, there were siblings, and no, it wasn't Riverworld.) I'll ETA when I find the references.

One word: Kickaha. ;)

ETA:

World of Tiers series

Maker of Universes
Gates of Creation
A Private Cosmos
Beyond the Walls of Terra
The Lavalite World

Man, this Farmer Nostalgia makes me want to read "A Feast Unknown" again.

DR

[Tricky]

LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?
I'll retract this statement. I got the noun order wrong. LCL said the big bang set the forces inot (sic) motion, not the reverse. My mistake.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Bacteria can eat you from the inside out. Humans can't do that.
Humans understand what is meant by "inside." But I am not arguing "human," I have been saying that what they represent could have been filled by anything. What they represent is consciousness added to intelligence. Now artificial forms of matter, energy, and information can be added to the mix.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

LOL. Really? How do you know this? Were you around before the beginning of the universe?
No. I can see the results, don't you?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No. I can see the results, don't you?Sorry, I didn't see your reply.

[D'rok]

Humans understand what is meant by "inside." But I am not arguing "human," I have been saying that what they represent could have been filled by anything. What they represent is consciousness added to intelligence. Now artificial forms of matter, energy, and information can be added to the mix.

OK, I'm going to concede a little ground here. I think it's reasonable to suggest that the human capacity for artificial modification of the environment could have some sort of effect on natural selection. But I think you are taking this and stretching it to the breaking point and beyond.

[cyborg]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.
Just about. An atheist with a "more" positive outlook.

Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans
I think Deist have to believe in a God/creator. If so, that is not going to work for me. I am perfectly happy with a "patterned process that got lucky."

[D'rok]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).

Good point. I typed before I thought.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

(No need for an answer, it is rhetorical: there is no practical difference in the differing use of terminology other than to make it clear that it is humans engaging in the action).
Fine with me. Humans are acting as part of the natural process when they manipulate matter, energy, and information.

[Belz...]

That would be anthropomorphism not anthropocentrism

Right, right.

[Belz...]

I'm not trying to argue superiority, everything plays a part. But, if humans are a part of the process, their consciousness and intelligence came out of it

Do you have a point ?

, and added another lever to it.

I assume you mean "level". Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?

The four forces created the universe

Actually, it's the other way around. But you've been told this already. Yet another example that you don't learn.

Germs have wills?
To live.

Sorry, Light. Germs don't have brains. They don't have wills.

Humans understand what is meant by "inside."

That's nice on a philosophical level, but in cold hard reality it means nothing.

No. I can see the results, don't you?

Just because you can see a painting doesn't mean you can tell which brush was used.

[Belz...]

Why is it when humans modify the environment it's artificial and when bacterial do it is natural?

I've had the same thought. Everything is natural, including our "artificial" stuff. So why do people rant against things "artificial" as though they somehow don't fit ?

[cyborg]

I've had the same thought. Everything is natural, including our "artificial" stuff. So why do people rant against things "artificial" as though they somehow don't fit ?

Well that would be anthropocentrism.

And of course the idea that certain things should and shouldn't be is a fallacy.

Things are.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Do you have a point ?
They are part of the process. They are its natural, logical outcome, no matter what body they wear.



I assume you mean "level". Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?
Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.


Actually, it's the other way around. But you've been told this already. Yet another example that you don't learn.
The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.


Sorry, Light. Germs don't have brains. They don't have wills.
Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.


That's nice on a philosophical level, but in cold hard reality it means nothing.
It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.


Just because you can see a painting doesn't mean you can tell which brush was used.
Of the four brushes, the one most used in reference to life is...

[arthwollipot]

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

:confused:

Um, nothing really to say here, except to point out the absurdity of this statement.

[wollery]

:confused:

Um, nothing really to say here, except to point out the absurdity of this statement.A simple "nope" would have sufficed. :p

[MRC_Hans]

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2740764#post2740764)
Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.

Just about. An atheist with a "more" positive outlook.



I don't know why believers always assume that atheists don't have a positive outlook.



Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans

I think Deist have to believe in a God/creator. If so, that is not going to work for me. I am perfectly happy with a "patterned process that got lucky."


Yes. As I say, if you fit your God/Creator completely into the observable universe, your definition becomes indistinguishable from materialism. Food for thought, ehh?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

They are part of the process. They are its natural, logical outcome, no matter what body they wear.

Materialism.

Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.

Materialism.

The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.

Materialism.

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

Not under the usual definition of "want". Need is something different. You don't even have to be a life form to need.

It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.

Not really. It allows you more room for speculation, but even that is illusory. I can speculate as much as you, the difference is that I am aware that it is only speculation, which ultimately leaves me with more options than thou.

Hans

[Belz...]

Like the "smart bomb," or even the atomic bomb, intelligence lifts heavier loads than strength. It allows for the use of several types of "strengths" all at once, to fit any situation.

That doesn't answer my question : Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?

The four forces resulted from the "big bang," and they shaped the universe.

That's a little better.

Give me a break. What are you "braincentric?" Many forms of life want and need without them.

Not without a central nervous system they don't.

Because they have tendencies does not mean that they have will. I'd suggest you read up on the word "will", but I know you're not going to retain that, anyway.

It allows those who know enough to understand the concept, a wider range of options.

But it doesn't change squat about reality.

Of the four brushes, the one most used in reference to life is...

And there we have it. We've come full circle, light. After a few thousand posts trying to show you wrong, you've come right back to the OP of your first thread, elegantly proving my point about you not learning.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't know why believers always assume that atheists don't have a positive outlook.
Sorry, I think it might have something to do with the unemotional logic thing.




Yes. As I say, if you fit your God/Creator completely into the observable universe, your definition becomes indistinguishable from materialism. Food for thought, ehh?
I'm talking about the capability, and possibilities, that intelligence/consciousness has brought to the process.


Materialism.
I'm talking about the influence energy has on the material world.

Not under the usual definition of "want". Need is something different. You don't even have to be a life form to need.
Water needs oxygen and hydrogen?


Not really. It allows you more room for speculation, but even that is illusory. I can speculate as much as you, the difference is that I am aware that it is only speculation, which ultimately leaves me with more options than thou.

Fact has an advantage over speculation, but it can also be limited by what is thought to be fact.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I don't know why believers always assume that atheists don't have a positive outlook.
Sorry, I think it might have something to do with the unemotional logic thing.




Yes. As I say, if you fit your God/Creator completely into the observable universe, your definition becomes indistinguishable from materialism. Food for thought, ehh?
I'm talking about the capability, and possibilities, that intelligence/consciousness has brought to the process.


Materialism.
I'm talking about the influence energy has on the material world.

Not under the usual definition of "want". Need is something different. You don't even have to be a life form to need.
Water needs oxygen and hydrogen?


Not really. It allows you more room for speculation, but even that is illusory. I can speculate as much as you, the difference is that I am aware that it is only speculation, which ultimately leaves me with more options than thou.

Fact has an advantage over speculation, but it can also be limited by what is thought to be fact.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That doesn't answer my question : Why would intelligence be another level and, say, strength, not ?
I'm looking for purpose, and the direction of evolution is towards the manipulation of matter, energy, and information. It just so happens that humans, with their intelligence, mark that step.

Not without a central nervous system they don't.
That is just a matter of levels, everything has a precursor. That is unless it was magically created.

Because they have tendencies does not mean that they have will. I'd suggest you read up on the word "will", but I know you're not going to retain that, anyway.
I don't have to know where the line is that says that something has will and something else does, but there is one.


But it doesn't change squat about reality.
The more you know, the fuller your reality.


