The Meaning of Living - Page 2

quote:

---

The universe must affect, be thought about

---

The universe is non living. It bearly has air. It has nothing. It is nothingness It is a vast amount of openness.
It has NO mind to think.
Again, you give it a form to life as you know it, but refuse to give the THINKING ASPECT a name..

So, why do you believe an empty space can think, but a higher being does not exist?

You are tying yourself in knots.

quote:

---

That's why our universe can harbour life, all the ones who cannot harbour life cannot be felt or thought by anything, and thus don't exist.

---

Is this supposed to mean we do not have more life species popping out of nowhere? Is this the answer to why more creatures are NOT formed without lineage?

I am curious.

"You say that and you make like the univese is a person again, like God or whatever."
You and I are a part of the universe. The universe is not alive per se. When I said it thinks 'about itself', I mean us. We are part of the universe and we think about it, hence the universe thinks about itself.

"So, why do you believe an empty space can think, but a higher being does not exist? "
You misunderstand me, I'm sorry I was'nt clear.

Still an unclear answer. We think because we are. The universe does not think.

Are you a part of this universe?

Just as I am of my biological father. I was born from him. But in know way do I control him, nor he controls me. We are two different thinking existences who do not need to think about eachother to exist.

No, I am part of another universe. I apologise, but it begged humor there.

It is all ok, Dumbteen, I believe part of the problem is the misinterpretation of the book of Genesis. And relying on what man knows, rather than considering how things are in heaven.

Not a fault if you do not understand, but open your eyes. Take it all in. You would be amazed at the wealth of knowledge you can receive in Understanding.

I'll try a counterexample maybe it'll make my point clear. If Earth had no life. No conscious entity (and no alien life exists) then nothing would know about our universe. It would for all practical purposes not exist.

"Not a fault if you do not understand, but open your eyes. Take it all in."
Take what in? Honestly I think I understand the way the universe works better then you do given your ignorance of so many scientific theories.

Sorry DumbTeen, it seems like we are ganging up on you because you are the only one arguing your point.

I get what you are saying and I understand what you mean. But to me, it has nothing to do with life.
The universe, not being a living thing, has no need of other things to believe it exists. If it had no living things think about it, it would still continue to exist and abide by itself.
But that is not the way it is working right now, is it?
We are living. That is a sort of mystery. The universe, if it is the universe by your standards, did not create us for if it did, then it would be a living entitiy.
We are either a freak accident, or we were made for a purpose. The matter of whether the universe existst without us or not is not important because right now, it iexists and so do we.

quote:

---

so many scientific theories

---

If I were to retrace science that I studied, it still would be of much less significance than my faith in God. Why because all things will mean nothing to me on this earth once I have passed away from my time on it.

I am preparing for my next life. I live now to be alive in the next one.

This is a temporary stop over for me, as anyone else. Our future of our after life depends very much on now.

Hold onto to sacred science, and see where it gets you.

But nowhere. I insist. You have nothing if you have no faith.
Faith is something to live for. Science will be here, and only here on earth.

So, which of us is ignorant?

I may not sit there and delve into science, but I certainly have delved into my future. Science is wonderful, another favorite subject I have. However evolution concepts seem to elude you hon. Not to say you do NOT try, but do not expect me to understand the incomplete discussions you make about it.

Elemental has a great point, incidently.

Dreamer -"If I were to retrace science that I studied, it still would be of much less significance than my faith in God."
Your in a debate and you often criticize scientific theories as absurd, mainly because you don't understand them in the slightest (your ideas of what scientists think when they say evolution or the big bang are way off the mark)

" Science will be here, and only here on earth. "
What if there is nothing beyond earth?

" However evolution concepts seem to elude you hon."
God I wonder why I am so polite. Get out a textbook on evolution and read it, you have so many misconceptions on evolution it isn't funny.
When I want to criticize beliefin God, I search for a bible on the web and I will often cut/paste passages to show I have some knowledge in it.
I trully wish you'd tell me in entirety how you think evolution works (according to scientists) so I can clear up your ideas.

Elemental - "Sorry DumbTeen, it seems like we are ganging up on you because you are the only one arguing your point. "
Two people ain't so much anyway

" If it had no living things think about it, it would still continue to exist and abide by itself. "
It would continue to exist in a sense, but it finish its existence instantaneously. Time, and more specifically the speed of time, is a concept which only has relevance to living being.
Time may have different relative speeds between different bits of matter (according to Einstein), but as no life measures the time, the universe will finish its evolution instantaneously.

Granted, there may be an infinite number of universes without life, but again, for all practical purposes they do not exist. The only ones who do effectively exist, are the ones with life.

