Thoughts on evolution

[path_of_one]

But you continually reduce human nature to the same as everything else. I see that as a huge contradiction — you seem to deny there is anything 'human'.

No, just because I do not see humans as uniquely unique doesn't mean I don't see humans as unique. Nothing is the same as everything else, yet the unity is more present than the diversity. I don't deny that there is something that is human, I just am honest when I say science has not been able to pinpoint clear distinction. Various spiritual traditions have beliefs on the distinction, but that is not the same as arguing it coincides with the science.

Nature doesn't teach love, for example. Not much love in a tsunami, or a hungry tiger ... one can wax about birdsong and swans, but for every sunset, there is a storm, there is 'nature red in tooth and claw'

I think Nature does teach love. Why do you say there is no love in a tsunami or a hungry tiger? Just because Nature isn't all fluffy bunny rabbits and flowers doesn't mean that there isn't love in the full cycle of creation and destruction. Endings are beginnings. It isn't the type of love that we like to think about- that is easy and comfortable. But it is love at its most profound- love that is linked to creativity and sacrifice and continuity.

I would say if you cannot see that Nature teaches love, we must have very different ways of perceiving love and/or very different experiences of Nature's gifts of insight.

Much of your critique of humanity seems founded on negatives.

What can I say? Humanity is in discord with both God and Nature. We're unsustainable and mean and cruel, even to each other. I think there are some wonderful qualities in humanity too, but as a group we have failed thus far to realize them.

If there is no order to the cosmos, then both our arguments are pointless.

I find there is order. It just isn't the order that you are finding.

Things depend upon things. Without some things, other things can't exist, so yes, nature is all about the relationship between things, both horizontally and vertically.

Well, yeah. I'm not saying there aren't vertical relationships, but you had said relationships were all about the vertical. I am saying there are many ways to be in relationship, of which vertical is only one.

Without the vertical, you could not have complex organisms.

Explain please?

I sense a distaste of verticality, but a bad relationship does not mean relationships are bad. I would gently argue that your view of hierarchy lacks objectivity?

I don't find verticality distasteful, but I also do not see it where it isn't in evidence. Just because things are in relationship does not make the relationship vertical. In cognitive science, we find that humans sometimes assign verticality to orders of objects where there is none. I'm just pointing out that while some relationships are vertical, many are not, and we can force that type of classification schema, but it would be erroneous.

That's a hierarchy ... something emerges, built on something ...

That is not hierarchy. By definition, hierarchy implies ranking. Just because there are emergent properties, does not indicate ranking among a group of objects. The more I read of modern physics and biology and evolutionary theory, the more it becomes clear to me that science supports a reality that is not generally hierarchical. Rather, it supports a reality that is interactive. Nothing is “in charge,” but order emerges out of the mutual and horizontal interactions between the bits and pieces. I find this in physics, ecology, biology, and social science.

But we don't spontaneously turn into cats, or chairs ... so something's calling the shots ...

I don’t see it as much of a hierarchy for me to believe God exists and manifests order in Nature. Not, God calls the shots. But rather, Nature was created by God and is a manifestation of the Creator. So, it is not surprising to me that out of the interactions in Nature, order emerges. Just because there is order doesn’t mean there is hierarchy (ranking).

Natural Law, or the Laws or Nature, are hierarchical. Survival is hierarchical. Darwin. I don't see how you can get round it ... all nature, evolution, development, works that way ... without it, there would be no impetus for change.

Really? Because all that I have learned in evolutionary theory, in modern physics, in science in general indicates that there are very few natural laws, and none seem to operate the same at different levels of inquiry. That’s why there is the hunt for the “theory of everything.” Second, reality seems to be interactive with emergent properties rather than ranked. Scientific inquiry didn’t stop with Darwin and Newton. Theory has advanced since then and so has the data. And I can’t see how hierarchy or the lack thereof has much to do with change- perhaps you could explain?

Please be aware, Thomas, I am not saying your worldview is wrong. I am just pointing out that I have a very different one to point out that there are many ways to interpret experience and observable reality. We are both of us grounded in faith; the science brings more questions than answers.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

No, just because I do not see humans as uniquely unique doesn't mean I don't see humans as unique...

With you now. I can go with that. I suppose I would argue the 'uniquely unique' dimension is the nature of the dialogue with God.

I think Nature does teach love.