And there we have it. We've come full circle, light. After a few thousand posts trying to show you wrong, you've come right back to the OP of your first thread, elegantly proving my point about you not learning.Looking for the "animating" force behind life, which direction would you look? Which of the four forces, has to do with that?

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, I think it might have something to do with the unemotional logic thing.

What unemotional logic thing?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

What unemotional logic thing?
Statements like this one are common here.

Bacteria can eat you from the inside out. Humans can't do that.
Now I am sure bacteria does as much positive as negative (human reference) but the choice of examples are always gloomy. The thread starters are gloomy; "God the liar" or some such. Okay, I realize that this is just that side of them, the passion they feel about that subject, but that is what I see... and apparently what I used to judge. Like I said, sorry.

[wollery]

It's just pointing out the flaws in your arguments, sometimes with quite graphic examples, just to drive the point home.

[Tricky]

I'm looking for purpose, and the direction of evolution is towards the manipulation of matter, energy, and information. It just so happens that humans, with their intelligence, mark that step.
Purpose is a human concept. You cannot apply it to inanimate objects. Whatever "purpose" you find, it will always be just you and your brain that decide what you think it is. The universe not only doesn't care, it can't.

[arthwollipot]

Statements like this one are common here.

Now I am sure bacteria does as much positive as negative (human reference) but the choice of examples are always gloomy. The thread starters are gloomy; "God the liar" or some such. Okay, I realize that this is just that side of them, the passion they feel about that subject, but that is what I see... and apparently what I used to judge. Like I said, sorry.

Okay, because it seemed to me that you were implying that all skeptics and nontheists were logical and unemotional. I can assure you that neither one is generally true. Skeptics can be as illogical and emotional as anyone else. Apology accepted.

[T'ai Chi]

So for the naturalists and people interested in scientism, How do you believe matter/energy can create itself?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Purpose is a human concept. You cannot apply it to inanimate objects. Whatever "purpose" you find, it will always be just you and your brain that decide what you think it is. The universe not only doesn't care, it can't.
Evolution has a "direction" and it is towards more and more complex forms of...

[wollery]

So for the naturalists and people interested in scientism, How do you believe matter/energy can create itself?Non sequitor, and a strawman to boot. :rolleyes:

[wollery]

Evolution has a "direction" and it is towards more and more complex forms of...Nope.

This has been explained to you several times.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So for the naturalists and people interested in scientism, How do you believe matter/energy can create itself?
Yeah, what about that? Why is it reasonable to assume that a "self-producing" process created itself? And even if that is true-that the universe created itself-isn't that one of the properties that religion gave to God, a something that created itself, and all there is?
"I am, because I am?"

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Nope.

This has been explained to you several times.
It didn't take. Every place I look (except here) says that the "general" direction of evolution is towards more and more complex forms of...

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The universe not only doesn't care, it can't.We are part of the universe, and it gave us the ability to care. Through humans, the process has became conscious of itself.

[Faithkills]

So for the naturalists and people interested in scientism, How do you believe matter/energy can create itself?

Wrong question, and wrong thinking. Nothing needs to create itself, it already is.

[wollery]

It didn't take. Every place I look (except here) says that the "general" direction of evolution is towards more and more complex forms of...Any citation for that?

[arthwollipot]

So for the naturalists and people interested in scientism, How do you believe matter/energy can create itself?

To take this a little seriously for the moment (although I have no idea what "scientism" is supposed to be), the answer is very simple: "We don't know".

Is that so difficult?

The fact that we don't know something is no reason to assume that it is supernatural.

[Tricky]

We are part of the universe, and it gave us the ability to care. Through humans, the process has became conscious of itself.
The universe didn't "give" us anything. Humans and perhaps some other creatures have become conscious, but there is no evidence that this is anything other than incidental. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe is not conscious. I know it makes many people feel good to imagine that we are more important than we are, but it is incorrect and anthropocentric to extrapolate our characteristics to the universe in general.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The universe didn't "give" us anything. Humans and perhaps some other creatures have become conscious, but there is no evidence that this is anything other than incidental.

I say that once the big bang produced the 4 forces, that the rest had to happen. The seed (however made) had to produce the plant.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe is not conscious.
And that is why I harp on the human thing, they represent a new level of the process.

I know it makes many people feel good to imagine that we are more important than we are, but it is incorrect and anthropocentric to extrapolate our characteristics to the universe in general.
Humans are the leading edge of the process-for now-that is a reason to feel good. Though I don't think that it is any reason to imagine the universe revolving around humans, and God/the creator being one.

I think, that it is because most people feel insignicant, that they seek to make a "big splash" with their lives.

[Tricky]

I say that once the big bang produced the 4 forces, that the rest had to happen. The seed (however made) had to produce the plant.
That is pure conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever. What seed?

And that is why I harp on the human thing, they represent a new level of the process.
This is another statement that is very limited. It is quite possible (some say likely) that intelligent life exists in other places in the universe, maybe even preceding humans on Earth. Again, don't be so proud of big brains. They may not prove to be such a great adaptive trait.

Humans are the leading edge of the process-for now-that is a reason to feel good. Though I don't think that it is any reason to imagine the universe revolving around humans, and God/the creator being one.
That you think there is a creator and it is intelligent indicates that you are still fitting things to your very human viewpoint. There is no evidence that the universe is intelligent at all, even though intelligence is certainly a part of it. From what we can see, it is a very small part.

I think, that it is because most people feel insignicant, that they seek to make a "big splash" with their lives.
Well, I give you credit for recognizing this, because this is exactly how you seem to behave. It seems to me that you seek greater significance in the universe because you can't seem to bear the thought that it simply does not, and cannot, care.

[cyborg]

That is pure conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever. What seed?

It all rather sounds like a spiritual notion of hard determinism to me.

[arthwollipot]

And that is why I harp on the human thing, they represent a new level of the process.

So what is the dividing line between the "old" level and the "new" level? What is it that quantatively changes to make something a "new" level?

In short, define consciousness.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That is pure conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever. What seed?
Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.


This is another statement that is very limited. It is quite possible (some say likely) that intelligent life exists in other places in the universe, maybe even preceding humans on Earth.
Of course life exists in other parts of the universe, wherever the conditions are ripe. Humans represent a revolutionary level. I do not (and never have) believed that they are the purpose of the process. They can't be. The process will still be here when they are long gone.

Again, don't be so proud of big brains. They may not prove to be such a great adaptive trait.
Especially if they think of a way to destroy 4 billion years of work.

That you think there is a creator and it is intelligent indicates that you are still fitting things to your very human viewpoint.
I think light created life, but it does not have to be intelligent to have done it. It may just have been lucky enough to have the right characteristics.

There is no evidence that the universe is intelligent at all, even though intelligence is certainly a part of it. From what we can see, it is a very small part.
The evolutionary process is intelligent.

Well, I give you credit for recognizing this, because this is exactly how you seem to behave. It seems to me that you seek greater significance in the universe because you can't seem to bear the thought that it simply does not, and cannot, care.
I am not trying to get the universe to care, as you said, it can't. I am not even trying to get human kind to care. What I am seeking is to put forth my agenda-like it or not. Some will, and some won't.

[arthwollipot]

The evolutionary process is intelligent.

Really? By what criteria?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So what is the dividing line between the "old" level and the "new" level? What is it that quantatively changes to make something a "new" level?
There is a level between organic, and inorganic. Life gave the process a whole nother set of options.