"We are either a freak accident, or we were made for a purpose."
It was a freak accident, but a necessary one.

I criticise evolution because I understand it.
I am not the only one who sees it occurs, but it not the life sustaining force behind the creation of this world.



The world rapidly accepted Darwin as an authority and adopted his explanation as fact. Within 50 years, most of the scientific community, and indeed much of the western world, had confidence in his leading.

Darwin's theory of evolution today remains the most widely held explanation for the origin of life. In short, it says simply that all living things arose randomly from an inorganic, inanimate world. In this theory, all living things are interrelated. Humans and apes, for example, are believed to have begun from a single animal five to twenty million years ago. Likewise, primates (which include men and apes) are believed to have begun from a single animal approximately seventy-five million years ago.

Similar connections are imagined throughout the entire animal and plant kingdoms. The study of these hypothetical relationships is called phylogeny, and they can be illustrated by a so-called phylogenetic tree.

Evolution, as it is commonly understood today, depends upon four factors. Evolutionists (people who have confidence in the theory of evolution) explain them in this way:

1. Spontaneous generation. This means that life arose from INANIMATE (dead) material. In a pond or other moist environment (referred to as the pre-biotic soup), a perfect combination of carbon-based molecules happened to be present at the same instant. **Denying all scientific logic,** a DNA code, nucleus, cell wall, and energy-generating apparatus - the minimum requirements for a living cell - were all somehow present, each having randomly come together on its own. This first cell reproduced itself and the first life was off to a start.

2. Random mutation. Minor changes in the DNA code are thought to occur spontaneously within a creature. Most of these are attributed to 'accidents' that happen when the creature's genetic code is copied at the time of reproduction. Outside radiation and chemicals are also thought to play a role.

**The result of these random mutations is a new creature, slightly different from the first. Most importantly, it will either be better or less well prepared to live in its environment. Most mutations are harmful to a creature. So, a high number would be necessary to increase the chances of a positive mutation taking place. **

3. Natural selection. Darwin realized that many more creatures were born than actually survived well. He observed a struggle for existence in which the stronger creatures survived and the weaker ones died off. This process is called natural selection.

**Any random mutation that results in a 'weaker' creature, evolutionists reason, would cause the early elimination of that plant or animal. By contrast, any random mutation which increased the strength or fertility of a plant or animal would give it an advantage in the struggle for existence.
**
4. Time. Random mutations do not occur very often, and most mutations are damaging. Yet many positive mutations are necessary to give rise to a new creature. What is needed to make the process work is time, and lots of it.

**The accumulation of many small but favorable mutations over time is evolution's explanation for converting a microscopic bacterial cell into a human being. Yet even over many millions of years, as explained later, such a process would never have enough time to occur. **

Let me continue....

evolution - sometimes specified as 'macroevolution' - refers to one basic type transforming into another. Textbooks often describe adaptations that have taken place in biology - small changes within certain species. This process of adaptation is sometimes called 'microevolution.' This is an actual occurrence - a fact on which all scientists agree. A common error is made in scientific reasoning, unfortunately, when these adaptations (or microevolution) are used to assume that 'macroevolution' (evolution from one basic type of living creature into another) also takes place.

Each basic type of living creature has its own unique gene pool or genetic code. Basic types of animals are fairly readily recognized, and include the dog/wolf type, the elephant type, the chimpanzee type, the rat type, and so forth.


All humans belong to the basic 'human' type. Tiny variations may occur within our type, such as differences in eye color, hair distribution, and skin color in the case of humans. In the case of corn, varieties seem to have arisen over the years, including starch corn, flint corn, sweet corn, pod corn, popcorn, and dent corn. Macroevolution does not refer to such limited changes, changes which do not lead to a new basic type of plant or animal.

EXCERPTS;

1. Breeding and artificial selection can accomplish only limited results. For example, an experiment was performed in France to increase the sugar content in table beets. In the beginning, the beets consisted of 6% sugar. After years of artificial selection, the sugar content increased to 17%. However, continued artificial selection did not succeed in further increasing the sugar content.

2. The creature remains the same basic type. Even with intense breeding and artificial selection, no fundamental change occurs in the creature. Scientific experiments can create horses with shorter hair, chickens that lay more eggs, and corn with higher protein content. But in each situation, limits are reached. The breeders still ended up with the same basic types of horses, chickens, and corn they had in the beginning.

3. Breeding and artificial selection often reduce survivability. Where modifications are made, the creature is usually weaker. It does not compete well with the original type. Falconer explains this well:

'Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness, for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made.'

one more time......