I think you're making a very human qualitative value about nature ... dare I say you're conceptualising it?

Well, yeah. I'm not saying there aren't vertical relationships, but you had said relationships were all about the vertical. I am saying there are many ways to be in relationship, of which vertical is only one.

Agreed, sorry I misled you there.

(The symbol of the cross, arms outstretched ... that's the horizontal ... )

Might have come across a bit patriarchal (bad verticality) — I think vertical relationships are natural, but that the superior/inferior attitude 'we' accord it, is utterly wrong. In all that, love is the great leveller ... in love we are one, then length and breadth, width and height, all disappear ... it's all one ... sheesh, I'm beginning to sound like you!

Please be aware, Thomas, I am not saying your worldview is wrong. I am just pointing out that I have a very different one to point out that there are many ways to interpret experience and observable reality. We are both of us grounded in faith; the science brings more questions than answers.

Ditto, I am actually enjoying and learning from this discussion. Science, as you might guess, is not my strong suit ... and I do hope I have not caused offence.

Perhaps when this is done, you'd discuss paganism with me? Not with 'me Christian/you pagan' overtone, but perhaps a comparison of the mythopoeic and philosophic world view ... again, that might be just how you'd expect a Christian to see it, so I could be off on the wrong foot right from the start ...

Anyways,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

With you now. I can go with that. I suppose I would argue the 'uniquely unique' dimension is the nature of the dialogue with God.

Oh, I definitely agree, in a way. But even then, I think all types of beings have a unique way of being in communion with God. But yes, I think humans definitely have a unique spiritual role here on earth- that of steward- and this implies a particular kind of dialogue with God since I believe stewardship is a spiritual as well as a practical thing.

I think it is not an accident that humans have reason and think abstractly as they do, but that if this is not balanced with spiritual insight gained by experience and not by philosophy, we forget the one-ness and are unable to properly fill our God-given role.

That said, I suppose you could say I think we are stewards and yet there are other stewards as well, of other types. The elementals, the tree-spirits, the spirits of place... these have their own wisdom to impart, and work with us to provide for the continuity and fullness of Nature, if we listen.

Unlike some Pagans, I don't see the nature spirits as gods or goddesses. I see them as other types of people, along with the types of people I can easily perceive with my usual 5 senses- other mammals are the easiest for most humans to connect with because they are the most like ourselves. But I see person-hood in everything- "Rocks are people too, just slow-moving, quiet ones." All have their own relationship to God, their own role, their own wisdom and energy. I respect them as equals to myself, but of course they are different. We are equal in importance and in potential, but what our highest purpose is differs, which is necessary for Nature to function.

I think you're making a very human qualitative value about nature ... dare I say you're conceptualising it?

Of course, all humans conceptualize everything. The instant I try to communicate my experience from the realm of spirit to the realm of language, it is mucked up. But I can say, I really don't see Nature as human. Nature, to me, has two meanings in this conversation- first, an umbrella term to mean everything in physical reality, and more specifically, everything on earth and second, the equivalent of saying "Gaia" or "The Earth Mother"- as a being of its own. In a way, there is some sort of equivalent as well that means All- the Universe- but I have no name for that. I think that Gaia, or Nature in this sense, has a consciousness, an awareness, a person-hood. But Gaia is not human-like at all. It's like saying we anthropomorphize God. No, we recognize God is more than us but encompasses what we are. What we recognize are qualities we share with God, not qualities God has that are human. So too with Gaia. Gaia is not human, but I can recognize things in myself that resonate with my experience of Gaia. As clarification, I see Gaia not as God or even as a god, but rather as a manifestation of God (as we all are). God is always more than the sum of the parts...

Now, the interesting thing is that I can step outside of being human and have moments of perception that are profoundly different- that I experience as being water or wind or a dog or a tree. I can experience one-ness with Gaia too. I can experience God. But at heart, I cannot know that my experience is what their reality is. I learn from it, but I'm aware it is only my experience of reality. I can't know actual reality, or if there is even such a thing, outside of believing there is, fundamentally, God and that may be the only absolute.

Agreed, sorry I misled you there.

No problem- all seems more clear now! I think we actually see much the same, but of course we have distance and language to confound us, so it takes a bit of work to hash it out. Tower of Babel, anyone?