In short, define consciousness.
Awareness. Something that allowed humans to seek their own agenda. That agenda has spurred the creation of all things man-made. Things that includes the creation of new forms of life, and new elements. Things done in a fraction of the time that nature would have.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Really? By what criteria?
Network intelligence.

[Tricky]

Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.
No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.


Of course life exists in other parts of the universe, wherever the conditions are ripe.
How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.

Humans represent a revolutionary level.
How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?

I do not (and never have) believed that they are the purpose of the process. They can't be. The process will still be here when they are long gone.
Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?

Especially if they think of a way to destroy 4 billion years of work.
Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how? It is quite unlikely that humans will destroy all life on earth, but even if they somehow manage to do so, well, humans are creatures created by nature, so doing so would not be unnatural. No, I'm not in favor of it, but that is because I like having humans here. Call me selfish.

I think light created life, but it does not have to be intelligent to have done it. It may just have been lucky enough to have the right characteristics.
Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it. If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.

The evolutionary process is intelligent.
I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.

I am not trying to get the universe to care, as you said, it can't. I am not even trying to get human kind to care. What I am seeking is to put forth my agenda-like it or not. Some will, and some won't.
I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.

[wollery]

Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.Wrong. Anthropocentrism again. We, as humans, would not be here if the constants were different, and there might not be life at all, but there would definitely be a Universe.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.
Fined tuned could also be something "throwing out" or "moving pass" what didn't work to settle on what does.

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.
This smacks of that "bogus" cry for evidence thing that was taked about in another thread.

How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.
Come on. With the same conditions, we should get about the same results. That is unless we are considering magic.

How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?
What about the life here?

Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?
When it has to do with non-human life, I think it is called direction, and the direction is towards more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how?
Sure, why not.

It is quite unlikely that humans will destroy all life on earth, but even if they somehow manage to do so, well, humans are creatures created by nature, so doing so would not be unnatural. No, I'm not in favor of it, but that is because I like having humans here. Call me selfish.
Sure it would be natural, I just hope it does not happen, but I fear it can be done.

Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it.
Like it being the soul?

If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.
Still the soul though.

I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.
Humans are intelligent, and there are a lot of dead ends there too. And appearance isn't everything.

I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.Light creating life is a small part of my agenda. As soon as I feel I "somewhat" know what I am talking about, I am going to use a small bit of "slant of hand" (a number code) to put ID into the school system. I'll leave it to you all and the courts to get it out. Only, since I am going to donate the profits to neighborhood schools, I might have a lot of parents trying to keep it in. I'm guessing they will be more concerned with what I am doing, than what I am saying. But who knows, they may like what I am saying.

[Tricky]

No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.
Fined tuned could also be something "throwing out" or "moving pass" what didn't work to settle on what does. Both of which are conscious actions. They are not "accidents".

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.
This smacks of that "bogus" cry for evidence thing that was taked about in another thread.
If you think that a call for evidence is "bogus", then that says a lot about your philosophy. It is religious, not scientific.

How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.
Come on. With the same conditions, we should get about the same results. That is unless we are considering magic.
It is quite possible, but we still don't know. And we certainly don't know what characteristics life and intelligence would have under other circumstances. You're treating it as if it would be just like human intelligence.

How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?
What about the life here?
What about it? It has become (overall) more complex. So have minerals. Let's face it. Everything new is "revolutionary". Human intelligence is revolutionary, but whether or not the revolution has long-term survival advantage is very much in question. As revolutions go, breathing air was much more important.
Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?
When it has to do with non-human life, I think it is called direction, and the direction is towards more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.
Yes, things trend to more complexity, but that does not mean "purpose". What purpose is served when a mixture of sand, silt and mud is dropped into water and it sorts itself into more complex layers? It is simply controlled by physical laws.

Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how?
Sure, why not.
They ate carbon dioxide and pooped oxygen (http://www.uwsp.edu/museum/3rdatmos.htm). The reason we have so much free oxygen on the planet is because of these organisms. Unfortunately for them, blue-green algae cannot live in oxygen, so they literally died in their own poop. They still exist (in places with no free oxygen) but they once were the masters of earth.

Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it.
Like it being the soul?
Sorry, that makes no sense. What do you think a soul is?

If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.
Still the soul though.
As I say, yours are religious beliefs, not scientific. I don't contest your right to hold religious beliefs. Don't try to pawn them off as science.

I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.
Humans are intelligent, and there are a lot of dead ends there too. And appearance isn't everything.
Still, this is strong evidence against your claim of evolution being "intelligent. Intelligent things don't make so many mistakes.
I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.Light creating life is a small part of my agenda. As soon as I feel I "somewhat" know what I am talking about, I am going to use a small bit of "slant of hand" (a number code) to put ID into the school system. I'll leave it to you all and the courts to get it out. Only, since I am going to donate the profits to neighborhood schools, I might have a lot of parents trying to keep it in. I'm guessing they will be more concerned with what I am doing, than what I am saying. But who knows, they may like what I am saying.
I find it unlikely that you are going to have significant profits. You have no market for your religion. How much have you raised so far?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Both of which are conscious actions. They are not "accidents".
When an element settles into a stable pattern, that can be said to be "fine tuning." Are you saying that that is a conscious action?


If you think that a call for evidence is "bogus", then that says a lot about your philosophy. It is religious, not scientific.
You know I can't test the results of changing the universal constants. And you know that the universe would not be the same place without them.

It is quite possible, but we still don't know. And we certainly don't know what characteristics life and intelligence would have under other circumstances.
I said under the same conditions as happened here-on earth. Are you saying that the natural conditions here are unique in all the universe? Science is looking for similiar conditions in space in their search for life.

You're treating it as if it would be just like human intelligence.
Isn't intelligence, intelligence?

What about it? It has become (overall) more complex. So have minerals.
Right, the evolutionary process trends towards more complex in everything, not just life. Non-life is part of the process, some people just think evolution starts with life.

Let's face it. Everything new is "revolutionary". Human intelligence is revolutionary, but whether or not the revolution has long-term survival advantage is very much in question. As revolutions go, breathing air was much more important.
It has served them so far, and some think humans can't exist without it. Intelligence gives humans the advantage of moving under ground, or under water, and perhaps even into space, if they mess up the land too much.

Yes, things trend to more complexity, but that does not mean "purpose". What purpose is served when a mixture of sand, silt and mud is dropped into water and it sorts itself into more complex layers? It is simply controlled by physical laws.
Yes, intelligence came about due to natural laws. And why you keep talking about "purpose"?

They ate carbon dioxide and pooped oxygen (http://www.uwsp.edu/museum/3rdatmos.htm). The reason we have so much free oxygen on the planet is because of these organisms. Unfortunately for them, blue-green algae cannot live in oxygen, so they literally died in their own poop. They still exist (in places with no free oxygen) but they once were the masters of earth.
I knew that, though I thought they breathed out oxygen. With that in mind though, aren't we destined to do the same thing by pooping methane? And who was it that they killed off in order to takeover the planet?

Sorry, that makes no sense. What do you think a soul is?
The "how" and "why" behind the drama.

As I say, yours are religious beliefs, not scientific. I don't contest your right to hold religious beliefs. Don't try to pawn them off as science.
Sorry, science can't cross that line.

Still, this is strong evidence against your claim of evolution being "intelligent. Intelligent things don't make so many mistakes.
Why would intelligence rule out mistakes? Especially with a process that is about finding the best means of survival? It does not "know" already (no matter how smart) it has to find them.

I find it unlikely that you are going to have significant profits.
I'm betting that you are wrong. I bet you doubted Dr Dino too?

