who came first; God or man?

[mykil]

Kermy please read up on the newest information out there, The latest is just amasing and all the ole school stuff is outdated!!!



Not quite. The speculation was that our universe came into being by the collision of two other universes.

At one time astronomers speculated that the planets of our solar system came into being by the near collision of our sun with another star.

Now the consensus among astronomers is that almost every star goes through a stage where planets are likely to be formed.

Similarly, I expect this speculation of our universe coming into being by the near collision of two universes to be short lived.

I anticipate that physicists will come to see the logic for why each universe must exist, and does not need any rare event to explain it.

What is the distinction between galaxy and universe?

A galaxy is a huge cluster of stars such that this cluster is separated from other galaxies.

A universe consists of all the galaxies that could theoretically be reached by traveling from one galaxy if you had infinite time in which to travel.

I speculate that:

Each universe is finite in that it has finite mass.

Each universe is infinite in space and time, but each galaxy within the universe has only a finite lifetime.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Valley Oak]

So the two universes that collided were smaller universes that formed our larger one now? Being composed, now, of all of that mass and all of those galaxies from the two original universes? So when they collided, they hung onto each other permanently through gravity? Is this all correct?

I thought there was only one universe but you learn something new everyday.

Do you have an opinion as to why each universe must exist?

If each universe has infinite space, does this mean that all universes are in the same space or share the same space?

I think I understand that each galaxy will eventually die when all of its stars cool down (white dwarfs?) and can no longer sustain life on their planets. But would this mean that all of the celestial bodies of a dead galaxy will stop moving as well? Will the gravitational pull of a dead galaxy's mass eventually collapse it, creating a mini big bang? And therefore generating new stars and new life? Or would 'living' galaxies eventually swing by and cannibalize the dead ones?

Thanks,

Edward



Not quite. The speculation was that our universe came into being by the collision of two other universes.

At one time astronomers speculated that the planets of our solar system came into being by the near collision of our sun with another star.

Now the consensus among astronomers is that almost every star goes through a stage where planets are likely to be formed.

Similarly, I expect this speculation of our universe coming into being by the near collision of two universes to be short lived.

I anticipate that physicists will come to see the logic for why each universe must exist, and does not need any rare event to explain it.

What is the distinction between galaxy and universe?

A galaxy is a huge cluster of stars such that this cluster is separated from other galaxies.

A universe consists of all the galaxies that could theoretically be reached by traveling from one galaxy if you had infinite time in which to travel.

I speculate that:

Each universe is finite in that it has finite mass.

Each universe is infinite in space and time, but each galaxy within the universe has only a finite lifetime.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

Yes, they've been calling that evolution on this thread.
from oatmeal to mice!


Many scientists in the 17th c. still believed in spontaneous generation, following Aristotle: they showed experimentally that if you put oats in a bag, close the bag and wait a while, you'll hear chirpy sounds emerging from the bag, and mice will come out of the bag when you open it.

Francis Bacon supported these ideas I think.

[MsTerry]

That is the nicest offer any one has ever made me!
Driving all the way from Florida to give me a spin around the block.
You are virtually a reality,


:):

I don't have a bike.

But if I did, and knew how to drive it, and Ms Terry asked me politely for a ride, I'd be glad to oblige.

On the other hand, if Ms Terry is just trying to get me riled, then
we can continue to play this game, because I like Ms Terry too much to get riled by what she does.


Kermit < [email protected] >

[mykil]

Think of a universe as a person. It moves and another can take its place anytime in that space, trying to stay out of each other’s wayz, yet still running into each other at any given moment in time. Parallel cause they are so much alike. They call them parallel but I think they should just be called universes. Other species of universes exist like lets say dogs cats ect… What the scientists are trying to say now is each time a universe kisses shall we say it creates a galaxy. The program I was catching the other night was soo friggin trippy you had to really watch it. The national geographic channel and all those around 270 on Comcast rock my worlds err universes... And enlighten the hell out of me. I know this is way beyond the norm but what the hell it is fascinating and entertaining both at the same time to say the least!




So the two universes that collided were smaller universes that formed our larger one now? Being composed, now, of all of that mass and all of those galaxies from the two original universes? So when they collided, they hung onto each other permanently through gravity? Is this all correct?

I thought there was only one universe but you learn something new everyday.

Do you have an opinion as to why each universe must exist?

If each universe has infinite space, does this mean that all universes are in the same space or share the same space?

I think I understand that each galaxy will eventually die when all of its stars cool down (white dwarfs?) and can no longer sustain life on their planets. But would this mean that all of the celestial bodies of a dead galaxy will stop moving as well? Will the gravitational pull of a dead galaxy's mass eventually collapse it, creating a mini big bang? And therefore generating new stars and new life? Or would 'living' galaxies eventually swing by and cannibalize the dead ones?

Thanks,

Edward

[mykil]

U 2 might have to move either to the conscience relationship section or the unconcerned department or just get a room!!!


That is the nicest offer any one has ever made me!
Driving all the way from Florida to give me a spin around the block.
You are virtually a reality,

[Kermit1941]

So the two universes that collided were smaller universes that formed our larger one now? Being composed, now, of all of that mass and all of those galaxies from the two original universes? So when they collided, they hung onto each other permanently through gravity? Is this all correct?


That is the speculation.

Here are my own speculations:

Within a few billion years our Milky Way Galaxy might collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. I can imagine that by then each galaxy will be mostly black holes with a few stars still orbiting them.

These black holes could collide. What happens when an irresistible force strikes an immovable object?






I thought there was only one universe but you learn something new everyday.



:):

Originally we used the word universe to mean all that there is.

When we discovered that all that there is, is much more than we can imagine, the word "universe" acquired multiple meanings.





Do you have an opinion as to why each universe must exist?


To answer this, I need to describe a little bit of my image of the Universe of universes.

My vision is that each universe is the interior of a black hole residing within a larger universe.

There cannot be a largest universe, just as there cannot be a largest finite integer.

So the universe of universes is infinite.

We can know nothing of the other universes except that we know some of their nature because all universes will have the same rules of operation.


As long as matter in the larger universe can fall into our universe, our universe will grow in mass.

At the same time, our universe is sending matter into the larger universe.
This process of sending matter into the larger universe also creates corresponding matter in our universe.

This implies that its possible for the total mass of our universe to shrink while the amount of actual matter in our universe increases.


The question why a particular universe exists becomes the same as why does the universe of universes exist.


I don't have any clear idea of any answer to this, but I do have an opinion about it.

I suggest that the basis for physical reality is exactly the same as for mathematical reality.





If each universe has infinite space, does this mean that all universes are in the same space or share the same space?



Noooooo.


In my model,

Each Universe has infinite space only in the sense that the distance from the center to the edge cannot be measured.




I think I understand that each galaxy will eventually die when all of its stars cool down (white dwarfs?) and can no longer sustain life on their planets. But would this mean that all of the celestial bodies of a dead galaxy will stop moving as well?



Noooo.


Stars would continue to orbit the central black hole within each galaxy, until they spiraled into the black hole.





Will the gravitational pull of a dead galaxy's mass eventually collapse it, creating a mini big bang? And therefore generating new stars and new life? Or would 'living' galaxies eventually swing by and cannibalize the dead ones?


I speculate that:

When the central black hole of a galaxy does not pull in more mass than it radiates outward, then it will start to shrink, and the radiated mass will orbit the black hole to form a new galaxy.


So, yes, It will reproduce the events at the "origin" of our local universe.


This would be the usual case, although I image that occasionally galaxies would collide to become one galaxy.

Some observations have also made it easy to believe that sometimes
galaxies pass through each other, their central black holes not colliding.



Kermit < [email protected] >

[Valley Oak]

Kermit, I read your profile and saw that you live in Florida. I am itching with curiosity to know how you found out about this bulletin board and why you became interested in subscribing and participating.

I also saw that you are a computer programmer. Do you know anything about Linux? If so, which distro do you recommend most? What do you think about Ubuntu?

Are you an amateur astronomer? How does your Christian faith influence your views on astronomy, evolution, abortion, the Iraq war, global warming, and the presidential elections?

Edward



That is the speculation.

Here are my own speculations:

Within a few billion years our Milky Way Galaxy might collide with the Andromeda Galaxy.< [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

Kermit, I read your profile and saw that you live in Florida. I am itching with curiosity to know how you found out about this bulletin board and why you became interested in subscribing and participating.


Edward

I asked him the exact same questions, let's see who he likes most.

[mykil]

R U Questioning Kermy’s Sexuality there Miss
Terry?


I asked him the exact same questions, let's see who he likes most.

[Kermit1941]

Kermit, I read your profile and saw that you live in Florida. I am itching with curiosity to know how you found out about this bulletin board and why you became interested in subscribing and participating.

I also saw that you are a computer programmer. Do you know anything about Linux? If so, which distro do you recommend most? What do you think about Ubuntu?

Are you an amateur astronomer? How does your Christian faith influence your views on astronomy, evolution, abortion, the Iraq war, global warming, and the presidential elections?

Edward





I sent private emails to Ms Terry, Edward and Nurture Truth,
but the one I sent to Edward may have bounced.

So, I'm reposting it publicly now.




Valley Oak @ WaccoBB wrote:
> From: Valley Oak God
> Category: WaccoTalk
> Thread: who came first; God or man?
>
> Kermit, I read your profile and saw that you live in Florida. I am itching with curiosity to know
> how you found out about this bulletin board and why you became interested in subscribing and participating.
>


I found WaccoBB by accident while searching for sites that would allow me to find folks willing to pay me for my helping them
in mathematics.

I enjoy discussions at the edge of our knowledge, and saw that WaccoBB was already well set up for those discussions.



> Do you know anything about Linux? If so, which distro do you recommend most? What do you think about Ubuntu?


