Evolution

MNS

Or life..IS symbolism.
Conceptual sympolism...

Facts are what we call the laws of reality....
Subjectively there is only one fact..'I reason therefore i exist'
But we agree with eathothers descriptions to come to a temporary agreement.
That agreement is science.

Occam

 

Occam, this is not just to be contrary, it is my honest feeling. What about when the establishment that is the present scientific hierarchy ignores, or worse yet, hides evidence that is contrary to their theories?
I say this cuz I have seen it happen more than once. Some egos are too big to allow their lifes work to be proved wrong, and so they put up obstacles to stop such findings from being heard.
This is my only problem with science, and I like one scientists definition of science which was that it is a religion where everyone has there own theory.
Science is a truly amazing and necessary thing, but it is only as strong as the people who promote it.
Certain scientific theories taught today in universities worldwide are provably wrong, as far as I can tell, and the proof is abundant. This is a shame, yet it is no reflection on scientific theory, but more a reflection of human weakness.

Also, I have seen much that science would state is impossible. It is not the answer to all, to me, and has its limitations, and its place in our world.

 

Blackguard...

Sorry. Occam words his posts with a slant to his perspective...
So hard to shake. His mistake.

Science is not your reason.
Or occams.
It is a name for our group effort as reasoning beings.
To understand reality.

When he says science,,,he means the method..not the organisation.


Occam

 

You mean I wrote all that drivel for naught? Oh well, at least we agree, and I now understand your intended meaning.

 

Blackguard

Your 'drivel' was quite eloquent. And pointed..
Organised science..the beuraucracy is corrupt and inefficient..
Like any human organisation..

Occam

 

thank you,
you are too kind.

I have always found your posts to be well thought out and well written. And it doesn't hurt that I nearly always find that I agree with the content.

Namaste

 

Midnight...

If you mean it took billions of years to start 'the project of building man'
From he beginning of life ,, or the beginning of this contiguous reality.
Then occam agrees to both...
It appears that some 14 billion years back our reality thrust itself into being. [or was thrust,, by a higher reality . As our reality thrusts 'black hole mass' out of our universe...to where?]
3 billion years ago the stellar systems that evolved by natural law.
Resulted in a primal earth.

Some 1.5 billion years back.
Self replacating systems took hold of this earth.

Today..We self replacating self aware conscious beings.
Ponder this.

And occam ponders.. Deducts...That such a chain of process may be wholely the result of 'the rules of reality'
But were the rules 'made so'
Or did they too..evolve...

Oh dear..infinite regression again..

Occam

 

I am stuck at the point where the minerals, water, heat, and motion fluke out RNA. that is less likely than those elements fluking out a formula one race car, which is many times less complex, is it not?

According to big bang theorists, the forces have evolved but this 'evolution' might be better labelled disintegrated. and the majority of it happened within the first millionths of a second.

 

Iohanna 1:1? the instructor guesses, and the test supports...

Buddhism advises not to waste time in these pursuits, as the answers are beyond our limited comprehension.

I will only say that I propose that the Spirit, when creating, had to use, and abide by, the limitations of the natural laws of the universe.

 

Life is change. Existence itself is constant flux. Seasons change. Mountains rise, then fall. Continents shift, slam into one another, then pull apart. We know the DNA molecule changes too. Why would species, as determined by their DNA, not change? Why would they be the one thing in the universe that doesn't change? It is a ridiculous concept hardly even worth consideration, given how contrary it is to the nature of things.

On a lighter note, my cousin said something the other day at work that struck me. He said "Did God kill of the dinosaurs so we could be here? Cuz that sucks, because that means he got bored with them, and wanted a new toy. So basically, we're doomed." Funny, yet deep.

 

Your timing's off. Earth and the Sun formed ~4.6 billion years ago, and our earliest fossil evidence of life (what you call 'self replicating systems') are ~3.6 billion years old. Otherwise, I agree.

 

I have seen pictures of human footprints beside dinosaur tracks in rock. I feel that the time period you mention since the first life is long enough that we could have been this technologically advanced and then wiped out ten times by now.
And then, the everchanging, adaptation feature of life would bring us back.

 

Trippin

Thankyou for the timely update on the dates.

But the important word in your post is 'formed'

You exactly express science...
Accuracy..without the desire to know WHY.

Or do you?

Occam

 

Yes, science is symbolism as well. We can form facts with it, but to interpret these facts as the only source of understanding, one closes many doors. Many become so distracted by the external that their internal source of truth dries up, and the value of being evaporates with it...

blessings

 

If you are referring to the Paluxy River site (most touted in regard to geologic inconsistency) it has been subject to much controversy and, as far as I've read, since been discredited.

 

The book "Forbidden Archeology" is full of them, and that is just one.
They all get discredited, and the finders get blacklisted, and defamed by their peers. The actual evidence gets 'taken care of'. Every time.
I guess these are all just hoaxes, and the folks whose careers, characters, and futures were destroyed, made a big error in trying to fool us, huh?
I have seen too many examples to believe that. The finds contradict present textbooks, and would cause too much trouble if actually displayed and left for all to see and judge.
Imagine the rewrites, the theories needing revision, the professors whose books would be obsolete.
That is just my view, not fact.

 

In my theory evolution and GOD go together in perfect harmony..therefore I belive in both...

 

worx 4 me

 

Ah

What are facts?
Occam said that 'information' is the source of understanding.
And that some understanding may be 'fact'

Factuality results from understanding..And IS understanding.

How can occam be distracted by th external by believing the only
method to understanding reality..Both internal and external.
Is the ballance of reason and emotion in human minds.?
That our current situation of 98% emotion and 2% reason
Is a worthy thing to perpetuate.
Emotion and greed/power run this planet...
And we all know it.

You take the cliched line that occam is a tool of blind reason
through science, thus lacking in some inner perspective of spirit..

False...Occam only asks that we all behave as reasonable beings.
And that 'includes' being a 'spiritual being'

All the best

Occam

 

Not strictly true, many of these theories are "lies to children", simple examples being 'the Earth is shaped like a sphere' or 'light travels in waves'. Neither are strictly true, nor are they striclty untrue.