(The symbol of the cross, arms outstretched ... that's the horizontal ... )

I very much agree- I am not as opposed to verticality as I may seem. I just misunderstood and thought you were saying all order was based on it. There are many reasons I have a Celtic cross tattooed on my back... there are many meanings for me in the symbol of the cross...

I think vertical relationships are natural, but that the superior/inferior attitude 'we' accord it, is utterly wrong. In all that, love is the great leveller ... in love we are one, then length and breadth, width and height, all disappear ... it's all one ... sheesh, I'm beginning to sound like you!

LOL- in love, we all sound the same! I agree that some verticality is natural, and that the superior/inferior thing is a human mistake. I think humans like to assign verticality where there isn't any, too, and also to classify everything when some things are best left unclassified, but I don't think it's a sin or anything, just a cognitive error. It helps us organize our thoughts about the world, but unfortunately can also keep us from discovering what reality is rather than what we think it should be.

Ditto, I am actually enjoying and learning from this discussion. Science, as you might guess, is not my strong suit ... and I do hope I have not caused offence.

Not at all, Thomas. I always love discussing with you, because I learn a ton about the orthodox Catholic viewpoint, which is often surprisingly similar to my own. (Or maybe that should not be surprising... ) As for science, even though I try to keep up on it, everything is so specialized and there are oodles and tons of new stuff coming out every day. I make tons of mistakes, no doubt, and have gaps in my knowledge a mile wide. All we can do is try. The biggest thing I try to do is recognize the limits of science and definitely of my knowledge of science, and figure out where "anthropologist Kim" leaves off and "spiritual-mystic-Path-of-One" begins. (Of course, it isn't that tidy, but I try.)

Most of all, I think much of what matters the most is not accessible through scientific inquiry. The science and even the religion is often a mental exercise for me- fun, but what is most fundamental in life for me is neither science nor religion- it is my personal relationship with God. It is spiritual experience. The deepest truths in my own life, that have caused me to advance the most in love and peace, have been in the spirit and not in the mind.

Perhaps when this is done, you'd discuss paganism with me? Not with 'me Christian/you pagan' overtone, but perhaps a comparison of the mythopoeic and philosophic world view ... again, that might be just how you'd expect a Christian to see it, so I could be off on the wrong foot right from the start ...

I could try setting up a thread in comparative. It would be interesting to me, too. I'm a funny sort of Pagan just like I'm a funny sort of Christian. I can't let go of monotheism and Christ enough to be "properly" Pagan (if there is such a thing)- can't wrap my mind around polytheism except in a philosophical way, and I can't let go of the uniqueness of Christ. Then again, I can't let go of my fundamentally nature-based spirituality enough to be properly "Christian," either.

I think in both cases, you can study religion in the standard way, by looking at myth, practice, philosophy, ethics, etc. Of course, what will be interesting is that the diversity within both Christianity and Paganism is probably as notable as the differences between them. Perhaps even moreso in Paganism because Pagan traditions, for the most part, while sharing many of the same concepts and practices, are located in a wide variety of cultures and places. And we have no centralized authority as you do.

There is a saying... Ask 10 Pagans a question about their religion and you will get 11 answers.

Peace and Blessings to you, too, Thomas-

Path/Kim

 

[Quahom1]

It's called "Biologos" And it works. Can't see the whole of the "elephant" up close. Have to step back and look at the whole "elephant", in order to comprehend the magnitude of the creation.

That someone designed and set into motion all of this universe is without question. But the "Author" also designed his creation to evolve (just as He planned it to do), is now also without question.

His plan is perfect, and we are the results (so far).

v/r

Q

 

[Bishadi]

Scripture presents all humanity descended from the Primordial Couple, Adam and Eve, technically called monogenism — until recently a discredited theory in the eyes of evolutionists, who generally favoured of a Darwinian evolution of man based on polygenism — multiple sources.

And if the change was to atoms and energy, then evolution is perfected in th knowledge of how mass and energy associate. In which the current sciences suggest evolution is real but the physics governed by planck's constant remain true to entropy, thereby the combining in a mathematical frame does not exist in public teachings

But that is changing. A paradigm shift is about to occur that not only addresses the sciences by correcting the error of planck but also shares how ever lasting life is by choice.