I have used Unix in the past. My son uses Red Hat Linux. He chose Red Hat Linux because his work place uses it. He has heard good things about Ubuntu, but does not know any details about it.




>
> Are you an amateur astronomer?


Nooo, but I have been intensely interested in the frontiers of astronomy all my life.



> How does your Christian faith influence you views on
> astronomy,




I think it's more the other way around.

How has astronomy influenced my Christian faith?

I know that Heaven is not a place. I know that Hell is not a place.

Thus I came to view Heaven and Hell as states of mind and behavior.




> evolution,



God does not favor people over animals.

Every creature dies, and when the body dies, so does the mind and soul.



> abortion,



I wish that the world was such that people did not need to consider the abortion decision.

But since the world is not that way, I will not criticize the folks who choose the abortion.



> the Iraq war,



All war is wrong.



> global warming,


I remember one cold winter day that I happily looked forward to global warming.



and the presidential elections?



I have not related the elections to religious issues.

I know that many people have, and feel that doing so is unhealthy for our society.

This is not because it's unhealthy to be political and religious. It's because the religious issues that become political are distortions of the true issues.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I'd say this makes you the most sensible person posting here.


I sent private emails to Ms Terry, Edward and Nurture Truth,
but the one I sent to Edward may have bounced.

So, I'm reposting it publicly now....

[nurturetruth]

Well, since God doesn't have a physical brain to tap into...(its all just a cluster of particles of energy/neurotransmitters) and HUMANs DO...

i would have to take the notion that in the beginning, there was energy.

Where this energy came from, in my imagined reality ,is that it came from an energy field that is both universal AND infinite!! one which is darkness and light. feminine and masculine. venus and mars.

i think humans came up with the word and concept of GOD...

but i also support the belief that :

All Energy is influenced by the causation of thought before configuring under the influence of that thought, manifesting as an observable effect in the plane at which the thought originated. Everything that happens, ever happened and ever will happen in the entire Universe therefore, including the physical world, first originated as a thought originating from the Mind of a Being, (even if that Being is just a sphere of energy) and which thought in turn has its corresponding effect on the Energy of the Causal Spheres of the Universe while becoming the corresponding and potentially observable effect.

There are symbols that reveal hidden knowledge from the forgotten ages, knowledge that the Zohar spoke of and the Cabalists hinted at. This knowledge reveals the basic essence of people and nature. The nature of this knowledge is essentially geometric and I am aware that millions of people all over the world have been drawn to it in the past few years.

<cite>It is also my understanding that the word, "nature", (HATEVA in Hebrew) has the same numerological value as the word God (ELOHIM in Hebrew).
</cite>

<cite></cite>
<cite>so i feel the question for me is more of : What does the BIG word/concept GOD mean and what does it mean to be HUMAN?
</cite>
<cite>How can we we possibly be aware of which came first when we are unclear of the VALUE of a words?</cite>

<cite></cite>
<cite>https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/nurturetruth/__hr_Love2020the20Birth20of20a20Uni.jpg
</cite>

https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/nurturetruth/cosmos.jpg
I have really enjoyed this thread ... the Universe of Wacco is really GREAT!

Some fairly interesting and neat beings!

We are that we are!

https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/nurturetruth/9331Mahatma-Gandhi-Truth-Posters-1.jpg

[MsTerry]

I don't want to miss out on a good man, while Edward is just a hopper.


R U Questioning Kermy’s Sexuality there Miss
Terry?

[MsTerry]

!!!!



I wish that the world was such that people did not need to consider the abortion decision.

But since the world is not that way, I will not criticize the folks who choose the abortion.
very well said

Every creature dies, and when the body dies, so does the mind and soul. This is an interesting statement since it is a theological point of view, that there is an existence of a soul. This is not scientific.
Why would the soul die at the moment the body dies?
Where did the soul come from?

[/quote]

[mykil]

I am not sure I understand, why would you assume GOD has no brain and is just energy. How can you assume this? It has alwayz been my assumption like forever that the universe is gods brain, that we are just a small little piece of the big picture. To assume that God has no brain, that spirits have no source of intelligent is a strange assumption indeed. I have just assumed that we are all a very small part of God’s brain, Gods intelligent in general and that that is why we are here is to help God understand what is going on around him!!! LOL!!! Hey darlin welcome back. I’ve missed you!!!




Well, since God doesn't have a physical brain to tap into...(its all just a cluster of particles of energy/neurotransmitters) and HUMANs DO...

[Kermit1941]

This is an interesting statement since it is a theological point of view, that there is an existence of a soul. This is not scientific.
Why would the soul die at the moment the body dies?
Where did the soul come from?


This is the way I see it:

The individual soul comes from the interaction of the mind with community.

When the mind can no longer interact, the soul dies.

When the body no longer functions, the mind dies.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Dynamique]

Maybe it's Nicofrog??


:):

Nice picture. But that's not me. My skin is greener.

Kermit < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

At what age do we get a soul?
Where does it come from?
Where is it located in the body?
What does the soul do for us?



This is the way I see it:

The individual soul comes from the interaction of the mind with community.

When the mind can no longer interact, the soul dies.

When the body no longer functions, the mind dies.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

Frederick
Your concept kind of hooks on to my continued questioning of the "Evolution Theory" (which we haven't defined either, eg; ex nihilo?).
Of course there are the missing links, but what about the existing links?
Why is it acceptable to say the neanderthal man was not a link because he co-existed with homo sapiens and was anatomically different. Where as the monkeys, some of them still in existence, would be a link. Despite their anatomical differences and continued co-existence.
How can it be acceptable that some of the links survived and others vanished?
How can it be plausible that all homo sapiens evolved simultaneously on different continents with such differing characteristics eg; skin color, appearance, height, hair color etc.
It seems to be more logical that they would be at DIFFERENT stages of development on different continents, that is if it took thousand of years to evolve in to where we are at right now.
This seems to corroborate the notion that a "creator' experimented with and implemented different hominids and let them evolve in to where we are at now.




You haven't said whose God you're talking about, but if you refer to the God of the Jewish Bible, the text of Genesis doesn't suggest that He was "the creator of all," at least if we understand creation as creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. Like most creation myths, he seems to have imposed order on an original chaos for which He Himself was not responsible. I mention this because I wonder whether it suggests that there is in fact something "in the middle." Might God simply be a principle of order? Of course that doesn't account for God's personal interest in the Jewish people....

[Kermit1941]

This is my understanding of the meaning of "soul".



At what age do we get a soul?



At what age do you get a mind?

The soul develops slowly as you grow from infant to adult, and
continues to develop throughout your lifetime.

Every time you have an interaction with someone else, this develops your soul.

Good interactions with others develop your soul in a good direction.
Bad interactions with others develop your soul in a bad direction.



Where does it come from?



This is second time you asked this question, so I presume you want to know more details than that it comes from interaction of the mind with community.

Your soul reflects your most vital emotional needs and aspirations.

These needs are determined by how you choose to interact with other people and the world.




Where is it located in the body?



Since the soul is not a material thing, it is not located anywhere.

The soul is a function of mind.

The mind is a function of the body.

Neither soul nor mind have physical existence in the same sense that the body does.





What does the soul do for us?



It makes us human.


Kermit < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

Frederick
Your concept kind of hooks on to my continued questioning of the "Evolution Theory" (which we haven't defined either, eg; ex nihilo?).
Of course there are the missing links, but what about the existing links?
Why is it acceptable to say the neanderthal man was not a link because he co-existed with homo sapiens and was anatomically different. Where as the monkeys, some of them still in existence, would be a link. Despite their anatomical differences and continued co-existence.



The reason biologists have concluded that Neanderthal man was not in the direct path of evolution to modern man is that fossils showed that Neanderthal and people much more similar to modern day humans co-existed.

However, it may even have been that Neanderthal man was of the same species as modern humans.







How can it be acceptable that some of the links survived and others vanished?



** Surprise shows on face when reading question ***

All of the links have vanished. The monkeys of today are not the same as the monkeys who were our ancestors.





How can it be plausible that all homo sapiens evolved simultaneously on different continents with such differing characteristics eg; skin color, appearance, height, hair color etc.



This is not the way it happened. So your reasoning is correct. It is not plausible. Therefore we know it did not happen that way.

Homo sapiens did not evolve simultaneously on different continents with different racial characteristics.

Homo sapiens was already well established on each of the continents before modern racial distinguishing traits evolved.

The fossil records suggests that our ancestors first appeared in Africa, then spread to china, through the continent of Asia, then through Alaska and down through North and South America.

As soon as humans developed means to travel the oceans they also spread to the islands in the pacific and to Australia.





It seems to be more logical that they would be at DIFFERENT stages of development on different continents, that is if it took thousand of years to evolve in to where we are at right now.



Rather say millions of years.

If humans had not traveled all the way around the world eons ago, we would be seeing what you describe.



This seems to corroborate the notion that a "creator' experimented with and implemented different hominids and let them evolve in to where we are at now.



** smile **

Good. This is an example of confirmatory thinking.
It is one half of the scientific method.

The other half is to look for counter examples to your theory.

I believe that if you look for counter examples to your theory of
God directing evolution in much the same way as a human would direct evolution,
you will find them.


Kermit < [email protected] >

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Frederick
Your concept kind of hooks on to my continued questioning of the "Evolution Theory" (which we haven't defined either, eg; ex nihilo?).
Of course there are the missing links, but what about the existing links?
Why is it acceptable to say the neanderthal man was not a link because he co-existed with homo sapiens and was anatomically different. Where as the monkeys, some of them still in existence, would be a link. Despite their anatomical differences and continued co-existence.
How can it be acceptable that some of the links survived and others vanished?
How can it be plausible that all homo sapiens evolved simultaneously on different continents with such differing characteristics eg; skin color, appearance, height, hair color etc.
It seems to be more logical that they would be at DIFFERENT stages of development on different continents, that is if it took thousand of years to evolve in to where we are at right now.
This seems to corroborate the notion that a "creator' experimented with and implemented different hominids and let them evolve in to where we are at now.

