My theory about evolution
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
has always been there it always will be. We are life forms which have
evolved on Earth. Some of the ancient life forms on earth could have
been transported by comet or other space bodies colliding to earth.
But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
on Earth.
It is highly likely that there is life outside Earth. We don't have
the technology yet to find it. But we are slowly going to get there.
Also one day we would be able to transform our energy (soul, brain
whatever you call it) into a robot and live forever. Our bodies are
mechanical and they wear out, thats why we die of natural causes when
we get old.
There is no fate. I believe in chaos theory. Falling in love, war,
sickness, accidents, lottery, death, success is all due to
coincidental chaos. There is a word the phrase "being at the right/
wrong place at the right/wrong time" is used. It is all coincidental.
Death is coincidental, birth is as well. You could have been born a
cockroach but you were born a human (luckily or unluckily... its up to
you to decide). Human beings are the most equipped organism with one
of the biggest brains... hence we are the most advanced models with
ability to think and solve problems as well have complex speech. Some
of the other organisms on Earth, though more powerful didn't/don't
have an advanced brain like us. Thats why we are dominating Earth.
Our human race will come to an end one day. It will be a mass
extinction (Earth is bound to be hit by a comet, asteroid or some of
body soon) just like the dinosaurs. And we won't be able to do crap...
unless we figure out a way to redistribute ourselves to other planets
in the universe. And it is possible we will be able to do so.
In a few hundred years, God, Religion etc will be proven to be a big
farce and our successors will be laughing on our (and our ancestors')
stupidity.
Phew... that was heavy...
csman's sock
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
Thanks! Glad to see some intelligent beings here...
Superdave
You're NOT one of them.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
Yes, I am not an intelligent being, I am a SUPREME intelligent being.
Superdave
that's funny. you look more like pond scum to me. perhaps amy is
right?
Joe Ramirez
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:10:43 -0800 (PST), Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
>
>
>
>
>
why did you have to get nasty there?
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
Jeff
Superdave
cause you pissed me off.
progea
wrote:
> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
There's no end to my life, nor beginning... Evolve off, Raja!
Joe Ramirez
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 10:18 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 10:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
>
> boring, I like the Monty Python movies better
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e2kaQqxmQ0
That may be funnier, but it doesn't fit this thread nearly as well.
Superdave
wrote:
you too ? i recall memories before birth. i recall thinking in english
before i could speak. weird shit lidat. i remember i did not want to
be born and came here kicking and screaming but God (i guess) willed
it so here i am. i therefore think our spirit does not begin at birth
and maybe we are sent here because we were disobedient to God ? kinda
like satan ? difference being that we we not as bad as satan and after
hell on earth for a while we get to go back to the good life ?
possible ?
bubba
I guess there are more under-developed brains out there than we
originally thought. Maybe you are proof we are DEvolving
drew
Start by writing down what you know without a doubt. Once you get to
the point where you cannot be sure anymore, stop writing. I don't
mean this in a critical way but it won't take very long if you are
honest before you can go no further. The assumptions and assertions
creep in.
It is in the nature of humans to think, to ponder our existence and
the existence of the things around us. But make no mistake. All of
the amazing scientific advances haven't brought us any closer to
answering the most perplexing questions that have dogged us from the
very beginning, from the time we were able to articulate our
questions.
If anything, our ability to probe the workings of the living cell and
the atom and outward beyond our own solar system should only make us
realize how much we don't know. Instead there is this arrogance that
comes from god knows where that leads some to proclaim not only that
science has all of the answers but that we have the answers now.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There are prominent
biologists who claim that everything in biology that you need to know
can come from a complete knowledge of e.coli. Imagine that.
That's like saying that everything you need to know about tennis can
be learned by examining a cross-section of synthetic gut.
The arrogance and the ignorance.
Red Cloud
wrote:
I have to answer for all your problem ---> UFO... is American-born ass
believed
in UFO crap??? WOW!!!! Flying saucer over American-born ass head!!!!
I believe in UFO only if pig can fly....
Superdave
Raja just flew to Columbus. Does that count ?
csman's sock
>
> - Show quoted text -
With respect Drew it is because of your ignorance that you percieve
arrogance. The respectable scientific community doesn't claim to know
everything, but instead demands evidence of that which is claimed to
be known. Something that can't be proven isn't necessarily wrong.
Religion is a good example, one can't prove scientifically that there
is a God, that doesn't make religion wrong, it just falls into that
expansive 'unproven' category. Not knowing is perfectly acceptable to
science.
Superdave
it's actually good science because it does not pre-suppose an answer
and actually admits there may be no scientific one at all.