It is axiomatic that original sin, or The Fall, is not and was not an 'inevitability' in the evolutionary process, nor was it accidental ... 'sin' requires the free act of the will to choose what it knows to be morally wrong ... the pagan and gnostic practice of equating sin with knowledge, and avoiding the moral dimension altogether, is an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, and misses the point entirely.

So the adam and eve story suggests the original sin was choice? When the seal or actual understanding is that the day of choice was the day man became aware of existence. He became aware of choice (the apple) and thereby began his self awareness (the fig leaf) and thereby isolated 'himself' from nature (left the garden)...

So the truth is that apple day, was one of the greatest in evolution.

It is equally axiomatic therefore that a wilful and knowing action brought about the downfall of humanity.

If that be the case then why are we all here, with choice, making babies and all still alive?

My own personal speculation, of this moment, is that prior to the Fall humanity was collectively as well as individually conscious, and that no individual acted independent of the collective body — we were as one — a degree of unity that we can only dream about, but that all spiritual traditions talk of — a transcendental union.

In a sense but choice was not available prior as in the garden mankind was like the beast, strictly instinctive (one with nature and existence)

Remember in Scripture, Adam and Eve fell, not one and then the other, so in this way I can read a collective sin, but that does not mean that the individual can shirk responsibility for it, as humanity is wont to do.

Likewise after the Fall they saw themselves as distinct and distinctly different creatures ... they saw themselves externally ... they lost sight of that collective interiority.

They had no 'words' prior to consciousness. Words are what convey experiences.

The genius of the Hebrew Scribe was in presenting a moment in the evolutionary history of a species as a story about two people.

if that be the case why is it that not until the 20th century was the adam and eve story still misunderstood.

The seven seals are the conveyable representation of the parables in biblical teachings.

i.e... 'raising the fathers to the flesh' is the seventh seal!

and if you are reading much on this site......... the answer now exists!

Why? Because the evolution of knowledge continues, with or without the religious right trying to suppress the truth.

Evolution is nothing to debate but to perfect. Then teach the children so never again can theologies ever damage Understanding again

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

So the adam and eve story suggests the original sin was choice?

No ... a particular choice, not the exercise of choice as such.

When the seal or actual understanding is that the day of choice was the day man became aware of existence. He became aware of choice (the apple) and thereby began his self awareness (the fig leaf) and thereby isolated 'himself' from nature (left the garden)...

No, that's not it, as man was making choices before the Fall, and God delighted in the choices he made — see Genesis 2:19.

Choice was not the problem. The fruit is not the point, the Word of God is the point. The choice was whether or not to obey God. Man was making choices before the Fall, so choice is not its cause.

As the Will of God determines the Unity of all in the Real, the True and the Good, that particular choice led to the realisation of privation, by separation from the Real, the True, the Good, etc., from the Unity of All in All ... and ontologically from the source of life itself. Separation from life is, eventually, death ... extinction ... just as he had been warned.

So the truth is that apple day, was one of the greatest in evolution.

No.

If that be the case then why are we all here, with choice, making babies and all still alive?

Because God is merciful.

In a sense but choice was not available prior as in the garden mankind was like the beast, strictly instinctive (one with nature and existence)

Then he wouldn't have been able to make a choice, would he — not a free choice for which he himself was responsible? He can't do what he can't do. Man cannot be held responsible for something he cannot be responsible for. Sin is not making mistakes. Sin by definition the self-determined and self-willed decision to disobey.

They had no 'words' prior to consciousness. Words are what convey experiences.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious. You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

if that be the case why is it that not until the 20th century was the adam and eve story still misunderstood.

Your assumption again. It was understood. The fact that science and theology is catching up with the detail does not mean the principle was misunderstood.

The seven seals are the conveyable representation of the parables in biblical teachings.

Umm ...

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Thomas,

rather enjoy your posts sometime but please telling me NO without having any foundation except scripture is foolish.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious. You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

How do you know they spoke? Because of scriptures which were created by men?

That's an old book that old timers need to keep faith but it is ignorant to think answers of truth will come from a single sect of knowledge.

Knowledge evolves? True or false!

All words are created by men/women? True or false

So either you find these two true or it seems maybe another old timer retaining foolish ignorance is standing tall with pride.

Meaning; I do not give a hoot whether you believe me or what I represent.

You tell me NO without definition or observance to the 'possibilities' simply because it contradicts what you comprehend as true and the bible.

But they spoke prior to the Fall ... and they were conscious.