I don't know enough about the mechanics of evolution even to begin to respond to these questions; in fact, I don't know enough to grasp how or why what you're saying constitutes a criticism of evolutionary theory. Sorry!

[MsTerry]

[quote=Kermit1941;[QUOTE]The reason biologists have concluded that Neanderthal man was not in the direct path of evolution to modern man is that fossils showed that Neanderthal and people much more similar to modern day humans co-existed.

This is the part that does not make sense. Why does everything of one species have to evolve into the next phase?
If a Neanderthal needs to evolve in to a fast runner, that doesn't necessarily mean that the same is true for the same species of Neanderthal living in Europe.


However, it may even have been that Neanderthal man was of the same species as modern humans.It is nice to be able to cover all your bases


** Surprise shows on face when reading question ***

All of the links have vanished. The monkeys of today are not the same as the monkeys who were our ancestors.Yeah they might be different But they still are monkeys but I haven't seen a hominid or Neanderthal lately.


This is not the way it happened. So your reasoning is correct. It is not plausible. Therefore we know it did not happen that way.

Homo sapiens did not evolve simultaneously on different continents with different racial characteristics.

Homo sapiens was already well established on each of the continents before modern racial distinguishing traits evolved.
Are you saying that there were a bunch HS inbreeding and then starting to walk the earth, covering all continents and changing color as they went.



The fossil records suggests that our ancestors first appeared in Africa, then spread to china, through the continent of Asia, then through Alaska and down through North and South America.So, I assume that HS started out black, and some how lost color.
The only problem I have with that is when you mix a black and a white person, you can end up with lighter skin, but some where down the line all of a sudden a black child appears again. No inbreeding can stop that gene.




As soon as humans developed means to travel the oceans they also spread to the islands in the pacific and to AustraliaIt sounds like they never made it Europe. I was wondering about that, since they don't seem to have too many monkeys either



** smile **

Good. This is an example of confirmatory thinking.
It is one half of the scientific method.

The other half is to look for counter examples to your theory.

I believe that if you look for counter examples to your theory of
God directing evolution in much the same way as a human would direct evolution,
you will find them.How come we have to accept a scientific method.when it comes to God, but not a theological one when it comes to Evolution?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

How come we have to accept a scientific method.when it comes to God, but not a theological one when it comes to Evolution?

Because they are two different language-games. The purpose of religion is not to invent natural-law explanations of things. It is to invent narratives that express our emotional reaction to the human condition and our hopes for what it might mean. But when religions start to claim that they are in the explanation business rather than the meaning and hope business, science rightly points out that they are going off the rails. Similarly, when scientists try to tell us that their theoretical models are authoritative for our ways of imagining what it means to be human, religion rightly points out that science has no authority in this realm.

[MsTerry]

.


Good interactions with others develop your soul in a good direction.
Bad interactions with others develop your soul in a bad direction.

Who tells the soul what is good and bad?
How do we know what is good or bad





Your soul reflects your most vital emotional needs and aspirations.

These needs are determined by how you choose to interact with other people and the world.
does that mean there are no good or bad souls?
Just needs and aspirations?






Since the soul is not a material thing, it is not located anywhere.

The soul is a function of mind.

The mind is a function of the body.

Neither soul nor mind have physical existence in the same sense that the body does

How is the soul seperate from the mind if it is a product of the mind?.







It makes us human.
No other living being has a soul?
not even God?

[alanora]

.


Who tells the soul what is good and bad?
How do we know what is good or bad
There is no good or bad, just perception.



does that mean there are no good or bad souls?
Just needs and aspirations?
I would have to say that judgment has no place in the business of the soul.






How is the soul seperate from the mind if it is a product of the mind?.
The soul uses the mind and the body to provide what it chose to experience in this lifetime.






No other living being has a soul? Every living being has a soul, including the ever_ evolving_ all _there_ isness we call G-d/Source and every soul is returning to source as the spark of divinity that is its true nature. (my opinion of course, as well as basic metaphysics)
not even God? Thanks for the forum, blessings. Mindy

[nurturetruth]

I concur with Bernard!

"I see God as a macro-designer; one whose ideas become the laws of physics." ~~ Bernard Haisch

https://www.thegodtheory.com

Anyone reading or has read this book , yet?!

Table of Contents appears interesting as are the Q & A section!

[Valley Oak]

Do you support the idea of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Edward



I concur with Bernard!

"I see God as a macro-designer; one whose ideas become the laws of physics." ~~ Bernard Haisch

https://www.thegodtheory.com

Anyone reading or has read this book , yet?!

Table of Contents appears interesting as are the Q & A section!

[MsTerry]

I do!
Not only would it stimulate discussion, but it provides an opportunity to see that there is so much we don't know. It provides the opportunity to see that a scientist is not omniscient by default. If we don't challenge kid's thinking, how are they going to think for themselves?


Do you support the idea of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Edward

[Zeno Swijtink]

Not clear to me how "Intelligent Design" challenges kids' thinking since there is so little thinking in "Intelligent Design," no detailed research that tries to explore and test "Intelligent Design."

"Intelligent Design" is not testable since it does not lead to new predictions. It is little more than a pat answer to certain open problems in Neodarwinian Evolutionary Theory.



I do!
Not only would it stimulate discussion, but it provides an opportunity to see that there is so much we don't know. It provides the opportunity to see that a scientist is not omniscient by default. If we don't challenge kid's thinking, how are they going to think for themselves?

[Kermit1941]

This is the part that does not make sense. Why does everything of one species have to evolve into the next phase?
If a Neanderthal needs to evolve in to a fast runner, that doesn't necessarily mean that the same is true for the same species of Neanderthal living in Europe.



If Neanderthal had evolved into a fast runner, we would probably have the descendants of Neanderthal with us today.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/official-neanderthal-man-was-not-a-hairy-oaf-but-a-sensitive-kinda-guy-506402.html


Neanderthal and our direct ancestors co-existed. But our ancestors were much better runners. Neanderthal never have the time available to evolve into faster runners.

It is not true that everything of one species must evolve into the next phase?

Neanderthal man illustrates this point.

Neanderthal man was not in the direct path of evolution to modern man.

Neanderthal man did not evolve into the modern racial types.



[/quote]




Yeah they might be different But they still are monkeys but I haven't seen a hominid or Neanderthal lately.



Aliens from another star system might not be able to distinguish homo saps from the orangutan.

Just because we use the same name, "Monkeys", for monkeys today and the common ancestors of monkeys and people does not imply that they are genetically at the same level of evolution.




Are you saying that there were a bunch HS inbreeding and then starting to walk the earth, covering all continents and changing color as they went.


If I may make one qualification, I will agree.

For such a large population as Homo Sap was at the time, the word "inbreeding" has the wrong connotation.

So I want to ask you: Did you imagine that there were only a few homo saps around at that time?

They did walk the earth, covering all continents and changing color as they went.




So, I assume that HS started out black, and some how lost color.
The only problem I have with that is when you mix a black and a white person, you can end up with lighter skin, but some where down the line all of a sudden a black child appears again. No inbreeding can stop that gene.



It is true that dark skin is dominant over light colored skin.

This does not prevent the genes for dark skin from being lost.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s253070.htm



In fact "whites" have not lost it entirely.

The fact that most "whites" can get a suntan proves that they still have some of the potential for being black.

Black people just have a greater potential for the sun turning their skin dark.

The skin of babies of dark skinned people are lighter than that of their parents for the first few days of their life.

https://en.allexperts.com/q/Dermatology-1011/skin-color-1.htm

How would you explain a dark skinned person with blue eyes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La_8vj7PTFw

Remember that the transition from black to white is not something that would have happened in a few generations.

The fact that peoples who lived for sufficient number of generations far from the equator lost their dark skin suggests that having a light skin better fits one to the lower intensity of sunlight.

The link I quoted above,


https://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s253070.htm

confirms this to be true.





It sounds like they never made it Europe. I was wondering about that, since they don't seem to have too many monkeys either



Actually they made it to Europe on the way to Asia.

I will make a guess that humans killed off all the monkey ancestors except for those recent travelers from Africa to the rock of Gibraltar.



How come we have to accept a scientific method.when it comes to God, but not a theological one when it comes to Evolution?



* smile *

We should accept a scientific method for any test of truth.

Theology is not capable of confirming what is true or false.
It can only suggest what might be true.

Religion should not conflict with science.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[nurturetruth]

Edward:

I support "intelligent design" being in the public school system as long as it remains taught in a course that is optional, but not mandated.

[Kermit1941]

.
Who tells the soul what is good and bad?
How do we know what is good or bad



I chose the words "good" and "bad" because these words have no preset precise meaning.

Good and bad are defined by consequences.

Good and bad are relative to total situation.

If ALL of the consequences of an action are judged to be good, then the that action should be judged perfectly good.

We cannot know all of the consequences of an action.

So we can never judge whether or not an action was perfectly good.

Similarly we can never judge whether or not an action was perfectly bad.

However, we can judge whether or not an action resulted in immediately desirable effects or resulted in immediately undesirable effects.

Humans have tried to build a theory of what generally leads to desirable effects and what generally leads to undesirable effects.

This theory is called ethics.

As yet ethics has no scientific basis. This will change in the future.



.
does that mean there are no good or bad souls?
Just needs and aspirations?



I hesitate to say whether or not souls might be good or bad.