Dale Houstman
Only if you've never read any third-rate science fiction, or seen a few
fairly mediocre sci-fi films. And - just as a lesson on effective
writing - it is difficult to add a text up to "heavy" when it is so full
of "it is possible"'s and "I believe"'s and "it is highly likely"'s -
irritatingly tepid bits of rhetoric. You could also try composing
original phrasings and an image or two as opposed to totally flat
assertions lacking any linguistic "oomph".
All in all, your suppositions are neither startlingly new or freshly
presented.
dmh
wkhedr
etc.
This is not good for you, try to find something that can eat your
time, may be get married and have a kid :)
csman's sock
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or maybe they're SO new, and SO refreshingly presented they're rOcKiNg
YoUr WoRlD.
Me
wrote nothing of any importance, again
You're some 12 year old kid's masturbatory results in a tissue come to
life.
Fuck off untouchable.
Manuel aka Xax
Read Spinoza, didn't you?
The first sentence is quite exactly what he wrote.
Rodjk #613
I have not heard science in general, or biology in particular, claim
that we know everything.
Rodjk #613
Manuel aka Xax
Having a kid might be good start, in order to get some ideas about
"how life is created" :-)
Rodjk #613
I can attest to the fact that kids will eat up your time...
Rodjk #613
csman's sock
Whisper knows everything, or seems to think so, does that count?
Wikus van de Merwe
RST Moderator
> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
You are not very smart, aren't you?!
1. Evolution has nothing to do with the begin or end of the universe.
Evolution is about life.
2. Every serious scientist says actually there is a begin and a end of
the universe. The age is calculated to be about 15 Mrd (American:
Billions) years.
The rest of your nonsense is skipped and even not bothered reading.
drew
> With respect Drew it is because of your ignorance that you percieve
> arrogance.
LOL. "with respect, you are ignorant". Fuck off. It is because you
are uneducated that you don't know arrogance from ignorance. (with
respect, you prick).
The respectable scientific community doesn't claim to know
> everything,
No kidding.
but instead demands evidence of that which is claimed to
> be known.
And when new evidence is unearthed, the previous proof is
discredited. So how good was the original 'proof'? Well, (with due
respect) it maybe was the best we had at the time....
Something that can't be proven isn't necessarily wrong.
And something that IS proven can still be wrong. Depends upon the
strength AND popularity/credibility of the person presenting the
evidence. Don't kid yourself, some very shitty science passes peer
review sometimes.
> Religion is a good example, one can't prove scientifically that there
> is a God, that doesn't make religion wrong, it just falls into that
> expansive 'unproven' category. Not knowing is perfectly acceptable to
> science.
One can't prove evolution either but it is a generally accepted
theory. Not knowing is a fact of life. It it would be 'acceptable'
there would be no further investigation.
"You can't prove scientifically that there is a God" is like saying
you can't cut down a forest with a herring.
drew
There are prominent
> > biologists who claim that everything in biology that you need to know
> > can come from a complete knowledge of e.coli. Imagine that.
>
> > That's like saying that everything you need to know about tennis can
> > be learned by examining a cross-section of synthetic gut.
>
> > The arrogance and the ignorance.
>
> I have not heard science in general, or biology in particular, claim
> that we know everything.
The biologist that I am talking about was/is? a microbiologist. He
didn't claim to know everything. He didn't even claim to know
everything about e. coli. But he was convinced that everything that
one needed to know about biology could be learned from studying e.
coli. That's because HIS area of expertise was in this area. That
was my point.
progea
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:49:28 -0800 (PST), progea <pro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 11, 10:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
> >There's no end to my life, nor beginning... Evolve off, Raja!
>
> you too ?
It was a lyrical quote from the end of "Pictures at an Exhibition" by
ELP/Mussorgsky.
Wikus van de Merwe
"RST Moderator" <ab...@email.de> wrote in message
news:c334d6b0-48eb-4209...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Jan., 04:42, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
> You are not very smart, aren't you?!
>
> the universe. The age is calculated to be about 15 Mrd (American:
> Billions) years.
>
a beginning and that the Big Bang was the latest of a series. I'd say he's
a "serious scientist". Other "serious scientists" have had similar
theories.
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.
But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary
or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be" (A
Brief History of Time, pp. 140-141).
"Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang,
when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such
conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all the ability to predict
the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time,
then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence
can be ignored because it would have no OBSERVATIONAL consequences. One may
say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier
times simply WOULD NOT BE DEFINED." (p10)
Just because we don't or can't define it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Hawking has also suggested that THIS universe may also be the result of a
DIFFERENT universe.
String theorists also claim THIS universe is the result of colliding branes.