Which is speculative

You're assertions here, as elsewhere, are non-Scriptural.

and thank God (existence) itself for there being at least more material contributions to knowledge than one freaking book!

In other words; who cares to be accepted. I think any man who retains a belief just to be accepted is a selfish idiot.

Each and every complacent representation that harms the development of our future; the children, shall be put on the stand in judgment. Like it or not!

As to forgive a liar that continues to fib is not good!

So does knowledge evolve?

Are words created by man/women?

Then don't contend knowledge with scripture.

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air; knowledge has evolved!

 

[path_of_one]

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air;

Are you sure?

Sorry, had to ask... Off topic, maybe better for the Alternative board...

I must say, this kind of statement leads me to question if you understand the elements...

As for the other points- valid if you are speaking in general about evolution, but Thomas is operating from a scriptural basis because this is the Christianity board, so their scripture is seen as the baseline of validity (naturally). Challenging him on his demands for scriptural evidence is not applicable since you're on his turf, so to speak.

From what I gather of Thomas' point of view, tradition within the church is also seen as a valid nexus of knowledge, so just because the scriptures don't say something specific does not mean he will not have an idea of how they should be interpreted, given the tradition.

Thomas, please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Bishadi]

Are you sure?.

Yes!

Meaning that each old definition is now with less phenomenon and with more comprehensible decriptions.

So to suggest the word 'fire' someone may think 'matches'... in which the phenomenon is now reproducible and can be defined for the most part.

To suggest 'water' well another might think H2O.....

Earth.... maybe... iron or carbon

Air .... oxygen,.............etc.....

What this is presenting is knowledge has evolved well beyond the philosophies of gnostic teachings. In which rather than state I believe life transcends, well now definitions can be used to define what that means.

So as knowledge and us as a species has evolved in time, then in the 21st century we may build from the knowledge of the old teachers but be certain the definition of now are far greater in definable terminology than ever before.

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

 

[Quahom1]

Then don't contend knowledge with scripture.

The world in not based on fire, water, earth and air; knowledge has evolved!

Over and over and over again. It's been developed and lost so many times. But fire, water, earth and air, remain more or less constant (oh sure we now know about plasma, but then it's always been there too. Ironically, so has scripture.

 

[Quahom1]

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

But we already know "how" mass exists, as well as "matter". What we do not understand fully is "energy". Nor do we understand fully the "entropy prinicple" which we seem to struggle against daily. And unless our "knowledge" breaks that glass ceiling concerning these things, we are going to have to start over again pretty soon.

Playing with fire, but not knowing why it exists, is like learning by trial and error. Sooner or later one will get burnt, and may not be able to recover from that burn...

 

[Quahom1]

Speaking of fire...is that not a model of evolutionary life? Ingredients are gathered to one point, something starts a reaction, fire begins, it grows, consumes, reproduces, gets old, and dies...it also has its purpose and does it well. It can survive anywhere (even under water or in the vaccuum of space). It isn't heat, but rather the animation of something heat contributes to. It isn't fuel or oxygen, but rather the result of the consumption of both. It isn't a chemical reaction, but rather the result of one. It waxes and wanes. It works around obstacles. It destroys and it creates.

It can reshape an entire world, or die off for lack of the ability to adapt to its environement.

What do you think?

v/r

Q

 

[path_of_one]

Yes!

I love the self-confidence here, but may I gently suggest that your arguments depend on your definition of the elements and your understanding of them, which seems very rudimentary and bound to materiality. I expect that if I am wrong about this interpretation, you will expand on your ideas to show such.

Read the old philsophies- both Western and Eastern. The elements are not simply physical entities waiting for scientific inquiry. As above, so below. The elements "make up" our world in a different way than you are describing.

Meaning that each old definition is now with less phenomenon and with more comprehensible decriptions.

Defining things limits us and limits the object of our definition.

Phenomenology can be a more direct mode of inquiry.

Rather than define, experience. Work with in a mutual dance. Shape our world. Commune and congregate.

So to suggest the word 'fire' someone may think 'matches'... in which the phenomenon is now reproducible and can be defined for the most part.

This is what shows a limited perception of the elements. Fire is not matches, a bonfire, the sun. Fire is the spirits that move and breathe behind the matter. Fire is the wisdom inherent in and beyond the physicality of what we see with our physical eyes.