I will say it in the form that some developments of a particular soul are pleasing to people collectively, and some developments are not pleasing.

A person who expects everyone in the world to want only to please em has not developed eir soul in a desirable way.



.
How is the soul separate from the mind if it is a product of the mind?.



I pondered this question for a long long time.

Some Christians have the concept that the only purpose of the soul is to soak up the consciousness for immortality.

For me this is a silly concept.

So assuming that the word "soul" did have a meaning and that soul was distinct from mind, what distinguished soul from mind.

Mind develops from the interaction of the body with the physical and social world.

Then soul must develop from the interaction of the mind with the physical and social world.

"Soul" is at a higher level of abstraction than "mind".

Our soul is that part of us which enjoys a concert, loves, remembers, etc.

The soul is the "I" in the mind.




.
No other living being has a soul?
not even God?



Human souls make humans to be humans.

I'm sure that dolphins and the other primates have souls. Not so sure about dogs and cats. I think probably they do also.


About God. I think the question does not apply.

I think it makes no sense to ask if God, the source of all that is, has a soul.




Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Do you support the idea of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Edward

Not alongside the theory of evolution, no, because they aren't part of the same curriculum.

There's nothing new about "intelligent design"; in philosophy it's known as Paley's Argument. It could be taught in philosophy or theology courses but I can't imagine what role it would play in a science class. On the other hand, it's a very bad argument for the existence of God, especially from the point of view of believers because at its best it's no more than inductive and therefore can't prove that God exists necessarily (I presume that's what believers believe), and can be explained and refuted so quickly that little time would be wasted if it were to be included.

[Kermit1941]

I concur with Bernard!

"I see God as a macro-designer; one whose ideas become the laws of physics." ~~ Bernard Haisch

https://www.thegodtheory.com (https://www.thegodtheory.com/)

Anyone reading or has read this book , yet?!

Table of Contents appears interesting as are the Q & A section!




Do you support the idea of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools alongside the theory of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Edward





Here is more from Bernard.

Personally I do not agree completely with his main thesis.


1. on Page 16:
"... some combination of ideas within this infinite consciousness are compatible with each other and together result in environments in which evolution can take place and beings can live. ..."

2. on Page 22:
"... hardship can bring growth and wisdom, and this may be the path chosen by benevolent souls to advance their spiritual evolution. ..."

3. on Page 24:
"... All in all I have learned a fair bit about the structure and evolution of the Uni- verse, the Big Bang, and the fundamental ideas embodied in rel- ativity and quantum theory. ..."

4. on Page 35:
"... fights a pitched intellectual battle against religious fundamentalism, most notably in the arena of evolution and creationism. ..."

5. on Page 14:
"... in astronomy-or indeed anywhere in modern science. Moreover, I believe these questions are not being answered cor- rectly by the religions of the world either. ..."



6. on Page 110:
"... The comments on what religions have done and continue to do to in God's name is sad, but undeniable. The perspectives given on our societal ..."

[mykil]

So what does this make Bigfoot?

[Braggi]

So what does this make Bigfoot?

A fantasy.

-Jeff

[Valley Oak]

Is there a reason why you included my quote as part of your original post?

Edward



Here is more from Bernard.

Personally I do not agree completely with his main thesis.


1. on Page 16:
"... some combination of ideas within this infinite consciousness are compatible with each other and together result in environments in which evolution can take place and beings can live. ..."

2. on Page 22:
"... hardship can bring growth and wisdom, and this may be the path chosen by benevolent souls to advance their spiritual evolution. ..."

3. on Page 24:
"... All in all I have learned a fair bit about the structure and evolution of the Uni- verse, the Big Bang, and the fundamental ideas embodied in rel- ativity and quantum theory. ..."

4. on Page 35:
"... fights a pitched intellectual battle against religious fundamentalism, most notably in the arena of evolution and creationism. ..."

5. on Page 14:
"... in astronomy-or indeed anywhere in modern science. Moreover, I believe these questions are not being answered cor- rectly by the religions of the world either. ..."



6. on Page 110:
"... The comments on what religions have done and continue to do to in God's name is sad, but undeniable. The perspectives given on our societal ..."

[Kermit1941]

I do!
Not only would it stimulate discussion, but it provides an opportunity to see that there is so much we don't know. It provides the opportunity to see that a scientist is not omniscient by default. If we don't challenge kid's thinking, how are they going to think for themselves?


I think that it's a good idea to challenge kid's thinking.

It's a good idea to show that a scientist is not omniscient by default.

I would also like to stress that it's very important to show that no human, whatever eir religion or political standing is all knowing.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

Is there a reason why you included my quote as part of your original post?

Edward



Logistics error. I replied to Nurture Truth's post from your post.



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

I think by juxtapositioning both of them, somebody might finally come up with a clear theory that eliminates both ideas.
Just because "Intelligent Design" is not scientific, that doesn't mean it has no value.
For the longest time people have speculated how the Pyramids got their stone, wholesale theories about boats, and roads and people rolling them miles over land. Finally some crackpot figured out that they were cut right there on the site. No one thought of that before, because there wasn't any stone to be found in the area any more.
Why?
They used it all up to build the pyramids


Not clear to me how "Intelligent Design" challenges kids' thinking since there is so little thinking in "Intelligent Design," no detailed research that tries to explore and test "Intelligent Design."

"Intelligent Design" is not testable since it does not lead to new predictions. It is little more than a pat answer to certain open problems in Neodarwinian Evolutionary Theory.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am all for discussion, criticism, overcoming presuppositions (dialectics).

I don't see "Intelligent Design" contributing much to this process.

But read Jerry Fodor at

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

for interesting critiques of Darwinism




I think by juxtapositioning both of them, somebody might finally come up with a clear theory that eliminates both ideas.
Just because "Intelligent Design" is not scientific, that doesn't mean it has no value.

[MsTerry]

Darwinism sees life sprouting up random and apparently at will.
Creationism sees life as a result of purpose and destination.
to rephrase Fodor; science might tell how we came to be, but it can't tell us why.
If we study life with only one eye open, our perception will be distorted.


I am all for discussion, criticism, overcoming presuppositions (dialectics).

I don't see "Intelligent Design" contributing much to this process.

But read Jerry Fodor at

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

for interesting critiques of Darwinism

[Braggi]

Darwinism sees life sprouting up random and apparently at will.
Creationism sees life as a result of purpose and destination.
...

TP, your sentence structure is suffering again. Proofread before you post.

Here's a link to an educational book. I hope you're at least high school age and that you actually do go or at least went to school for a while. That would help with understanding the author. He wrote it for his dad who is not real scientifically minded, so you should be able to get it.

I heard the guy interviewed on the radio today. He's brilliant and a great teacher.

https://www.booksite.com/texis/scripts/oop/click_ord/showdetail.html?sid=1260&isbn=0375424474&music=&buyable=0&assoc_id=kgo

Hope you enjoy it.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I think that it's a good idea to challenge kid's thinking.

It's a good idea to show that a scientist is not omniscient by default.

I would also like to stress that it's very important to show that no human, whatever eir religion or political standing is all knowing.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

What scientist ever claimed to be all-knowing? They just make claims as to what constitutes the currently best available model. I don't think kids will benefit from being led to take Paley's Analogy seriously. It's worth 45 minutes of discussion, perhaps; no more.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I am all for discussion, criticism, overcoming presuppositions (dialectics).

I don't see "Intelligent Design" contributing much to this process.

But read Jerry Fodor at

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html

for interesting critiques of Darwinism

These are interesting and important criticisms of Darwin and natural selection, but isn't evolutionary theory bigger than the former? Margulis challenges the primacy of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution, but none of what she says suggests intelligent design.

Which is not to say that the cosmos is stupid. People who are attracted to intelligent design are just looking to say what they feel, that existence is not meaningless. The problem is that since Descartes, science has understood itself as the enterprise of laying bare nature as that which is utterly divorced from human purpose. The whole point of res extensa is that it's meaningless. That's what we want from science and that's what science has got very good at doing -- showing what nature is like independently of our concerns. But there is no reason to think that the story that science tells is more real or more fundamental or in any way threatening of our concerns. Our values and purposes are different from res extensa, but no less real.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Darwinism sees life sprouting up random and apparently at will.
Creationism sees life as a result of purpose and destination.
to rephrase Fodor; science might tell how we came to be, but it can't tell us why.
If we study life with only one eye open, our perception will be distorted.

Long before Fodor, Heidegger pointed out that science tells how but not why, that is, it doesn't tell us the meaning or significance of mechanisms. But creationism doesn't contribute anything to the "why" either. It tries to compete with science rather than to begin a different discussion. Its proponents are just confused, so far as I can tell.

[Braggi]

Perhaps both "sides" of this little argument could see love as the binding force that preserves novelty in the gene pool and allows more and more complex and interesting forms to develop. As a mother loves her unique child and that child is nurtured and grows up to procreate herself, her unique genetic mutations are passed on. I don't need an outside intelligence to justify or explain evolution. Internal intelligence and the force of a mother's love is adequate and seems completely Divine to me.

-Jeff

[Kermit1941]

Darwinism sees life sprouting up random and apparently at will.
Creationism sees life as a result of purpose and destination.
to rephrase Fodor; science might tell how we came to be, but it can't tell us why.
If we study life with only one eye open, our perception will be distorted.



It is not true that Darwinism sees life sprouting up randomly and apparently at will.

Darwinism avows that natural processes, not directed by any mind, are responsible for the orderly development of life since it began.

Within Darwinism, why and how are the same question.


It is a flaw in Creationism that it views past evolution processes in terms of purpose and destination.

Because (1) Where we have already been, is not a destination.
and
(2) The natural selection part of evolution theory is sometimes confused with the sense of purpose. However, there are parts of evolution theory that explain particular evolutions without regard to final purpose.