You have no market for your religion.
There is always a market, even if one has to be created. I intend to use something rarely tried-generosity. Loving me isn't going to be hard at all.

How much have you raised so far?
Profit isn't my only motive. I have to sharpen the axe first, then I'll cut open the money bag.

[Tricky]

When an element settles into a stable pattern, that can be said to be "fine tuning." Are you saying that that is a conscious action?
If it just happens on it's own, that is not tuning. Tuning is a conscious recognition of something that could be fixed or improved.

You know I can't test the results of changing the universal constants. And you know that the universe would not be the same place without them.
So essentially, you're creating a hypothetical situation which you know cannot exist. Universal constants simply are what they are. It is meaningless to speculate on what things would be like if they were otherwise. You don't know. You can't know.


I said under the same conditions as happened here-on earth. Are you saying that the natural conditions here are unique in all the universe? Science is looking for similiar conditions in space in their search for life.
As you are probably aware, the situation on earth is a very careful balancing act between many factors. If life elsewhere exists, it might be completely different. It might, for example, be silicon based rather than carbon based.

Isn't intelligence, intelligence?
I couldn't say. I only have experience with intelligence on earth. Lots of sci-fi stories deal with other kinds of intelligence, but how possible they really are, I can't say. I am perfectly happy with "I don't know", as an answer to this question.

Right, the evolutionary process trends towards more complex in everything, not just life. Non-life is part of the process, some people just think evolution starts with life.
Not necessarily. Stability is what matters. Stability is what makes things maintain their existence. That stability can be very simple, such as a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion for billions of years, or as complex as a molecule of DNA that falls into different paths of reproducing itself. In the universe as a whole, the "DNA" form of stability is quite uncommon, based on everything we know. Therefore, it is hard to make a case for the universe "striving" for this kind of complexity.

But on the word "evolution" we are in agreement. Evolution simply means "change over time". In recent years, the word has been co-opted to mean "biologic evolution", but the word existed before the knowledge of biologic evolution. Still, for the sake of clear communication, I make it a point to point out to others when I am talking about a kind of evolution other than biologic.

It has served them so far, and some think humans can't exist without it. Intelligence gives humans the advantage of moving under ground, or under water, and perhaps even into space, if they mess up the land too much.
Intelligence has proved to be a temporary advantage for humans, much like pooping oxygen was for blue-green algae. The real measure of success, in a universal sense, is stability. In this sense, humans are much less successful (so far) than dinosaurs.

Yes, intelligence came about due to natural laws. And why you keep talking about "purpose"?
You brought it up. See post 163.

I knew that, though I thought they breathed out oxygen. With that in mind though, aren't we destined to do the same thing by pooping methane? And who was it that they killed off in order to takeover the planet?
Technically, they excreted it. Breathing is a process of excreting carbon dioxide. Humans don't excrete much methane, unlike cows. Mostly we burn methane, but both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gasses.

As for who they "killed off", there were other organisms on earth before blue-green algae, although BGA are among the most primative of organisms. Who they mostly killed off was themselves.

Sorry, science can't cross that line. No, and religion can't cross that line either. Yet many religious people try to cross the line into science, as countless creationists have done in opposing teaching of evolution and as you have done on your website.

Why would intelligence rule out mistakes? Especially with a process that is about finding the best means of survival? It does not "know" already (no matter how smart) it has to find them.
Intelligence learns. You might expect a few mistakes at the beginning, but as evolution progresses, you would expect fewer if evolution were intelligent. That has not been the case. There are just as many extinctions in the more recent life as there have been in more ancient life. What has evolution "learned"? To create an intelligent species that may wipe itself out in short order, along with many other species? You must be kidding.


I'm betting that you are wrong. I bet you doubted Dr Dino too?
Well, don't bet too much. Dr. Dino had a target market(Christians). You don't have anything like that. Besides, Dr. Dino is in jail right now.


There is always a market, even if one has to be created. I intend to use something rarely tried-generosity. Loving me isn't going to be hard at all.
Based on the reaction here, it's going to be extremely hard to love you. And if you don't think generosity has been often tried, you haven't paid much attention. Besides, what are you going to be generous with? How are you going to get it?


Profit isn't my only motive. I have to sharpen the axe first, then I'll cut open the money bag.
Well, don't quit your day job.

[thoth108]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman. If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective. There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.

[wollery]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman.I'm not going to read a whole book, I don't have the time. Perhaps you could introduce some of his arguments here for discussion.

If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective.There are always questions. If you don't have questions then you aren't thinking. Science is all about questions. I should know, I'm a research scientist, and the most interesting things aren't the discoveries or the answers, but the new questions they bring.

There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.Such as?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman. If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective. There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.
I'm going to read the book (I need all the ammo I can get) till then, I'll listen to anything you say about it here.:)

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If it just happens on it's own, that is not tuning. Tuning is a conscious recognition of something that could be fixed or improved.
The universe may be a conscious effort.

So essentially, you're creating a hypothetical situation which you know cannot exist. Universal constants simply are what they are. It is meaningless to speculate on what things would be like if they were otherwise. You don't know. You can't know.
I have read where people have said that "if the strength of the forces were different..." and that is what I was referring to. And it is not meaningless to speculate. If we were closer to the sun, the conditions here would be different.

As you are probably aware, the situation on earth is a very careful balancing act between many factors. If life elsewhere exists, it might be completely different. It might, for example, be silicon based rather than carbon based.
Different, but recognized as life. And I'll stick with finding the conditions for carbon based life-it must be out there somewhere.

I couldn't say. I only have experience with intelligence on earth. Lots of sci-fi stories deal with other kinds of intelligence, but how possible they really are, I can't say. I am perfectly happy with "I don't know", as an answer to this question.
I'm speculating that intelligence is intelligence.

Not necessarily. Stability is what matters. Stability is what makes things maintain their existence. That stability can be very simple, such as a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion for billions of years, or as complex as a molecule of DNA that falls into different paths of reproducing itself. In the universe as a whole, the "DNA" form of stability is quite uncommon, based on everything we know. Therefore, it is hard to make a case for the universe "striving" for this kind of complexity.
Stability of what? More complex structures. We have the structure of simple elements, and then the more complex ones. We have that even before we reach life. And by the way, since there is a process that produces the elements, why wouldn't life be expected to come from that same process-especially since it already has.

gence has proved to be a temporary advantage for humans, much like pooping oxygen was for blue-green algae. The real measure of success, in a universal sense, is stability. In this sense, humans are much less successful (so far) than dinosaurs.
So if you caught the dinosaurs 50,000 years into their reign, you would have said the same about them.

You brought it up. See post 163.
And I dropped it for the word "direction" in reference to non-life.


Intelligence learns. You might expect a few mistakes at the beginning, but as evolution progresses, you would expect fewer if evolution were intelligent. That has not been the case. There are just as many extinctions in the more recent life as there have been in more ancient life. What has evolution "learned"? To create an intelligent species that may wipe itself out in short order, along with many other species? You must be kidding.
The process is intelligent, it seeks the best mode of survival. Individual lifeforms "feel" their way in reference to it.
The process was intelligent enough to allow for a way to encode a way to maintain what it built. The DNA code was a smart thing to do.

Well, don't bet too much.
Did you think he would get as far as he did?

Dr. Dino had a target market(Christians). You don't have anything like that.
My target is the ID debate, getting it into schools. What I got is nicely suited for that.

Besides, Dr. Dino is in jail right now.
That takes nothing away from what he pulled off. And learning from his experience, I'll pay my taxes.