What this is presenting is knowledge has evolved well beyond the philosophies of gnostic teachings. In which rather than state I believe life transcends, well now definitions can be used to define what that means.

First, I am not gnostic. The elements are common to most cultures throughout time, with a very rich literature from a variety of religious and shamanic traditions. And I would posit that our Western conceptualization of the elements is, if anything, degraded and de-evolved from its prior state, culminating in most people thinking about the elements not at all.

As for transcendence-- I choose to experience it rather than define it. Why waste time defining the ineffable if I can embrace it and actually transcend?

So then if we see and recognize the pattern of evolution especially in the form of knowledge itself; that pinnacle will be when mass (or simply mankind) actually knows 'how it exists.'

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

 

[Dawud]

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

Yeah, science tries to figure out the "how" of things and religion is about the "why." Why are we here? To know God and to love God.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bishadi —

Whoa, brother! Might I recall the origin of this thread – that a current scientific model of evolution (phylitic monogenism) in no way contradicts the Scriptural model, as told in Genesis?

You brought other views to the model – you are welcome to do so — in so doing you introduce data of an entirely different model, which without reference I can only assume is of your own provenance, and offer it as a commentary on the Scriptural model.

When I point out an incompatability, a contradiction, suddenly:
a) To argue a model from the model itself is foolish;
b) The model is speculative at best (without any argument as to why your interpretation is not itself speculation)

What follows is seems to me no more than a sour grapes response because I had the nerve to point out an error:

I do not give a hoot whether you believe me or what I represent.

You tell me NO without definition or observance to the 'possibilities' simply because it contradicts what you comprehend as true and the bible.

No, I said no to your interpretation of Scripture because it is false with regard to what Scripture says — I did not say you are obliged to accept Scripture as true, or that I reject all other possibilities, merely that you misrepresented or misinterpreted what Scripture actually says.

and thank God (existence) itself for there being at least more material contributions to knowledge than one freaking book!

That was never a point of discussion, if you want to compare, then please reference the comparison you're making.

In other words; who cares to be accepted. I think any man who retains a belief just to be accepted is a selfish idiot.

That's me, I presume?

Each and every complacent representation that harms the development of our future; the children, shall be put on the stand in judgment. Like it or not!

Ditto?

As to forgive a liar that continues to fib is not good!

Sounds like a bad attack of sour grapes to me.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Whoa, brother! Might I recall the origin of this thread – that a current scientific model of evolution (phylitic monogenism) in no way contradicts the Scriptural model, as told in Genesis?

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two. You completely misunderstand the "mitochondrial Eve" if you think there was ever only one woman. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother's side only, the "Eve" is everybody's mother's mother's mother's... mother, but is not everybody's mother's father's mother's father's mother, not the only woman to leave any descendants, just the only one who now has descendants in an unbroken female chain. There was also a "Y-chromosome Adam", but he lived tens of thousands of years later than the "mitochondrial Eve", since the two phenomena have nothing to do with each other: that "Adam" is not the only man from his time to leave descendants, just the only man to leave descendants in an unbroken male line. Most of our DNA comes neither from the "Adam" nor from the "Eve".

 

[Quahom1]

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two. You completely misunderstand the "mitochondrial Eve" if you think there was ever only one woman. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother's side only, the "Eve" is everybody's mother's mother's mother's... mother, but is not everybody's mother's father's mother's father's mother, not the only woman to leave any descendants, just the only one who now has descendants in an unbroken female chain. There was also a "Y-chromosome Adam", but he lived tens of thousands of years later than the "mitochondrial Eve", since the two phenomena have nothing to do with each other: that "Adam" is not the only man from his time to leave descendants, just the only man to leave descendants in an unbroken male line. Most of our DNA comes neither from the "Adam" nor from the "Eve".

No it doesn't Bob. Science conclude every time that to start something there has to be a beginning, and mass beginnings have never happened, therefore, there must have been a small beginning, that took on and took off. You can't have it both ways...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bob —

Whoa, Thomas, the current scientific model utterly excludes the notion that any time the human breeding pool was as small as two.

I know, that's why I said phylitic monogenism, not monogenism per se. Origin from a group.

Thomas

 

[Bishadi]

Over and over and over again. It's been developed and lost so many times. But fire, water, earth and air, remain more or less constant (oh sure we now know about plasma, but then it's always been there too. Ironically, so has scripture.