For example, reptiles evolved wings, not for the purpose of flying, but because those wing pre-cursor membranes helped keep them warm. Once those membranes appeared, natural selection could select for larger and more efficient membranes. They eventually became winglike.

When the wings became good enough to both help keep the reptile warm and provide limited flight, then the further evolution of wings by natural selection was set up.


Science philosophy helps us to occasionally see with both eyes.



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Within Darwinism, why and how are the same question.

If that's so, then Darwinism is badly confused. It's better to say that like any science it's concerned to tell a causal story, in this case one about how species evolved. The specialized knowledge involved in making claims about how species evolved is irrelevant to conversation about what it means for them to have evolved. That is a conversation for man at large using all means of expression at his disposal.

[Zeno Swijtink]

"In Praise of Feeling Bad about Yourself" Wisława Szymborska writes:

The buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn't know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they'd claim their hands were clean.
A jackal doesn't understand remorse.
Lions and lice don't waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they're right?
Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they're light.
On this third planet of the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.



If that's so, then Darwinism is badly confused. It's better to say that like any science it's concerned to tell a causal story about how species evolved. The specialized knowledge involved in making claims about how species evolved is irrelevant to conversation about what it means for them to have evolved. That is a conversation for man at large using all means of expression at his disposal.

[Valley Oak]

Does this imply that everyone in the U.S. is responsible for the war in Iraq? Or that everyone in the world is responsible for it as well?

Edward



"In Praise of Feeling Bad about Yourself" Wisława Szymborska writes:

The buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn't know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they'd claim their hands were clean.
A jackal doesn't understand remorse.
Lions and lice don't waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they're right?
Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they're light.
On this third planet of the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.

[MsTerry]

I graduated from Analy 2 years ago, no need for you to put me down.
Did you go to Anally High?


TP, your sentence structure is suffering again. Proofread before you post.

Here's a link to an educational book. I hope you're at least high school age and that you actually do go or at least went to school for a while. That would help with understanding the author. He wrote it for his dad who is not real scientifically minded, so you should be able to get it.

I heard the guy interviewed on the radio today. He's brilliant and a great teacher.

https://www.booksite.com/texis/scripts/oop/click_ord/showdetail.html?sid=1260&isbn=0375424474&music=&buyable=0&assoc_id=kgo

Hope you enjoy it.

-Jeff

[Kermit1941]

If that's so, then Darwinism is badly confused. It's better to say that like any science it's concerned to tell a causal story about how species evolved. The specialized knowledge involved in making claims about how species evolved is irrelevant to conversation about what it means for them to have evolved. That is a conversation for man at large using all means of expression at his disposal.


Agreed.

Your statement is a more complete statement of what I had in mind.



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[alanora]

Thanks, I enjoyed perusing the table of contents...I hesitate t add it to the mountain of things I want to read next.........lol. Mindy Happy wednesday show.


I concur with Bernard!

"I see God as a macro-designer; one whose ideas become the laws of physics." ~~ Bernard Haisch

https://www.thegodtheory.com

Anyone reading or has read this book , yet?!

Table of Contents appears interesting as are the Q & A section!

[mykil]

I love this Zeno, he must have written this before the family dog evolved though, don't you think?



"In Praise of Feeling Bad about Yourself" Wisława Szymborska writes:

The buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn't know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they'd claim their hands were clean.
A jackal doesn't understand remorse.
Lions and lice don't waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they're right?
Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they're light.
On this third planet of the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.

[tantrum_03]

Ok ready for your answer?. . . . . .the chicken came first because when God created the earth he made animals not eggs. Everything comes from God he is the begining and the end. Read your bible.

[Valley Oak]

I can't read my bible anymore because I used it for toilet paper when I ran out of poop tissue. It did a good job too because they both handle the same material very well.

Edward



Ok ready for your answer?. . . . . .the chicken came first because when God created the earth he made animals not eggs. Everything comes from God he is the begining and the end. Read your bible.

[Braggi]

I graduated from Analy 2 years ago, no need for you to put me down.
Did you go to Anally High?

Just checking. Not intending to put you down. I went to Escondido High in southern CA. Class of 1972. Never quite made it to college. I was too much of a mess back in those days. Had a chip on my shoulder big time, struggling with my raging hormones and my religious instructors telling me my feelings were sinful and wrong. They were liars and hypocrites but that didn't stop me from being miserable because of what they taught me. It took a lot of work to clear up all that. I'm better now.

It's nice to know your age. Helps a lot to understand where you're coming from. I wasn't very nice when I was your age. I'm sure a lot of folks thought I was a creep, but I did have some friends who cared about me. I could write a pretty good sentence or two. I paid attention in English class and I always liked to write. Glad to see you here polishing that skill. It will take you far if you develop your writing skills. Always read what these educated guys write even if you think they're full of crap. :wink:

And seriously, get a good book on evolution. It's a wonderful subject. Sure there are gaps in the fossil record. But realize that 99.9999999% of everything never makes it into the fossil record. Those all get eaten or decomposed or burned up. And it's highly unusual to find a fossil of anything that teaches anything new.

That guy with the inner fish book I posted. He was studying fossils of a fish that has shoulders, elbows, fingers, and eyes and nose like a reptile. That's an amazing beast! He found these fossils within 60 miles of the North Pole. It's an amazing world out there. Don't let somebody with a single book tell you they have all the answers.

There's still a lot of awesome mystery to discover, MsTerry.

-Jeff

[ghatmandu]

I am still sitting on that chicken and the egg thing.
Who came first?
or to be more precise when did it all start and how?

On the one side we have God as the creator of all, on the other side there is an evolution-theory and not much in the middle.
Both of these theories are based on a belief-system without any concrete proof, alot of circumstantial evidence and alot of self-serving conclusions.

For example, we can prove a relationship between fish and reptiles, but not that one came from the other. or when it happened.
and if it did happen, then why isn't it still happening? or why can't we recreate it?

All lot of creation is described in the bible, we are still discovering (eg,the Wall of Tower Built by Nehemiah) that stories that were presumed anecdotal are factual indeed.

But if the evolution theory were true, that could mean that we all came from one and the same source if we were to go back far enough.
What would that source be? Could that be God?
that would mean both sides are right

In my humble opinon I ask does it really matter? Is the glass half full or half empty? I'm not sure, but I do know there is in fact water (as we perceive it) in the glass.Now you can take a scientific view or a spiritual one,or perhaps both,which I tend to do. We as humans are finite beings and cannot totally comprehend the infinite,we can only vibrate in harmony (or not) with the universe,knowing that the life force i.e energy within us is the same energy in evert rock, plant,animal, etc.that ever was, for energy cannot be destroyed.I think since we have been blessed with consciencesness,we can only do our best to connect with this universal source of energy or God.So you see, just be!

[MsTerry]

Does it really matter?
Of course not, but it makes us human.
What is your suggestion on how to connect with this universal source of energy?


In my humble opinon I ask does it really matter? Is the glass half full or half empty? I'm not sure, but I do know there is in fact water (as we perceive it) in the glass.Now you can take a scientific view or a spiritual one,or perhaps both,which I tend to do. We as humans are finite beings and cannot totally comprehend the infinite,we can only vibrate in harmony (or not) with the universe,knowing that the life force i.e energy within us is the same energy in evert rock, plant,animal, etc.that ever was, for energy cannot be destroyed.I think since we have been blessed with consciencesness,we can only do our best to connect with this universal source of energy or God.So you see, just be!

[Kermit1941]

Does it really matter?
Of course not, but it makes us human.
What is your suggestion on how to connect with this universal source of energy?

To connect with this universal source of energy, I recommend two things to keep in mind.

(1) Don't presume that your current habit of responding to things are necessary for being human.


(2) See the divine in everything that exists.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[ghatmandu]

It already exsists in all of us,we just need to be receptive enough to experience it,some people pray some meditate,others can feel the connection just being out in nature,one must learn to be quiet enough and seperate oneself from all the distractions that surround us and clutter up our ability to reconnect,personally I find meditation works for me,reading literature on matters of spiritual nature and the teahings of all the great masters and prophets.Even Einstien was awed by the connection of physics and God and in the end could not seperate the two.There are many rays that come from the sun the path you choose is up to you.

[Valley Oak]

Einstein was an atheist.

Edward



It already exsists in all of us,we just need to be receptive enough to experience it,some people pray some meditate,others can feel the connection just being out in nature,one must learn to be quiet enough and seperate oneself from all the distractions that surround us and clutter up our ability to reconnect,personally I find meditation works for me,reading literature on matters of spiritual nature and the teahings of all the great masters and prophets.Even Einstien was awed by the connection of physics and God and in the end could not seperate the two.There are many rays that come from the sun the path you choose is up to you.

[Kermit1941]

Einstein was an atheist.

Edward


** Smile ***

The labels we assign, "atheist", "Christian", "Buddhist", etc have very little to do with the sense of religion.

I am an "atheist", "agnostic", "Mystic", and "Christian" all at the same time.

I am an atheist in that I know that every formal religion has the details all wrong.

I am an agnostic in that I believe that God has not given any evidence in the world for typical formal religious dogmas such as continued life in Heaven after death on Earth.

I am a Christian in that I put my faith in the message of Jesus for how to live a better life here on Earth.

I am a mystic in that I sense in the air around me the presence of the Creator of the universe.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

This thread needs to be broken up into a new one.

Edward

Hey Edward,

Even though you are God, this little line appeared at the bottom of your last post!

"Last edited by shellebelle : 15 Minutes Ago at 10:14 AM."


Are you shellebelle too???????????????
Is that your other side coming out?

[shellebelle]

I moved the war conversation over.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31561

And no Edward is not me but I am an assistant moderator and spend a good deal of time correcting little things like the broken quote lines I fixed on the last post.