Based on the reaction here, it's going to be extremely hard to love you.
Come on, here is not the norm. To most of the world, death is the opposite of life, negative is the opposite of positive, etc, etc. I am going to leave it to you all to explain why they are not.

And if you don't think generosity has been often tried, you haven't paid much attention.
Generosity with money, trumps most other types.

Besides, what are you going to be generous with? How are you going to get it?
If you notice, my site is not trying to sell anything, I made it to draw the fire it has. Once I feel that I am ready, I am going to gear up, using all I have learned. Then, all I have to do is draw attention to it. I'm going to do that by putting the number code attached to it into the school system, (I can pay several of their football teams to do that) media attention will do the rest.
I won't be exploiting kids, because I will donate the profit to them-I'll direct where it will go though. I will get my "splash" and neighborhood schools will get an additional, more dynamic, source of income. I'll even donate the number code to anyone who wishes to do the same thing where they are.

Well, don't quit your day job.
At least not yet.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Any citation for that?
Even without citation, it is obvious that the process has moved in the direction of more complex forms, but The Conquest of Energy says: "For more than four billion years before man appeared on earth, nature had been experimenting in the endless processes of evolution, building up ever more complex patterns of matter which guided the flow of energy into ever more diverse channels.
First, large numbers of the protons and neutrons which the elementary universe contained gathered to form the stable nuclei we know, and about each nucleus clustered as many electrons as its electrical attraction would permit it to hold. Thus were formed more than a hundred varieties of atoms-today, plus perhaps some others that have since become unstable and disappeared."

[wollery]

Even without citation, it is obvious that the process has moved in the direction of more complex forms, but The Conquest of Energy says: "For more than four billion years before man appeared on earth, nature had been experimenting in the endless processes of evolution, building up ever more complex patterns of matter which guided the flow of energy into ever more diverse channels.
First, large numbers of the protons and neutrons which the elementary universe contained gathered to form the stable nuclei we know, and about each nucleus clustered as many electrons as its electrical attraction would permit it to hold. Thus were formed more than a hundred varieties of atoms-today, plus perhaps some others that have since become unstable and disappeared."Well, that quote proves quite conclusively that he doesn't have the first clue about physics, in particular nucleosynthesis, and that he couldn't be bothered to actually research it or even ask someone. Only hydrogen existed in large quantities in the early Universe, with traces of helium, deuterium, tritium, and lithium. It took stars to produce heavier elements (up to oxygen) and a second generation of stars to produce the rest, many only produced in supernovae.

Furthermore the statement about some elements forming and then later becoming unstable and disappearing is pure speculation with absolutely no basis in any physics that I know of.

The man hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

[Tricky]

The universe may be a conscious effort.
The only conscious things yet discovered have been living organisms. The universe has (so far) exhibited none of the hallmarks of consciousness. Of course, it may yet be conscious, but based on evidence so far, it is unlikely to the n'th degree.

I have read where people have said that "if the strength of the forces were different..." and that is what I was referring to. And it is not meaningless to speculate. If we were closer to the sun, the conditions here would be different.
We know that planets can be closer to the sun. Two of them are. We don't know that universal constants can be different. But when I say 'meaningless to speculate', I meant that it is not meaningful to expect that they are different somewhere else. Certainly for the purpose of illustration, you can say "what if the speed of light were 100 miles per hour?" but you don't really expect that such a thing happens, or can happen.

Different, but recognized as life. And I'll stick with finding the conditions for carbon based life-it must be out there somewhere.
It could be. It might even be statistically likely. However, it is incorrect to say that it must be. However, even if statistically likely, it is still much more likely that life as we know it is relatively rare in the universe. I love reading science fiction. I don't forget that it is fiction.


I'm speculating that intelligence is intelligence.
Speculate away, but unless you have evidence, don't expect that your speculations will be given much weight.

Stability of what? More complex structures. We have the structure of simple elements, and then the more complex ones. We have that even before we reach life. And by the way, since there is a process that produces the elements, why wouldn't life be expected to come from that same process-especially since it already has.
Not necessarily. As you point out, conditions could be different. We know, for example, that silicon-based computer chips are capable of "remembering". Could they somehow become that way on their own? Could other things? Remember, the universe is a big old laboratory where lots of "experiments" may be going on.

So if you caught the dinosaurs 50,000 years into their reign, you would have said the same about them.
Nevertheless, we know they were extant for many millions of years. The same is not true of humans.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the story of the young baseball pitcher who plays in his first major league game. He gets the first batter out, but the second one hits a home run deep into the bleachers. "Dang", says the kid, "You messed up my no-hitter."

The process is intelligent, it seeks the best mode of survival. Individual lifeforms "feel" their way in reference to it.
You have not shown that it "seeks" anything. You are looking at the results and then imagining how they arrived there.

The process was intelligent enough to allow for a way to encode a way to maintain what it built. The DNA code was a smart thing to do.
The process was so stupid it took hundreds of millions of years to get the first life to appear. All you have shown is that DNA is complex. You have not shown that something intelligent made it that way. Remember the experiment with the sediments sorting themselves.

Did you think he would get as far as he did?
Based on the fact that I have seen religious con-men get rich many times before, I'm not terribly surprised. But they have an audience. You do not.

My target is the ID debate, getting it into schools. What I got is nicely suited for that.
As the case in Pennsylvania (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/)showed, proponents of Intelligent Design are not looking for a new way of explaining how things work. They are looking to get Christianity into schools. Your ideas are not compatible with Christianity (or any other major religion) and contrary to science. You have little hope of ever getting a following.

That takes nothing away from what he pulled off. And learning from his experience, I'll pay my taxes.
I'm guessing you won't earn enough of of this project to be subject to taxes. No offense, but in my opinion, you are not clever enough to perpetrate a successful scam and your ideas are not supportable enough to get a following any other way.

Come on, here is not the norm. To most of the world, death is the opposite of life, negative is the opposite of positive, etc, etc. I am going to leave it to you all to explain why they are not.
We spent many pages on this on your original thread. I don't see any reason to rehash it here.

Generosity with money, trumps most other types.
Where are you going to get the money? From whom? Do you think collecting a bunch of money and then giving some of it back is can be called "generous"? I'm telling you, this has been done countless times before. Eva Peron (http://libcom.org/history/articles/1919-eva-evita-peron/)did it. She wasn't a very nice person.

If you notice, my site is not trying to sell anything, I made it to draw the fire it has. Yes, it has drawn fire. What sort of positive attention has it drawn?

Once I feel that I am ready, I am going to gear up, using all I have learned. Then, all I have to do is draw attention to it.
How do you plan to do that? Who are your backers?

I'm going to do that by putting the number code attached to it into the school system, (I can pay several of their football teams to do that) media attention will do the rest.
Pay them with what? The money you don't have? And if you think getting your ideas into the school curriculum is an easy thing to do, all I can say is that you are hopelessly naive. You will need supporters. Lots of them. I cannot see that you have any.

I won't be exploiting kids, because I will donate the profit to them-I'll direct where it will go though.
About this "profit" that you will be donating. Where is it going to come from? The kids' parents? Will you be charging the school system for your ideas? The local government? Will you be taking a bunch of their money and then giving some of it back? If you expect anybody to give you money for your ideas, you are going to have to be a whole lot more convincing than you are now. Maybe if you say "it's for Jesus" then you could get somewhere. You could wind up like Dr. Dino.

