Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
you keep saying we all live in different realities, we do not. Experiencing a singular reality with different interpretations does not make your reality separate from mine, only your experience is separate not your reality.
How do you know we don't live in different realities? Whats the difference between interpretation and reality. HELL whats the definition of reality to you?
Well since its came down to definition here I go :-)
Here's the definition of reality to me, whats actually out there outside our minds and body
Here's what genetics gave us, not really at all whats actually there all inside us, just what we perceive, or, what we think is there, a basic representation of dimension, sound, time etc, in comparison to the availibility of information abundant in the universe, evolution may or may not see us through to a more enlightened future, I'm not judging, but what's clear is neither you or I are all knowing, neither you and I are perfect. If god was, for instance timeless you are not at all equipped to judge about anything to do with God remotely, none of us would be..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
And God remains a useless concept. Name one thing the concept of God, has given humanity that is beneficial to it. It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist. If we look at the universe the universe consisting of everything however, we see that even it is not infinite, instead we see that it stretches out approximately 93 billion light years, and is roughly 13.85 billion years old. We know that it is expanding, but this still does not make it infinite, just a very big finite.
I don't believe in any concept being useless, a lesson learnt is a lesson learnt, right? It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist to our limited senses??? It's impossible to understand God, because we are incapable of truly understanding??? The universe may very well be finite but you're not considering our own finite limited senses, lets apply your definition of finite to us in recognition we CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE about such 'fallacies' i.e. we see time at a fixed speed, did you know different organisms experience time at a different rate? No? Well this is obviously an important fact here. A different rate of experience will change the interpretation alltogether, your opinion, AND REALITY! poof! magic, and all at once. What we see _now_ isnt necessarily CORRECT visually, auditory, informatically, let alone what IS can be or WILL BE!!!! Limited dimensional perception in an abstract aspect only..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Even if we consider quantum theory the infinite quantity would be the number of alternate universes, and perhaps only in theory. But the individual universe's remain finite.
Well that may be true ignoring time and light constants. I've actually had the pleasure of working with physicists and I'm pretty sure they can't tell how big the universe was, is or is going to be/get. What I'm sure they recognise as scientists is that we inhabit a single point in time :-) Not very useful is it.. only now never all.. and why not all? Why fear death? for instance, if energy can only be transmuted obviously we are just stuck in our own idea of holding onto our limited patterns and have no understanding or desire that goes truly beyond the self or beyond the apparent 'logic' we so fraily call our own..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Existence is possible without awareness of existence. This is the problem with I think therefore I am. A rock exists regardless of whether or not it is aware of that existence.
True, but me and you are not rocks!
yea it is, but not for us buddy.. :-) Our existance can only exist to us because of our awareness of it and also our awareness exists because of our existance.
So what this means is a rock is in reality, we aren't... lol because we are aware of reality if we weren't aware of reality we'd be in reality, weird as it sounds :)
The logic to this is simple; as soon as the universe created atoms/molecules that started (this is crude but) 'thinking for themselves' (limiting the diversity of their being in some respects whilst augmenting it in others) bits of information are lost to us, as we are seeing all existance through OUR own awareness. Abstraction in 'I' is critical to understand this!
i.e. the human brain starts to become (from awareness of reality represented as a basic unreality) the dominant factor in atomic properties/awareness and creates a 'higher level' of event/property complexity not seen before.
e.g. self controlled movement
e.g. I think therefore I am not in reality like the rock is
Peace,
Denial
Science Disproves Evolution
I keep saying it, there is one reality. Reality is the state of everything as it exists, this has nothing to do with how you interpret or percieve this singular reality. If in fact we all lived in our own reality, rather than our own interpretation of it, how could one affect another's reality if in fact they are truly separate. Because going back to my earlier example if in fact our realities were truly separate and not merely separate points of view, your lawn would not smell of urine. But because we live in singular reality my actions do or at least can in fact affect you, and your actions can affect me.
The concept of God has only taught us, the pointlessness of religion, and the corruption that emerge's from unquestioned authoriy. But these lessons did not require God to be learned. Given time even in adsencse of the concept of god, these lessons would have been learned, okay maybe not the religion one, but thats the lesser of the two.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
I keep saying it, there is one reality. Reality is the state of everything as it exists, this has nothing to do with how you interpret or percieve this singular reality.