[Valley Oak]

No, I am not Shellebelle and I am not a moderator (I wouldn't make a very good moderator anyway because I fly off the handle too easily).

If the topic of a person's 'other side' interests you at all, I strongly suggest you explore the Pagan community, which expresses this concept openly, even in its very fun celebrations:
www.scpagans.org (https://www.scpagans.org) (Sonoma County)
www.annwfn.org (https://www.annwfn.org) (Mendocino County)
www.reclaiming.org (https://www.reclaiming.org) (International)

There are 8 annual celebrations and the next one, Ostara, is held around March 21st. Different groups celebrate these events in their own way, as you might imagine.

Oh, and talking about God/Goddess, Pagans offer a very refreshing view of deities.

Edward


Hey Edward,

Even though you are God, this little line appeared at the bottom of your last post!

"Last edited by shellebelle : 15 Minutes Ago at 10:14 AM."


Are you shellebelle too???????????????
Is that your other side coming out?

[shellebelle]

It's been a battle among humans, for a very long time, trying to get this picture of God into a place that is pleasing for them. And the debate about "Is it evolution? Is it creation? Is it God-inspired, or is it scientifically inspired…?" And we say, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't everything that is wrapped up in science and vibration be the true essence of that which you call God? It is all one and the same.
Excerpted from a workshop in Chicago, IL on Saturday, September 18th, 2004
All Is Well

©1997-2007 Abraham-Hicks Publications.


https://www.abraham-hicks.com/

[Melodymama]

shellebelle; It's been a battle among humans, for a very long time, trying to get this picture of God into a place that is pleasing for them. And the debate about "Is it evolution? Is it creation? Is it God-inspired, or is it scientifically inspired…?" And we say, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't everything that is wrapped up in science and vibration be the true essence of that which you call God? It is all one and the same.

My belief is that it is all one. The vibrational energy that runs through anything and everything is science, is ever morphing (evolving), ever moving, all pervasive. It is love and passion and the creative instinct of the universe. I call it Spirit energy. If we need God to fit into any concept we have of earthly concrete form, we are thinking inside our self created box. It is so much more and has no limits. This, for me, translates to we are all part of 'God' and all are worthy of respect and compassion. All are one is all. Namaste, Laura

[Tinque]

O.K I am ready for much controversy...I for one have a REAL problem with information that I have not seen ,acknowleded , been there or is PROVEN to me ! I did not meet "God" . I know of no-one who has. I have found fossils, I have found arrowheads and mortar and pestals. I have found bones of animals which all the above proves to me of existance. I have spoken for hours to people 100 yrs old and sat spell bound by their words of guidance and their knowledge of what they KNOW.. or KNEW.. those are things I can adhere to . I have a very hard time with heresay. Play the game "telephone" with your kids or any adults. The original message NEVER is the same when it reaches you ..:hello:

[Punkasaurus Rex]

I couldn't agree more, Tinque!

It's not the "believing" that is at the apex; it is the heresy that results from knowledge not directly received from it's true source. Even broken down to a practical level, I have committed some rather grave errors by listening to a third-person account, and it can be a sobering experience when you find out
"the truth". Whether personal or spiritual, the gospel does not mean the truth. And There You Have It!

[Zeno Swijtink]

O.K I am ready for much controversy...I for one have a REAL problem with information that I have not seen ,acknowleded , been there or is PROVEN to me ! I did not meet "God" . I know of no-one who has. I have found fossils, I have found arrowheads and motar and pestals. I have found bones of animals which all the above proves to me of existance. I have spoken for hours to people 100 yrs old and sat spell bound by their words of guidance and their knowledge of what they KNOW.. or KNEW.. those are things I can adhere to . I have a very hard time with heresay. Play the game "telephone" with your kids or any adults. The original message NEVER is the same when it reaches you ..

This is a rather naive epistemology. I doubt you really base all your belief on some form of direct acquaintance.

Doing this you would have very few beliefs, not enough to function in a complex society.

Most of our beliefs are based on testimony from other people we trust to have reliable beliefs. If you read a scientific paper based on direct observation and experiment you trust the authors to report and interpret correctly, have used reliable methods of error correction and data reduction, have worked in a framework obtained from other people with reasonable beliefs, etc.

[Tinque]

I , in no way , feel I am naive. I , with justification , am weary of anything that I am not SURE of. This is O.K. I am open-minded. I listen. I am a sponge for knowledge and I respect your feelings and thoughts. So please respect mine . Thanks:heart::heart:

[Punkasaurus Rex]

This is a rather naive epistemology. I doubt you really base all your belief on some form of direct acquaintance.

Doing this you would have very few beliefs, not enough to function in a complex society.

Most of our beliefs are based on testimony from other people we trust to have reliable beliefs. If you read a scientific paper based on direct observation and experiment you trust the authors to report and interpret correctly, have used reliable methods of error correction and data reduction, have worked in a framework obtained from other people with reasonable beliefs, etc.

Zeno:
>
>In an empirical world, the word God does not exist nor can it find meaning.
>I agree with your premise that one cannot trust without a belief system,
>but don't we all think our beliefs are REASONABLE? And if beliefs
>were indeed measurable, are we on the metric system or..............??
>
>I must add your comment of "naive epistemology" was brilliant!

[mykil]

I was just watching another wonderful program on the great NGC about life in general. Seems that life on earth began right when earth itself was built! LOL! The asteroids that were plummeting our earth and still do ALL carry microbes orgasms and bacteria that can not be turned off even in the depths of space time and vacuum. They start to grow immediately upon arrival to our little planet and carry who knows what. Every single one that plummets form the skis carries many microbes. Hmmm maybe we did come from the heavens above? Now with the new evidence they are coming up with we were brought in on giant rocks, not quite an egg like the great Mork but close. I think with that said we came first and the egg and Mork came in second cause his show didn’t start til the seventies…

[mykil]

Most of our beliefs are based on testimony from other people we trust to have reliable beliefs.

Oh wow!!! OUR BELIEFS??? Zeno ole boy I for one thought you to be way to bright to even conceder a belief system... ho hum ho hum …<o:p></o:p>

[Punkasaurus Rex]

I was just watching another wonderful program on the great NGC about life in general. Seems that life on earth began right when earth itself was built! LOL! The asteroids that were plummeting our earth and still do ALL carry microbes orgasms and bacteria that can not be turned off even in the depths of space time and vacuum. They start to grow immediately upon arrival to our little planet and carry who knows what. Every single one that plummets form the skis carries many microbes. Hmmm maybe we did come from the heavens above? Now with the new evidence they are coming up with we were brought in on giant rocks, not quite an egg like the great Mork but close. I think with that said we came first and the egg and Mork came in second cause his show didn’t start til the seventies…

I know what you are getting at, but my friend Mindy says that it all was the result of a SuperNova!

[Hotspring 44]

"God" is "Assumed"... ... To be "The Absolute" Authority, 'Decider", Absolute Dictator of Everything. With that in mind (Consider the) "Desperate" human Feeling of need for a "Known" "Absolutely" "Solid" Un Wavering Absolute To help Psychologically. (Example: In response to) Disease, Famine, Volcanic Eruptions, Earth Quakes, & All the Myriad of Natural Disasters which were "Unexplainable" (To the Masses) throughout most of Human History. Hence The "Status Quo" Had to give some sort of "Believable" "Explanation" or Else "The King", "Queen", "Emperor", "Lord, "Comity", Etc. would be unable to Control "His / Her / Their "Subjects". When "Forced" to state "Religion" (My "Belief") The only thing that I can really "Believe" in is what I call the "Paradox Constant". In Seven Words I will Describe it: "The only Absolute Constant is Continuous "Change". There is an Infinite "Number" of ways to Prove it: (1 Example is) Where (When / Where,... I.E.: Time / Location ) we all "See" the "same" "Thing" at the "Same" "Time" But From our own individual "Angle" Hence, Different angle of prospective different "Viewpoint" Literally!... But for ("Absolutely") everything, that "Position" & all the "Relationships" of the aforementioned Will "Change" Eventually!... (Always in the Process of Changing). This I "Believe" is a "Positive" that Can be ("Proven") & is "Proven" in everything that we could ever see, do, Imagine, Etc.. :Yinyangv: "Evolution" is a More Specific "Science" than the Philosophical" God". "Religion" is Either a "Basic" "Belief" Like the "Paradox Constant" (For Example) or "Organized Religion" of one or the other. As far as What came first; God or man? All our Human perceptions are "Human" Including "God"... & The "Paradox Constant". The Q about What came first The Chicken or egg... There were "Eggs" Previous to All Birds.:hello:... (The) "Fossil Record"... (Fossilized) Fish, Dinosaur "Eggs" For Example. History IS sometimes "Written in Stone":hmmm:... Not always "written" by "Man". Just Because "Illiteracy" of the "Written" Fossil Record is not a good enough reason to not (or Forbid) acknowledge (ing) it as a" Fact" that "Life" was on Earth Previous to Humans on Earth.... May be "Humans" are an "Invasive Species!?... One thing for certain in my mind is that "Change" & "Evolution" at some point are one in the same. To me Religion is synonymous with Human Desperation in one direction or the other... Either Causing it (Desperation) or attempting to Escape From it.

P.S. This is the 2nd attempt to Post this. This is my first Post on WaccoBB so I hope this post is the one that gets through because this one is Edited a bit better.

[Juggledude]

... ALL carry ... orgasms …

rofl!

Royce

[ghatmandu]

So lets say we have unlocked all the mysteries of life,what happens next,where do we go from here, Can we possibly comprehend the infinite,and what happens when we do? Maybe the relationship between science and God will turn out to be more closely related than we realize.