I will get my "splash" and neighborhood schools will get an additional, more dynamic, source of income. I'll even donate the number code to anyone who wishes to do the same thing where they are.
I'm still missing the part on where you make an income. Who will give you money for this idea?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The only conscious things yet discovered have been living organisms. The universe has (so far) exhibited none of the hallmarks of consciousness.
Its orderly workings make it look conscious. It knows what to do. Now it need not be conscious of what it is doing, but that suggests it was engineered. And then there is that feeling that...

Of course, it may yet be conscious, but based on evidence so far, it is unlikely to the n'th degree.
Perhaps, but that is "evidence so far."

We know that planets can be closer to the sun. Two of them are. We don't know that universal constants can be different. But when I say 'meaningless to speculate', I meant that it is not meaningful to expect that they are different somewhere else. Certainly for the purpose of illustration, you can say "what if the speed of light were 100 miles per hour?" but you don't really expect that such a thing happens, or can happen.
Who said anything about "somewhere else"? Though, with the talk of other universes, I don't see how that can be done without speculating. Or do you just not like it when I do it?

It could be. It might even be statistically likely. However, it is incorrect to say that it must be. However, even if statistically likely, it is still much more likely that life as we know it is relatively rare in the universe. I love reading science fiction. I don't forget that it is fiction.
Okay, does that mean 3 times, 40, or a billion in this infinite universe?

Speculate away, but unless you have evidence, don't expect that your speculations will be given much weight.
I'll take the risk.


Nevertheless, we know they were extant for many millions of years. The same is not true of humans.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt.


For some reason, I'm reminded of the story of the young baseball pitcher who plays in his first major league game. He gets the first batter out, but the second one hits a home run deep into the bleachers. "Dang", says the kid, "You messed up my no-hitter."
Half empty, half full, I see half full.

You have not shown that it "seeks" anything. You are looking at the results and then imagining how they arrived there.
I'm going with what the people I quoted think.

The process was so stupid it took hundreds of millions of years to get the first life to appear.
So speed does it for you? That was weak. You talk like someone wishing the genie do it... now! Or I won't believe.

All you have shown is that DNA is complex. You have not shown that something intelligent made it that way. Remember the experiment with the sediments sorting themselves.
Everything happens because of the influence of the natural laws. Life plays through them faster. Perhaps life is the answer to that "slow thing" you just spoke of.

Based on the fact that I have seen religious con-men get rich many times before, I'm not terribly surprised. But they have an audience. You do not.
I think I do, but even if I didn't, i'll create one. You do know that can be done? Where have you been?

As the case in Pennsylvania (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/)showed, proponents of Intelligent Design are not looking for a new way of explaining how things work. They are looking to get Christianity into schools. Your ideas are not compatible with Christianity (or any other major religion) and contrary to science.
There you go with limited thinking again. My target is the ground between them. Any real answer has to be between them. I think they are two sides of the same coin. I am going to see if I can take that coin to the bank.

You have little hope of ever getting a following.
We'll see.

I'm guessing you won't earn enough of of this project to be subject to taxes. No offense, but in my opinion, you are not clever enough to perpetrate a successful scam and your ideas are not supportable enough to get a following any other way.
I don't need a scam, the diagram says what it does, and I, what I do. Even if I am not clever enough, I'm willing to work on it. I got plenty of persistence.

We spent many pages on this on your original thread. I don't see any reason to rehash it here.
I wasn't rehashing, I was stating that most people believe that life is the opposite of death.

Are you going to get the money? From whom? Do you think collecting a bunch of money and then giving some of it back is can be called "generous"? I'm telling you, this has been done countless times before. Eva Peron (http://libcom.org/history/articles/1919-eva-evita-peron/)did it. She wasn't a very nice person.
Boy. Now I know why you don't think I am clever enough, you know you are not. You figure if you can't find a way, I surely can't. The process I am talking about has to do with magnetism. If the neighborhood school owned a supermarket, their families would have to shop there. That would focus the money into a sustainable loop. The neighborhood would work there, increasing the local economic potential to shop there.

Yes, it has drawn fire. What sort of positive attention has it drawn?
I have only been to places like this one. I have been here since Aug 06, I am here because I found a rock to beat my head against, not for the hugs and kisses-though they would have been nice. What sought of reaction has your negative attention drawn from me?

How do you plan to do that? Who are your backers?
They will be the people who think between science and religion, those who want to support their children, those left out of the job market, those who believe light created life, those who think that even if what he is saying is total bull, as long as he does what he says, I'll buy two.

Pay them with what? The money you don't have? And if you think getting your ideas into the school curriculum is an easy thing to do, all I can say is that you are hopelessly naive. You will need supporters. Lots of them. I cannot see that you have any.
There you go with that limited thinking again, "in the school" can be arrived directly through students. It will give them a chance to "help themselves" or "thumb their noses". They are literally the "wooden soldiers". Are they army enough for you?

About this "profit" that you will be donating. Where is it going to come from? The kids' parents? Will you be charging the school system for your ideas? The local government?
From the internet sale of the graph and the number code. All it has to do is produce one school owned store, each school will be required to set aside a fund to do the same thing for the next nearest high school.

Will you be taking a bunch of their money and then giving some of it back?
A non-profit program will direct the effort-I will direct it.

If you expect anybody to give you money for your ideas, you are going to have to be a whole lot more convincing than you are now. Maybe if you say "it's for Jesus" then you could get somewhere. You could wind up like Dr. Dino.
Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

I'm still missing the part on where you make an income. Who will give you money for this idea?
You will, negative attention is still attention, you will help me spread it.

[wollery]

Its orderly workings make it look conscious. It knows what to do.Is a watch conscious?

Now it need not be conscious of what it is doing, but that suggests it was engineered.No, it doesn't. That's pure wishful thinking, and the road to ID creationism, and from there it's turtles all the way down.

And then there is that feeling that...Oh yeah, feelings. Such precise scientific tools. :rolleyes:

What sought of reaction has your negative attention drawn from me? Bolding mine. This is precisely the type of thing that leads many of us to suspect that you don't have the ability to earn money off this idea. This simple grammatical error has been pointed out to you on several occasions, and you have responded to these, which means that you are aware of it. However, you have failed to learn, or to correct it.

It is symptomatic of a much wider failing. You have been told about flaws in your idea which you have either ignored, dismissed, or failed to address, and worse, on many occasions you have simply altered you argument in order to keep the same outcome.

You have an obsession, one which you will not give up, no matter how many flaws are revealed, you simply paper over the cracks. To the completely untrained eye it might just possibly look like a solid house. Unfortunately, what you can't do is cover up the fact that a surveyor would find that the foundations a built on sand, it has rising damp, the wood frame is shot through with dry rot, the plaster's ready to fall off the walls, the plumbing is leaking, the electrics are shorting, and the roof tiles will blow off in just a minor gust of wind. In short, there's nothing right with it.

[Tricky]

Its orderly workings make it look conscious.
No it doesn't, not to anybody who has a basic understanding of consciousness.

It knows what to do. Now it need not be conscious of what it is doing, but that suggests it was engineered. And then there is that feeling that...
Yes, I am aware of how much you want this to be true, but that doesn't really change reality.

Perhaps, but that is "evidence so far."
And what is your plan for gathering more evidence? You don't even understand the basics of physics or math.

Who said anything about "somewhere else"? Though, with the talk of other universes, I don't see how that can be done without speculating. Or do you just not like it when I do it?
Speculating doesn't "do" anything unless you go out and get some evidence for your speculations. You have shown yourself to be supremely incapable of that.

Okay, does that mean 3 times, 40, or a billion in this infinite universe?
As I say, I think life is likely in other parts of the universe, but that doesn't mean it is like ours nor does it mean that we will ever discover evidence for it. That dang speed of light thing. If you could only change that constant...