But what is fire?

But we already know "how" mass exists, as well as "matter". What we do not understand fully is "energy".

Energy is light upon mass. Try the change to your comprehension.

Nor do we understand fully the "entropy prinicple" which we seem to struggle against daily.

As life abuses entropy; we can take from the environment to continue. A direct opposition to entropy. Or simply Planck was incorrect to retain entropy is his constant.

And unless our "knowledge" breaks that glass ceiling concerning these things, we are going to have to start over again pretty soon.

That is what I have trying to share; it’s already been done!

Playing with fire, but not knowing why it exists, is like learning by trial and error. Sooner or later one will get burnt, and may not be able to recover from that burn..

So you see; light is the energy or fire! And to complete the work against the wishes of society has created an out case but who cares; the children are the reason; forget being accepted.

Speaking of fire...is that not a model of evolutionary life? Ingredients are gathered to one point, something starts a reaction, fire begins, it grows, consumes, reproduces, gets old, and dies...it also has its purpose and does it well.

So that form of reasoning you just shared is not bad at all, just that you abused entropy; good thinking; now see the errors of current physics.

It can survive anywhere (even under water or in the vaccuum of space). It isn't heat, but rather the animation of something heat contributes to.

Heat is simply em upon mass with momentum. Or rather when mass reaches a threshold momentum can exist.

It isn't fuel or oxygen, but rather the result of the consumption of both.

Them 2 are simply what we see as reactive; causing change to the 2 but all interactions do the same but we only see what is familiar as well optical in observations.

What do you think?

Energy is light (em) upon mass.

What I should be asking is 'now' define ‘heat’?


Fire?

Use the idea of light as energy upon mass and try.

 

[Bishadi]

Defining things limits us and limits the object of our definition.

And what do religions do? Suggest we ‘cannot’ know……. So which is more limiting: one that pursues truths and often has to get squashed but dusts itself off and continues or the other that simply suggest ‘we cannot understand’?

One has people killing themselves over beliefs, the other is seeking for the benefit of mankind (the inert intent).

Phenomenology can be a more direct mode of inquiry.

or simply “For Edmund Husserl, phenomenology is "the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view."[1] Phenomenology takes the intuitive experience of phenomena (what presents itself to us in phenomenological reflexion) as its starting point and tries to extract from it the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience [/quote] Sounds like science to me!

But then again

Rather than define, experience.

What does life mean? Or rather; how can one experience reality in knowing without definitions?

Fire is the spirits that move and breathe behind the matter

A pretty picture a 6 year old might like. But did you read the sentence; when the word ‘fire’ is suggested……… not many will have the definition you use! You missed the point!

Only with truth can equality reign! Meaning for each to comprehend each phenomenon as it truly is without ever returning to a belief or faith of what it is, then each can be equally aware and equally in truth!

As for transcendence-- I choose to experience it rather than define it. Why waste time defining the ineffable if I can embrace it and actually transcend?

Why not just say; I care nothing for others and our tomorrow as long as I can stay high now! You preach as a drug addict would! (religiously faithful)

Really? I thought the important question was why, not how.

And you think you know ‘why’ as if to talk to the total of existence (god) itself based on the teachings of one sect of faith? How rude! Yet to comprehend ‘how’ life exists and how each choice offers the ever lasting life, then ‘why’ simply reveals itself; to continue. See anything in nature to realize such a simple item.

Problem is people want grandeur that faith places into the context of life.

We are in ‘heaven’ as it is when mass has the ability to experience choice! We are in that period to choose ever-lasting life.

Thomas ………..in so doing you introduce data of an entirely different model,

exactly! What is being shared is the basis of the truth. Not opinion, nor of a self prescribed idea but of observing each branch of knowledge.

In all the branches, each point to ‘light’ as the basis of life? Yes or No!

without reference

Sorry, but 'light' is referenced throughout all history!

Then to comprehend how ‘light’ upon mass is in fact the energy of all motion, then in fact all branches of knowledge can be perfected, scientifically, mathematically, religiously and philosophically; the final revealing!

Light is energy.

Light is life!

The revealing begins within ‘light’!

Who would have thought you would be exposed to the truth before your preacher (guru) did?

The math combining the trinity of mass, energy and time; the total; is that long sought ‘name of God!’

Not for sale!