[mykil]

That’s an easy one! We continue on, we look deeper and keep on discovering till the end of time. Curiosity enlightened the pussy! Err maid it wet ,err umm, made it a tad bit easier to not have to take soooo much bull with a grain of salt! That’s it! Don’t ya know? LOL! If you are worried that once we link God to US don’t be! When we finally do get around to this and can look to the heavens and realize we have made significant progress in understanding out our GOD we will also discover new gods and new science project that need our now full attention in solving. Thus they will be so mysterious they will have to be GOD! Oh and you might find the secrets to life you soo much desire to have. Like what turns grey err white haitr back to blonde...
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>


So lets say we have unlocked all the mysteries of life,what happens next,where do we go from here, Can we possibly comprehend the infinite,and what happens when we do? Maybe the relationship between science and God will turn out to be more closely related than we realize.

[scorpiomoon]

I have been enjoying this thread, reading bits and pieces as I make time today. Bible, or the Iliad and the Odessy, are Historical Records. Parting of the Reed Sea actually happened and coincided with the Exodus. Lots of interesting stuff happens in translation, its like sitting in a circle one person whispering something to the next person. SO we have had several thousand years to study and ponder god officially. Who pondered god first Neanderthal or Homo Sapiens? Mykil says space aliens spread their seed. How about an interesting mix of these two. A few from Atlantis, more Homo Sapiens, thinkers well ahead of the rest of our evolving relatives. Blasted and survived, went into Europe, bred with the Etruscians right? I have seen ancient paintings men with very distinct brow ridges. Now There is finally a little material evidence that this occured, the inbreeding of Neandertal and Homo Sapiens, something I thought 20 years ago, or more
So when man first stood upright, somewhere in the Pacific Islands, a coconut hit him on the head and he said, in his
pre-human language "oh, God! " That hurt. Now he either died or one of his family heard him, and well, rather than take personal responsibility, like loose coconuts do not stand under the tree, perhaps, "oh God!" works. I don't know. I have been trying to prove God exists for years
It's my intellectual mind that simply refuses to budge. The poet in me may see God in a flower petal, a raindrop, or an atom. The lover in me feels God inside a kiss or touch. If GOD does exist he certainly exists as a different entity in each of our individual lives. An idea of what is sacred or right. Presbyterian grandmother says to me years ago, you know what GOD stands for don't you?? Good Orderly Direction. Something to think about. The idea of making order from chaos may be the beginning of an idea of God. LOL you all

[Sonomamark]

That IS an easy one! First of all: there are no infinities, not in the physical Universe. We can conceptualize them, but it's the same tail-chasing exercise as if-God-is-omnipotent-can-he-make-a-stone-so-heavy-he-can't-lift-it. We don't have to comprehend the infinite because infinities are imaginary, like hobbits and compassionate conservatism.

But the core answer is that understanding the physical nature of the Universe (which reveals, among other things, that gods are another example of our imaginary constructions) doesn't necessarily help much with philosophy, which is more about how best to live, how to be happy, and how to organize a society. These are ultimately strategic questions, not cosmological/scientific ones. They come down to opinions, not facts, and where there is opinion, there is always disagreement. Humans will be debating what is right and wrong and how best to live long past the time when we know all that can be known about physics.


Sonomamark


So lets say we have unlocked all the mysteries of life,what happens next,where do we go from here, Can we possibly comprehend the infinite,and what happens when we do? Maybe the relationship between science and God will turn out to be more closely related than we realize.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I have been enjoying this thread, reading bits and pieces as I make time today. Bible, or the Iliad and the Odessy, are Historical Records. Parting of the Reed Sea actually happened and coincided with the Exodus. Lots of interesting stuff happens in translation, its like sitting in a circle one person whispering something to the next person. SO we have had several thousand years to study and ponder god officially. Who pondered god first Neanderthal or Homo Sapiens? Mykil says space aliens spread their seed. How about an interesting mix of these two. A few from Atlantis, more Homo Sapiens, thinkers well ahead of the rest of our evolving relatives. Blasted and survived, went into Europe, bred with the Etruscians right? I have seen ancient paintings men with very distinct brow ridges. Now There is finally a little material evidence that this occured, the inbreeding of Neandertal and Homo Sapiens, something I thought 20 years ago, or more
So when man first stood upright, somewhere in the Pacific Islands, a coconut hit him on the head and he said, in his
pre-human language "oh, God! " That hurt. Now he either died or one of his family heard him, and well, rather than take personal responsibility, like loose coconuts do not stand under the tree, perhaps, "oh God!" works. I don't know. I have been trying to prove God exists for years
It's my intellectual mind that simply refuses to budge. The poet in me may see God in a flower petal, a raindrop, or an atom. The lover in me feels God inside a kiss or touch. If GOD does exist he certainly exists as a different entity in each of our individual lives. An idea of what is sacred or right. Presbyterian grandmother says to me years ago, you know what GOD stands for don't you?? Good Orderly Direction. Something to think about. The idea of making order from chaos may be the beginning of an idea of God. LOL you all

Neandertals: possibly. Somewhere in the Pacific Islands: no!

***
Science 17 November 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5802, p. 1071
DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5802.1071

NEWS FOCUS
PALEOGENETICS:
A Neandertal Legacy?
Michael Balter

The perennial question about Neandertal-human relations is, "Did they mate?" (Science, 11 February 2005, p. 841). The lack of a strong Neandertal signature in the modern human genome means that such interspecies dalliances were probably rare, but the Neandertal nuclear DNA sequenced to date raises the possibility that interbreeding did happen (see main text). If so, there may be traces of Neandertal genes in living people, especially if the Neandertal variants were favored by natural selection. Now a handful of other studies are finding genes that may fit the bill.

"There is now a relatively long list of candidates" for such adaptive genetic variants, contends anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. But not all researchers agree. Population geneticist Laurent Excoffier of the University of Bern in Switzerland counters that it's "highly unlikely" there were enough matings between Neandertals and modern humans to have left significant traces in the modern genome.

The most recent candidate was reported last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team led by geneticist Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago in Illinois. Lahn's team had earlier claimed that a variant of the brain-related gene microcephalin first appeared in modern humans about 37,000 years ago and quickly spread around the world because it was favored by selection (Science, 9 September 2005, p. 1662). In the new work, Lahn estimated that the variant actually arose in hominids more than 1 million years ago, long before it appeared in our own lineage. He suggests interbreeding, probably with Neandertals, as a likely explanation. "It seems to be the most compelling case to date for a genetic contribution of Neandertals to modern humans," says Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Similar candidates include a gene shown to have conferred a reproductive advantage in living Icelanders, a variant of a gene called MAPT implicated in neurological disease. As with microcephalin, the MAPT variant appeared in modern humans about 30,000 years ago but apparently arose in hominids much earlier and so may have come from Neandertals, according to recent work by John Hardy of the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Maryland.

There are several genetic variants whose roots go back as far as 2 million years ago but appeared more recently in modern humans, says geneticist Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona in Tucson. He says this pattern is best explained by occasional matings among different hominid groups within Africa as well as between African migrants and Eurasian hominids, including possibly Homo erectus. Even Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who has argued that modern humans migrating from Africa replaced Neandertals with little or no interbreeding, now says that some interspecies matings are "feasible."

Just why genes from Neandertals or other ancient hominids would have benefited modern humans remains a mystery. But if the geneticists are correct, it could mean that before Neandertals went extinct about 30,000 years ago, they left modern humanity with lasting gifts.


***
https://www.livescience.com/history/080221-ap-human-origins.html

DNA Study Supports African Origin of Man
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- A new genetic analysis of people from around the world adds further confirmation to the African origin of humans.

The study of genetic details from 938 individuals from 51 populations provides evidence of how people are related and different, researchers led by Richard M. Myers of Stanford University report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The team looked at variations in 650,000 sections of each of the DNA samples, providing a view of the similarities and differences between people in greater detail than had been available previously.

Scientists have long believed that modern humans first developed in Africa and spread from there to populate the rest of the world, a theory strongly supported by the new analysis, the researchers said.

In addition, they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe, which they said is logical since the region formed a bridge for movement back and forth between the areas.

Also, they noted, they found a close a relationship between the Yakut population of Siberia and native Americans, who are believed to have migrated from Siberia via a land bridge at a time of lower sea levels.

[bendwiththewind]

Men came first, because they had to create a God, Gods, Goddesses, or the Goddess in order to try to have some working concept of a Creator, or Creators, in order to try to make sense of what they couldn't reallly explain or understand seemingly any other way. Divinities did not come first, because, for me there is just the Universe, which created itself, has its own consciousnes, and doesn't require worship, just respect for it, remembering that it is indifferent to all of us. Why when it created all of us? My simplistic explanation is that it just is, allowing all of us, and any aliens out there, to do what we will to the best of our limited knowledges.

[MsTerry]

OK
So how did the Universe create itself out of sheer nothingness?
Did the Universe create all the creatures at the same time too?


Men came first, because they had to create a God, Gods, Goddesses, or the Goddess in order to try to have some working concept of a Creator, or Creators, in order to try to make sense of what they couldn't reallly explain or understand seemingly any other way. Divinities did not come first, because, for me there is just the Universe, which created itself, has its own consciousnes, and doesn't require worship, just respect for it, remembering that it is indifferent to all of us. Why when it created all of us? My simplistic explanation is that it just is, allowing all of us, and any aliens out there, to do what we will to the best of our limited knowledges.