Oh, and by the way, the universe isn't infinite. Ask any astronomer.

I'll take the risk. LOL. What risk are you going to take? Are you going to risk your reputation? You would be better served if you lost on that risk.

I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
You are going to try to wish it into being. Good luck with that.

Half empty, half full, I see half full. There is nothing in your glass at this time. Get some education and you might put something into it.

I'm going with what the people I quoted think.
Really? Have any of them endorsed your ideas? Since you have no understanding of math or physics, I don't see how you could possibly understand what they think. Wishing won't make it so.

So speed does it for you? That was weak. You talk like someone wishing the genie do it... now! Or I won't believe.
No, I'm saying it took a long time. That's fine with me. you are the one wanting a magic conscious universe. I'm showing you why the evidence is against it.

Everything happens because of the influence of the natural laws. Life plays through them faster. Perhaps life is the answer to that "slow thing" you just spoke of. I'm assuming you think that sentence made sense. If so, you are quite mistaken.

I think I do, but even if I didn't, I'll create one. You do know that can be done? Where have you been?
Okay. Just for practice, find one person who supports your ideas and let's see what he or she has to say. You shouldn't keep living in this fantasy future of yours. Start doing something useful.

There you go with limited thinking again. My target is the ground between them. Any real answer has to be between them. I think they are two sides of the same coin. I am going to see if I can take that coin to the bank.
Which ones are those in between? Can you give us some examples? Have you done marketing studies? Yes, my thinking is limited. It is limited to reality.

I don't need a scam, the diagram says what it does, and I, what I do. Even if I am not clever enough, I'm willing to work on it. I got plenty of persistence.
The diagram does nothing. You do nothing. What are you going to work on? More fantasy? Do you have any plans for actually acquiring any knowledge? The only persistence you have is persistent and willful ignorance.


I wasn't rehashing, I was stating that most people believe that life is the opposite of death.
And it has been explained to you many times that these are not mathematical quantities, yet you persist in putting them on a graph. So tell me, is a rock dead? Is it dead in the same way as a squirrel that has been run over by a car?

Boy. Now I know why you don't think I am clever enough, you know you are not. You figure if you can't find a way, I surely can't.
I'm going on the basis of the evidence. You have no market, no backing, nothing you can sell. But don't worry about me. I've been steadily employed for more than 35 years, even during the time I was in school. I think I found a pretty good way.

The process I am talking about has to do with magnetism. If the neighborhood school owned a supermarket, their families would have to shop there. That would focus the money into a sustainable loop.
What money? None of the supermarket's money is yours. How are you going to get them to give you some? Are you going to sell magnets?
I have only been to places like this one. I have been here since Aug 06, I am here because I found a rock to beat my head against, not for the hugs and kisses-though they would have been nice. What sought of reaction has your negative attention drawn from me?
Well then I'd advise you go find some more fertile ground for your crop, because you are starving to death here. And the reaction I have drawn from you has been heated defense of your ignorance. Not a particularly hopeful sign.
They will be the people who think between science and religion, those who want to support their children, those left out of the job market, those who believe light created life, those who think that even if what he is saying is total bull, as long as he does what he says, I'll buy two.

Let me get this straight. You are counting on financial backing from those left out of the job market? You really know how to pick your market segment, don't you?:covereyes

And what, pray tell, is it that you say you can do? I haven't seen a single thing that has any value whatsoever. What are they going to buy from you? Fantasies?

And where are these hoards of people who believe "light created life"?
There you go with that limited thinking again, "in the school" can be arrived directly through students. It will give them a chance to "help themselves" or "thumb their noses".
They can help themselves at school by learning in their classes. Pity you didn't. Oh, and are you hoping to get money from these students that you were going to give money to? I see your knowledge of business is comparable to your knowledge of science.

They are literally the "wooden soldiers". Are they army enough for you?
Show me one recruit in your "army". By the way. Wooden soldiers are toys. They are not real soldiers. Indeed, your "army" consists entirely of things that are not real. This isn't a Disney movie where toy soldiers come to life, LCL. This is reality.

From the internet sale of the graph and the number code. All it has to do is produce one school owned store, each school will be required to set aside a fund to do the same thing for the next nearest high school.
LOL. Your graph is sitting out there on the internet right now. Nobody has to pay to see it. Have you had a lot of enquiries about LCL graph 2.0? Have any stores shown an interest in it? And how in the dickens do you expect to convinced schools to "require" that they spend money on your fantasies? I admit that some school boards are not the brightest in the world, but I don't know of many that are stupid enough to do that.

A non-profit program will direct the effort-I will direct it.
LOL. With your skills, who would hire you? I only hope you will somehow be able to hold a job -- any job -- so that you don't become a lifelong welfare bum.

You will, negative attention is still attention, you will help me spread it.
I'll be glad to spread all the negative attention you like. That negative attention stuff works so well, like when food companies have to make a recall due to poisoned products. They should just poison everything on purpose so they can get rich off of all the negative attention.

Seriously, LCL. Get some training in something. You don't want to be a sponge all your life, and that looks like the road you are headed down.

[wollery]

Oh, and by the way, the universe isn't infinite. Ask any astronomer.Yes, you're right.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, I am aware of how much you want this to be true, but that doesn't really change reality.
Its just a feeling, and feelings help define our reality.


And what is your plan for gathering more evidence? You don't even understand the basics of physics or math.
Even if that were true, what does math have to do with what is being said here? This looks like a throwback to the early days of the other thread, where you and others harped about math, where you yourself said there was none. Weak.


Speculating doesn't "do" anything unless you go out and get some evidence for your speculations. You have shown yourself to be supremely incapable of that.
Isn't speculation a prelude to most searches?

As I say, I think life is likely in other parts of the universe, but that doesn't mean it is like ours nor does it mean that we will ever discover evidence for it.
Who said anything about it being like ours? Can't you think beyond humans? Whatever form it takes, it is life. Like you, I think life is likely there-without discovering evidence of it-except if we considered us.
And by thinking life is out there, aren't you speculating?

That dang speed of light thing. If you could only change that constant...
Or somehow get around it. I like the frozen human thing, or the robot thing. They may "somewhat" make up for speed, with time.

Oh, and by the way, the universe isn't infinite. Ask any astronomer.
Oh, I thought with the number being so big and all... but I am sure you are right.

LOL. What risk are you going to take? Are you going to risk your reputation? You would be better served if you lost on that risk.
Considering how you feel about me, what reputation? Thanks for caring... but no, I won't take your advice.

You are going to try to wish it into being. Good luck with that.
Dianetics done it, so did John Smith.

There is nothing in your glass at this time. Get some education and you might put something into it.
Then I will sell an empty glass, that is also done... but you knew that.

Really? Have any of them endorsed your ideas? Since you have no understanding of math or physics,
Boy, you seem lacking in both the leadership and courage departments. At first, most ideas are only held by one person. These people have the courage and determination to see them through. They most always have to do "their thing" inspite of (and even because of) people like you. I have a hamster driven engine, and you are the hamster. "Run hamster run."

I don't see how you could possibly understand what they think. Wishing won't make it so.
I noticed that in that other thread, the people I quoted were not refuted. You (and others) seemed to have wished away the fact that you saw them.

No, I'm saying it took a long time. That's fine with me. you are the one wanting a magic conscious universe. I'm showing you why the evidence is against it.
You think because it is not fast, it can't be a conscious effort, or started by something conscious, how is that evidence?