• Earth Age. Since evolution demands millions of years, determining the true age of our planet is also essential. Our investigation should also confirm that the earth is extremely old, on the order of billions of years. Otherwise, there simply would not be enough time sufficient for evolution to take place. We should also discover that throughout the earth's long life, conditions were appropriate for life to flourish. The air temperature, oxygen concentration, sunlight, and so on were suitable to support living things.

• The Fossil Record. The fossil layers of the earth's outer crust serve as a museum of earlier life. If evolution is indeed true, our investigation should unearth fossils that show a steady progression of life forms linking, for example, guppies and sharks, finches and eagles, and apes and humans.

YAWN!!


Evolutionists claim, for example, that fish evolved into amphibians. So, we can expect to find transitional forms illustrating the gradual transition of fins into feet and legs, among other changes. Since the transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of years (during which time many millions, even billions, of the transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be discovered.


For the sake of those not familiar with Genesis, a brief overview reveals God first creating the earth, followed by originating the plants, creating the sun and stars, and then the animals. God's ultimate creative accomplishment was humankind. Genesis says little about how God created the universe, except that it happened suddenly and intentionally. God's design and initiation of the universe is often called special creation.

Genesis describes God having a close friendship with Adam and Eve, the very first created people. Adam and Eve had three children, and their community grew rapidly. Genesis chapter 5 describes several generations of people before a special man named Noah was born.

Trouble was growing on earth, for people were ignoring God and treating one another cruelly. God decided to obliterate life and start over again. He chose Noah to build an ark (a giant boat) and fill it with a male and female of every type of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal.

God caused a flood of water to cover the entire earth, rising above even the highest mountains. All animal life on the planet perished. But Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark. After a year, the water had subsided and dry land prevailed. Noah opened the ark and released the animals to replenish the earth with life.

Considerable scientific and historical evidence supports the events described in Genesis.

Well I'm glad you found some decent info on evolution. Some of your statements on how human genealogy and why weren't new life forms appearing seemingly contradicted evolution was quite misleading.

"Since the transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of years (during which time many millions, even billions, of the transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be discovered."
Well they have been discovered. There are fossils of prehistoric lungfish. On the 'missing link' argument, there is also multiple examples of mammal/reptile links.

"For the sake of those not familiar with Genesis, a brief overview reveals God first creating the earth, followed by originating the plants, creating the sun and stars, and then the animals."
Genesis has it backwards. According to the info we have on star and planet formation, the stars (most of them) must have been made before the earth as was the sun.
Animals and plants (according to evolution) appeared at the same time (indeed it isn't possible to differentiate the first organisms into either group very well).

"
Considerable scientific and historical evidence supports the events described in Genesis. "
No way in hell.
If Noah's ark were true, the amount of inbreeding that would have to occur with the majority of animal species would result in very unhealthy animals and plants.
We certainly wouldn't have the number of animals we have today. And besides, the genetic diversity within humans and animals (take dogs for instance) is far to great to have been from the genetic variations of 2 individuals.
4000 years isn't enough time for the mutations necessary to the diversity we have today (within a species).

There is no evidence of world covering flood. There may have been a flood in a part of the middle east around that time however.

Finally the distribution of animals today make Noah's ark nothing more then a fairy tale. Because of natural selection, better adapted animals wipe out less adapted ones. Marsupial mammals are consistently wiped out by placental (all other mammals except the platypus). Marsupial mammals used to be very common in South America, until North and South America joined and the placental North Americans wiped out the South Americans (except possums). Similar things are happening today with the man-caused introduction of placental rats and dogs in Australia.

The same thing would have happened in Australia earlier. Except Australia is too isolated.
But then, Noah didn't sail to Austalia and dump is Koalas and Kangoroos did he?
Not only is there little chance that marsupials could have gotten to Australia anyway if dumped in the Palestine (or wherever else in Eurasia), but because they were in the presence of placental mammals, they would have been wiped out.
This is just an example, and there are many other problems to Noah's Ark and Genesis which seem obvious enough (like building a boat big enough for those animals in the first place).

"Just as I am of my biological father. I was born from him. But in know way do I control him, nor he controls me. We are two different thinking existences who do not need to think about eachother to exist."
But if no one knew your father and you didn't know your father. Hence he affects no one, he for all practical purposes does not exist.
We can deduce his existence because of your existence.
But if we even take you out of the picture, your father effectively does not exist.
Of course he exists for himself, because he is a conscious entity, however, the universe cannot exist for itself usually because it is not conscious.
The universe can only exist for little bits of itself : the life it creates.

(I'm not saying the universe is conscious, I am saying that for there to be any existence there must be life)