[mykil]

You know after thinking and philosophing and rolling things over in my brain. I have come to my own conclusion once again! I CAME FIRST! After all I am not even sure any of you exist in the first place. I know none of you were here before I got here or I would have recognized you all when I arrived. You all could just be fragments of MY imagination. For all I know the food I eat is just a simple program and the flower I smell comes directly from under the hard drive I adhere to. Some sort of lube!!! LOL!!! Mizz Terry being an elusive little virus attached to my software err trying to attach to my hardware and the rest of you are some sort of enlightenment software that some idiot installed a few eons back. BARRY probably stands for something along the lines of “BARRING AREA RECREATION RENDERING Y’ALL”. Keeping me on my toes and schooling in the direction of the soul in order to be prepared to take on the next little glitch his software writing skills leave gapping wholes in. Driving back and forth to work are easily explained with just the flow of energy that one little computer needs. Am I driving? May I take my hands from the wheel and let go? Will I still get there? These are questions I ask myself everyday while traveling down the road with on coming traffic screaming at me at fifty-five miles per hour. ARE THEY REALLY THERE??? I NEED TO KNOW DAM IT! If only I should swerve toward them and see if they flinch, oh but they do!!!! If only I had the ballz to find out for sure!!! Everyday tasks seem simple to me, yet they appear to be rather difficult for others. Is this a glitch in their software program, or is their hardware getting ready to fail completely and we are going to have to find a way to recycle them. As long as we don’t burn it I think we will be OK dammit! Oh what am I saying THEY ARE NOT EVEN THERE!!! Hmmm why can I just plug in like a tree? Why must I keep replenishing my body with fuel? Why can’t I pick up what I need from the earth just like the tree? Why must I …:hmmm:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>





So how did the Universe create itself out of sheer nothingness?
Did the Universe create all the creatures at the same time too?

["Mad" Miles]

Mykil,

Could you please provide a weekly schedule of your normal routes and driving times so us fraggings of your imagination can avoid your expirements in metaphysics and epistemology?

You might want to consider that, ephemeral as we are, we might want to avoid having our "software" crashed by you?

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[Hotspring 44]

This is my "Better" edited Posting. The first one was the wrong one. Whoops! [Hotspring 44]


OK

So how did the Universe create itself out of sheer nothingness?

Did the Universe create all the creatures at the same time too? That is a "Loaded Question". No one can Definitively Prove One way or the other the answer to that Question .... And likely never can. Some people are so steadfast in their own personal "Beliefs" and / or "Religious" "Beliefs" That they will never Accept anything else PERIOD!... Hence: The Warrior / "Holy" "Man""... Or an (So called) "Atheist" "Hitler like" "Leader". "So Q: Who came first The Assailant or the Defender?... A: No "Absolutely" "Definitive" Proof either way! When "Masses" of people "Decide" to Believe someone's "Story" or "Theory" With "Absoluteness" as (for) proof it, ends up with Human Conflict..,, (I Think) Based on History. Look up "Holy War" in the Un Abridged Dictionary at the Library if you have any questions or doubts. When things happen that are Inconsistent & Contrary to the "Status Quoe" "Core Beliefs" Some people are (Become) desperate for "Conclusions"... Some things Have no Humanly "Provable" Conclusions. Religion has it's Collective Mind Made up... I.E.: "Creationism" (As one example)... What I see here is an "UN Provable Scenario". To except the fate of our minds (Humanoid Brains) way of dealing with that we have 2 "Opposing" ways of dealing with (it) this "Dilemma": One is Exploration, The other is Religion.. Some how we coexists But not without Things that happen to us like Warfare.... Unfortunately! Here are a couple or three Examples of "Loaded Questions": L.Q /s: Whom came first The religious Warrior or the scientist Warrior?.... Whom Attacked Whom with "Weapons" first? .... Was it for Food & other vital Resources or was it over "Core Beliefs" ("Religion")?... (I think first food & resources then, Add Religion) I think we are in a huge stream at one side (End?) of the "Horizon Event" of the "Great Black Hole" that we Humans call "The Universe". , Human reasoning is Desperate & Fickle at times. This is where I think we should care more about "Peaceful" coexistence & equality as individuals with "Human" Liberties within the confines of our Resources so that each one of us IS secure without the threat of Assault, Imprisonment, Societal Banishment, & sometimes Death & Terrorist Threats. Actually this whole thread is a loaded Q in the first place so I hope no one here takes what I have to say here personally. I do have personal interest in Humanizing As opposed to "religifiing" the study of the Reasons for Human Conceptions about life's offerings that are so seemingly "Mysterious". If it weren't for the Violent Opposition's from the Various Absolutist Religious "Warriors" whom are at this point using "Science" (Modern Weaponry) in attempts to "Enforce" their Way onto Others.. we may realize that the Question how ever interesting it may be, (Who came first) May be (Is likely) Futile as far as a "Definitive answer" is concerned. My conclusion is that Hoping, Begging, Praying, in some circumstances are the same thing. Consciously doing something differently to effect an outcome within a sires of events is different by far than relying on the Brush Fire (Burning Bush), "God" or something like that. Human "Intuition" is a factor how ever (It is difficult to Scientifically Quantify Human "Intuition" but Not Impossible). Note: Religious Fanatics will always throw in a "Wild Card" to induce Fear & doubt on the population and Destroy what ever "Threatens" their Higharical Political Position. My own "conclusion": "God" Was Created For Human, By Human to serve as an organizing Devise to control "Masses" (Great Numbers of Human individuals). In Religion Why do you think they call it Mass?... In Physics Why do they call it Mass? Is it the Same "Mass" Expressed in the "opposing " "Streams at each "Poll" of the "Great Black Hole" ? { Interjection: Was the "Big Bang" the ultimate result of the very "Conflict" of Beings somewhat like ourselves in an epic argument over "Religion & Science? Did we cause the "Big Bang" in our Future in a Great Argument involving things like "Anti Matter"?
This whole subject matter reminds me of The "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser Experiment" https://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ (https://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/%7Eamarch/) . Waves V's Particles . Is Religion And Science like the Wave Particle "Thing"? If you can comprehend some Physics this is one of the most fascinating Discoveries in my Human life time that I am able to in Basic "Theory" somewhat comprehend. My experience in Photo Holography helps considerably. This Phenomenon in the Experiment ("Double-Slit Quantum Eraser Experiment") is the closest "Scientific" Example to answer the Original Question of this thread. Imagine; the "Wave as as "Religion" or "Science", The Particle as the other. Q: Do Beliefs "Cause" "Reality"? Or does "Reality" "Cause" "Beliefs"? A: It doesn't Matter When you are a "Wave"!... It "Totally" "Matters" When you are a "Particle":thumbsup: Hotspring 44.

[Barry]

...there is just the Universe, which created itself, has its own consciousness, and doesn't require worship, just respect for it, remembering that it is indifferent to all of us. ...


That works for me as definition of god, thought I’m not so sure about the “own conscious” part, or at least as we generally understand it. The universe just is, outside the realm of time. It’s been constantly doing its thing, perhaps big bang to big bang. To the extent that we can tune in and honor that energy and feel it expressing itself through us, we consider it sacred/holy. Then there are all manner of traditions that try to honor that, that evolve over time, with varying degrees of purity.
<o:p> </o:p>
And again, we are but an expression of this energy, so thus part of it. So the question of which came first doesn’t apply.

[MsTerry]

.
<o:p> </o:p>
And again, we are but an expression of this energy, so thus part of it. So the question of which came first doesn’t apply.

Being an expression of something does not equate with being the same as the whole.
But rather it suggests that there is an order such as a creator and its creation.

[Barry]

Being an expression of something does not equate with being the same as the whole.
But rather it suggests that there is an order such as a creator and its creation.

It's like asking which came first, me or my beard? I suppose you could say "me", but my beard is part of "me". And again, the cosmic energy always is, so to speak of before or after doesn't apply. And it doesn't create, per se, any more than a desert "creates" cacti.

[alanora]

Kabbalah divides the coming into being process and all of creation into four worlds....emanation, creation, formation, actualization, definitions of each world. Questioned origins of emanation come prior and are unknowable..above the crown to the mind of G-d it is not appropriate to consider. every world has its foundation in the prior world as every world persists to the point of the beginning of the next. Ain sof means without end, and the contemplation of this ain sof which means simultaneously all of infinity and nothingness, which is as close as I have gotten to understanding, and the contemplation of which where the duality vanishes and one gets sense glimpses of another reality, a sort of enlightenment? Being and nothingness. everything and no thing. And there is tons more and everything relates back and forth. Colors as frequency play a role. Fascinating stuff to me..........I'll keep reading and maybe even order that zohar I have been threatening myself with.....Everything has layers of meaning. There is ideally a balance maintained regarding study of the Torah, Talmud and zohar while having a part of self forever trained on the divine. Particular permutations of the letters of the 72 names of G-d are to be both contemplated and meditated upon and possibly chanted......wow. mindy


Being an expression of something does not equate with being the same as the whole.
But rather it suggests that there is an order such as a creator and its creation.

[MsTerry]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Does Mrs Wacco have a beard too?
If she does, is she part of you too?


It's like asking which came first, me or my beard?

[MsTerry]

Kabbalah divides the coming into being process and all of creation into four worlds....emanation, creation, formation, actualization, definitions of each world. Questioned origins of emanation come prior and are unknowable..above the crown to the mind of G-d it is not appropriate to consider.

Well, does that mean I am blasphemous?

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://fracas.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/chicken_egg.jpg

[alanora]

no such thing in my book. mindy


Well, does that mean I am blasphemous?

[kltkwmn]

neither.
[ambisexual]'wo/man' birthed itself, breathing across the waves and through a void (0).
Sophia.
Miriam.
al laht.
the rest is a myth for temporal power maintainence;
is random,
is chance,
is life.

[oh, and then there are stories of space travelers as oppressors and 'parents' who rubbed together their sperm and some blood of hominids, impregnating female hominids (probably w/out their consent)...]
Sumerians, Sirius....
blahblahblah.