Okay. Just for practice, find one person who supports your ideas and let's see what he or she has to say.
You want me to bring someone here that agress with me? How would that help me? You will still not change your mind, and I would not do anything different.

You shouldn't keep living in this fantasy future of yours. Start doing something useful.
This is useful to me-why else would I be doing it? Again, thanks for the advice, but no thanks. I feel bad about all the time that you spend trying to help me, perhaps you can find something in your own life that needs repair, or is this your way of avoiding your own issues?

Which ones are those in between? Can you give us some examples? Have you done marketing studies? Yes, my thinking is limited. It is limited to reality.
Your reality.

The diagram does nothing. You do nothing. What are you going to work on? More fantasy? Do you have any plans for actually acquiring any knowledge? The only persistence you have is persistent and willful ignorance. You see, not only have you not refuted the references, you don't see me searching for them as acquiring knowledge-not any-and you talk of willful ignorance. You have a pretty good fantasy going for yourself there.
Even if the diagram did nothing, why does it follow that I do nothing? You seem to want to make sure my house is glued together, perhaps you really should put some work in on your own. Considering that you are a scientist, makes it a pity that you are also an idiot. But then they do go mad too.

And it has been explained to you many times that these are not mathematical quantities, yet you persist in putting them on a graph.
You used the word diagram one paragraph above, now you say graph, even though you said in the other thread that it was not a graph. You see that Wollery? Where is the word cop to give him a ticket? You know it only takes one word to go half mad and stomp around about deeper meanings. I'll let him off with a warning.

So tell me, is a rock dead? Is it dead in the same way as a squirrel that has been run over by a car?
Hmmm. You reaching again? Something has to be alive in order to die. I'll make the statement again, most people believe that life is the opposite of death-don't they?

I'm going on the basis of the evidence. You have no market, no backing, nothing you can sell.
Didn't you read my last post, or are you being willfully ignorant?

But don't worry about me.
I'm not. It is you who are worried about me, personally, beyond a debate about ideas. I understand that you can't tell the difference. Perhaps that is one of the things you should work on in your own life.

I've been steadily employed for more than 35 years, even during the time I was in school. I think I found a pretty good way.
You feel better now that you have given me personal information I did not ask for? Good for you, pat yourself on the back. Oh wait, you just did.

What money? None of the supermarket's money is yours. How are you going to get them to give you some? Are you going to sell magnets?
You have a point. I was being brief, but the gift will be dependant on the money going towards education related things, computerizing the 12 grade, homework resources, etc.

Well then I'd advise you go find some more fertile ground for your crop, because you are starving to death here. And the reaction I have drawn from you has been heated defense of your ignorance. Not a particularly hopeful sign.
Starving to death? My plate is full of information, I do eat rather slowly, but I'll get it all down. Oh, you are talking about nobody agreeing with me. If they did, the plate would be empty. Believe it or not, I can win by losing.

Let me get this straight. You are counting on financial backing from those left out of the job market? You really know how to pick your market segment, don't you?:covereyes
Its called "focused spending". Spending at a school store that used a fund to give other schools a one, would increase the local opportunity for employment. Duh. Your reaction is what I was talking about when I talked about how generosity can be used. You see how you can't get around giving as a way to get? You are so use to thinking in terms of "keeping" you can't imagine it. Let go of the greed, think about the need.

And what, pray tell, is it that you say you can do? I haven't seen a single thing that has any value whatsoever. What are they going to buy from you? Fantasies?
The diagram is one of 200 pages, the number code is 50. And yeah, I am going to find a way to make a fantasy work.

And where are these hoards of people who believe "light created life"?
Who said anything about hoards of people who believed that?

They can help themselves at school by learning in their classes. Pity you didn't.
A scientist you say? You sound like an idiot.

Oh, and are you hoping to get money from these students that you were going to give money to? I see your knowledge of business is comparable to your knowledge of science.
The parents have the money, money they have to spend for food anyway, why wouldn't they shop in a place that supported their child? They may not, but it is reasonable for me to assume.

Show me one recruit in your "army". By the way. Wooden soldiers are toys. They are not real soldiers. Indeed, your "army" consists entirely of things that are not real. This isn't a Disney movie where toy soldiers come to life, LCL. This is reality.
I say wooden because their potential is vastly under used, use that potential, and they will seem to come to life.

LOL. Your graph is sitting out there on the internet right now. Nobody has to pay to see it. Have you had a lot of enquiries about LCL graph 2.0? Have any stores shown an interest in it?
Willful ignorance again? See the last post. I have not tried to sell the thing, I am learning how to defend it.


LOL. With your skills, who would hire you? I only hope you will somehow be able to hold a job -- any job -- so that you don't become a lifelong welfare bum.
A scientist, of the idiot variety. What on earth could you possibly know about me personally? And what does that has to do with what I am talking about?

Seriously, LCL. Get some training in something. You don't want to be a sponge all your life, and that looks like the road you are headed down.
Again, trying to help me, is making you look deranged. Or are you trying to get me to beat my chest like you did earlier? Whose is bigger? Mine may not be monstrous, but do okay. You may have the knowledge, but you have shown that you can be an idiot anyway.

[Tricky]

I can see, LCL, that if I respond point by point, this is just going to degenerate further.

Even though I think your chances are minutely small of ever making a living off of your... um... ideas, I wish you luck. If you ever come up with any evidence, either for your ideas or that you have supporters for your ideas, bring it by. I will leave you to your fantasies for now.

[arthwollipot]

I can see, LCL, that if I respond point by point, this is just going to degenerate further.

And make ever-longer quoted posts.

[wollery]

You used the word diagram one paragraph above, now you say graph, even though you said in the other thread that it was not a graph. You see that Wollery? Where is the word cop to give him a ticket? You know it only takes one word to go half mad and stomp around about deeper meanings. I'll let him off with a warning.And this here is precisely why you'll never get anywhere with your ideas, and why no real scientist will ever take you seriously.

You don't understand the difference between you describing your infantile doodle as a graph, and Tricky using the word in a response to you.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, that quote proves quite conclusively that he doesn't have the first clue about physics, in particular nucleosynthesis, and that he couldn't be bothered to actually research it or even ask someone. Only hydrogen existed in large quantities in the early Universe, with traces of helium, deuterium, tritium, and lithium. It took stars to produce heavier elements (up to oxygen) and a second generation of stars to produce the rest, many only produced in supernovae.
He does seem to be saying that the elements formed without the help of the stars. I thought he was just being brief. I knew the stars produced the elements, and Belz told me a long time ago that the first stars were unable to produce planets because of the lack of heavier elements. Still, your references to those first elements, shows that things started out simple, and moved in the direction of the more complex. I see life, coming from the process, forming a whole nother level of complexity. Intelligence, and conscious, working to create yet another level of complexity through humans.

Furthermore the statement about some elements forming and then later becoming unstable and disappearing is pure speculation with absolutely no basis in any physics that I know of.
I thought he was refering to things happenning in nature, like the elements that humans can make, that are so unstable that they only exist for a short time.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

And this here is precisely why you'll never get anywhere with your ideas, and why no real scientist will ever take you seriously.
I can still get somewhere without any scientist taking me seriously.

You don't understand the difference between you describing your infantile doodle as a graph, and Tricky using the word in a response to you.
I recognize that he made a mistake, a small one, no big deal, no need for any deeper meaning like you attached to the use of the words "sort" and "sought". Push the couch back up against the wall, there is no deeper meaning, just a simple mistake. You might be one of those people over sensitive to grammar-but who am I to analyze you?