Also, a lot of scientists theorize that we live in a cyclic universe.
Not *every* serious scientist believes that there was *nothing* before the
Big Bang.
However, none of this changes the fact that Raja lubes his vag too much.
RST Moderator
> "RST Moderator" <ab...@email.de> wrote in message
>
> news:c334d6b0-48eb-4209...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> On 12 Jan., 04:42, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
> > You are not very smart, aren't you?!
>
> > 2. Every serious scientist says actually there is a begin and a end of
> > the universe. The age is calculated to be about 15 Mrd (American:
> > Billions) years.
>
> Actually, Stephen Hawking has postulated that the universe may not have had
> a beginning and that the Big Bang was the latest of a series. I'd say he's
> a "serious scientist".
I would call him a "semiserious". He doesn't make any crass mistakes
and derivates his theories correctly, but most of them are quite
"populistic" in order to in the spotlight without any further
relevance.
> Hawking has also suggested that THIS universe may also be the result of a
> DIFFERENT universe.
Yeah...yeah we all had this once. Such suggestion may stimulate the
fantasies of a lot of people but this is like God. You can't prove or
disprove it. Anyway it's not of any physical relevance if this
universe is the result of a different universe... blablabla
> However, none of this changes the fact that Raja lubes his vag too much.
That is very correct and scientifically proven.
stuth...@comcast.net
wrote:
Most of that may have been the most sensible things you've ever
posted.
Sure beats endless lists in which your favorite bands are deemed
"superior" to other people's favorite bands.
Congratulations.
csman's sock
> On Jan 12, 3:22 am, "csman's sock" <csma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With respect Drew it is because of your ignorance that you percieve
> > arrogance.
>
> LOL. "with respect, you are ignorant". Fuck off. It is because you
> are uneducated that you don't know arrogance from ignorance. (with
> respect, you prick).
Clearly you're upset, I touched a nerve. I'm not entirely sure where
I've demonstrated a lack of understanding of either arrogance or
ignorance but since you haven't elaborated I'm happy to move on.
> The respectable scientific community doesn't claim to know
>
> > everything,
>
> No kidding.
Then we're agreed.
> but instead demands evidence of that which is claimed to
>
> > be known.
>
> And when new evidence is unearthed, the previous proof is
> discredited
Sure, new evidence can discredit old evidence, but sometimes new
evidence can add another building block to previous evidence, thus
supporting the new evidence whilst also superseding it. Perhaps you're
talking in general terms but thinking about a specific example? Please
share this with us Drew so we can help clear up any misunderstandings
you have.
> So how good was the original 'proof'? Well, (with due
> respect) it maybe was the best we had at the time....
How good was the original proof of what exactly?
> Something that can't be proven isn't necessarily wrong.
>
> And something that IS proven can still be wrong. Depends upon the
> strength AND popularity/credibility of the person presenting the
> evidence. Don't kid yourself, some very shitty science passes peer
> review sometimes.
Of course shitty science passes peer review sometimes, that's not a
failing of science, it's a failing against science. If I tell you
1+1=3 it doesn't mean maths itself is flawed, it means I've used
maths incorrectly. Are you beginning to understand Drew?
> > Religion is a good example, one can't prove scientifically that there
> > is a God, that doesn't make religion wrong, it just falls into that
> > expansive 'unproven' category. Not knowing is perfectly acceptable to
> > science.
>
> One can't prove evolution either but it is a generally accepted
> theory. Not knowing is a fact of life. It it would be 'acceptable'
> there would be no further investigation.
Lets not confuse ourselves again Drew as I think we're getting
somewhere. Science supports evolution based on the information to
date. If better information becomes available science is not bound to
support evolution. If a/the god came down tomorrow and started
performing miracles on request science would grow to incorporate this
information, the findings would of course be challenged so the
information would stand on its merits.
> "You can't prove scientifically that there is a God" is like saying
> you can't cut down a forest with a herring.
It is not for science to prove there is a god, rather proof of god
might be subject to scientific analysis..
Mike Smith
>
> With respect Drew it is because of your ignorance that you percieve
> arrogance. The respectable scientific community doesn't claim to know
> everything, but instead demands evidence of that which is claimed to
> be known. Something that can't be proven isn't necessarily wrong.
> Religion is a good example, one can't prove scientifically that there
> is a God, that doesn't make religion wrong, it just falls into that
> expansive 'unproven' category. Not knowing is perfectly acceptable to
> science.
I assume, then, that you believe in leprechauns, dragons, and Nessie?
'Cause they haven't been proven, either. Skepticism in the absence of
proof/evidence is a perfectly appropriate position to take.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like
a nail." - Abraham Maslow
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> I have to answer for all your problem ---> UFO... is American-born ass
> believed
> in UFO crap??? WOW!!!! Flying saucer over American-born ass head!!!!