Yup you do but you don't provide one example why this should be believed! As you've already pointed out well what people believe is wildly different based on opinion and perception that includes all of us :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
If in fact we all lived in our own reality, rather than our own interpretation of it, how could one affect another's reality if in fact they are truly separate.
well there is still a conduit of reality isnt there :) for you to speak in, move in, act in.. nothing is stopping you from doing that heh. I just want you to know you don't see the world for what it is, none of us do! Science proven that long agoo :) Evolution proves that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Because going back to my earlier example if in fact our realities were truly separate and not merely separate points of view, your lawn would not smell of urine. But because we live in singular reality my actions do or at least can in fact affect you, and your actions can affect me.
this is true, physical things like pooping in my front yard is gonna affect me of course I don't think I take exception to that it would indeed affect me.
What you gotta remember is the source of your physical action is in fact your unreality heh, because everyones in a constant state of unreality (opinions you call it heheheh) you unreality can seriously affect mine through a conduit of a physical reality. Intent and perception are highly linked and that really is a fact lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
The concept of God has only taught us, the pointlessness of religion, and the corruption that emerge's from unquestioned authoriy. But these lessons did not require God to be learned. Given time even in adsencse of the concept of god, these lessons would have been learned, okay maybe not the religion one, but thats the lesser of the two.
I tend to agree, but time and time again the problem is not the ideas that man produces, it's the people that change them, misuse them, and abusing them that create corruption. Not philosophising or seeking what I'd call true enlightenment heh...
i.e. It's not the ideas men produce, its what they do with them in reality heh.
A great example would be Edington and Tesla of course everybody knows dc blows nowadays and most mains are AC now.. ;] Teslas idea was better and was safer but edington got it into production because he used influence over intelligence. Why assume religion is somehow immune to such problems as science has been??! It isn't ;]
I think just like science you have to scoot over the BS and concentrate on the tidbits that can give some true inspiration.
And hey, if accepting our own limitations isnt a move in the right direction wtf is!
peace,
Denial
Science Disproves Evolution
Objective reality is singular, there is one reality, which exist regardless of whether or not it is observed. Then we have subjective reality, reality as it is perceived by individuals, and this subjective reality does exist in seaparetly for each person. But only objective reality is true, subjective reality is merely an interpretation of what is percieved, it's filtered, abridged, censored whatever you wanna call it, but only the first is reality as it is, the other is artificial.
And I wouldn't shit in your yard, there's no tp there and I ain't the sorta guy that just up and walks around widda roll o shit tissue in his pocket. If you'll read back I distinctly typed piss, not shit, get your excretions in order.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Objective reality is singular, there is one reality, which exist regardless of whether or not it is observed. Then we have subjective reality, reality as it is perceived by individuals, and this subjective reality does exist in seaparetly for each person. But only objective reality is true, subjective reality is merely an interpretation of what is percieved, it's filtered, abridged, censored whatever you wanna call it, but only the first is reality as it is, the other is artificial.
Then I guess subjective reality is particularly unreal since its not a real representation of the real singular reality :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
And I wouldn't shit in your yard, there's no tp there and I ain't the sorta guy that just up and walks around widda roll o shit tissue in his pocket. If you'll read back I distinctly typed piss, not shit, get your excretions in order.
word up :) i tell you what im knackered lol
Peace,
denial
Science Disproves Evolution
Yes subjective reality is unreal, because it's mutable in that it's different for each person, objective is true because it exists regardless and independant of our own wants and views.
the way a person percieves reality is fallable because they are themselves fallable, however objective reality avoids this by merely existing and nothing more.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
Yes subjective reality is unreal, because it's mutable in that it's different for each person, objective is true because it exists regardless and independant of our own wants and views.
the way a person percieves reality is fallable because they are themselves fallable, however objective reality avoids this by merely existing and nothing more.
hey 5th, we've just tired the crap out of eachother haven't we. lol :> I agree, I'm just not sure how this objective reality "gets past" our totally unobjective subjective reality, its sorta like as soon as it enters us its not the same anymore cause it simplified re-rendered abstracted, but heh thats close enough for me guvnor !
I'm off to sleep now ;p will keep my eye on this thread though :)
Peace,
denial
Science Disproves Evolution
indeed most stimulating forum discussion I've had in awhile.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
indeed most stimulating forum discussion I've had in awhile.
teehee yes my friend you have given me a lot to think about
Peace,
denial
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 5a
[/align]
??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.? George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.
??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.? Ibid., p. 23.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