> I believe in UFO only if pig can fly....
"UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". Are you saying that
there has never been a flying object that was unidentified?
--
Mike Smith
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
There is no proof that dragons exist, there is no proof that God
exist. So there is no reason to believe in dragon or God. Believing in
God, then creating religion, then creating nutty rules like (can't eat
pork, beef, can't eat food on certain days, have to go to church/
mosque/temple on certain days) is beyond stupidity.
The Walrus was Danny
> There is no proof that dragons exist, there is no proof that God
> exist. So there is no reason to believe in dragon or God. Believing in
> God, then creating religion, then creating nutty rules like (can't eat
> pork, beef, can't eat food on certain days, have to go to church/
> mosque/temple on certain days) is beyond stupidity
I always say Christianity is like Golilocks and the Three Bears, and
Islam is like Little Red Riding Hood..both fairy stories...Goldilocks
and the 3 bears would make a really good nutcase religeon
actually..every date (pick a random holy one) a priest dressed in a
Bear costume could break the holy chair, then feed holy porridge to
the congregation...then there's the holy bed which of course must be
*just right*.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> > I have to answer for all your problem ---> UFO... is American-born ass
> > believed
> > in UFO crap??? WOW!!!! Flying saucer over American-born ass head!!!!
> > I believe in UFO only if pig can fly....
>
> "UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". Are you saying that
> there has never been a flying object that was unidentified?
He's saying that aliens and spaceships from other planets is bollocks.
Whilst there are definately other intelligent life forms out
there..many billions I imagine..the distances between stars is too
great for anything to travel between them...so therefore aliens and
spaceships are bollocks. He's probably right.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
wrote:
Was that Raja???
If so, it is the most intelligent thing he's ever said..I'd like to
congratulate him as well!!
Danny
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
> On 12 Jan, 15:52, "stuthalb...@comcast.net" <stuthalb...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 10:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Most of that may have been the most sensible things you've ever
> > posted.
>
> Was that Raja???
Yes, thats me.
>
> If so, it is the most intelligent thing he's ever said..I'd like to
> congratulate him as well!!
Thanks!
>
> Danny
drew
> On Jan 12, 7:03 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > With respect Drew it is because of your ignorance that you percieve
> > > arrogance.
>
> > LOL. "with respect, you are ignorant". Fuck off. It is because you
> > are uneducated that you don't know arrogance from ignorance. (with
> > respect, you prick).
>
I touched a nerve.
No, you responded rudely. And I reciprocated.
>
> > The respectable scientific community doesn't claim to know
>
> > > everything,
>
> > No kidding.
>
> Then we're agreed.
>
Yes.
>
> > Something that can't be proven isn't necessarily wrong.
>
> > And something that IS proven can still be wrong. Depends upon the
> > strength AND popularity/credibility of the person presenting the
> > evidence. Don't kid yourself, some very shitty science passes peer
> > review sometimes.
>
> Of course shitty science passes peer review sometimes, that's not a
> failing of science, it's a failing against science.
Exactly.
If I tell you
> 1+1=3 it doesn't mean maths itself is flawed, it means I've used
> maths incorrectly. Are you beginning to understand Drew?
Vaguely......let's see, 1+1.....
>
> > > Religion is a good example, one can't prove scientifically that there
> > > is a God, that doesn't make religion wrong, it just falls into that
> > > expansive 'unproven' category.
Of course. But doesn't the statement itself sound presumtuous to
you? "The existence of god cannot be proven". Well, of course not.
Not knowing is perfectly acceptable to
> > > science.
>
> > One can't prove evolution either but it is a generally accepted
> > theory. Not knowing is a fact of life. It it would be 'acceptable'
> > there would be no further investigation.
>
> Lets not confuse ourselves again Drew as I think we're getting
> somewhere. Science supports evolution based on the information to
> date. If better information becomes available science is not bound to
> support evolution.
Ah, but the problem with scientists (not the scientific method) is
that they become very protective of their turf, their findings, and
the support they receive for ongoing research.
Evolutionary biologists know that there is no biological advantage
gained if a terrestrial animal evolves 1/5 th of a wing for example,
but that little detail hasn't derailed the discussion of the evolution
of flight in animals and it hasn't changed anybody's mind with respect
to differential reproductive success and so on. Without getting into
the specifics of that one example, why do you suppose these
inconsistencies don't cause the evolutionists to go back to rethinking
the whole idea?
In this case, an "I don't know" is not acceptable so you won't get
one.
If a/the god came down tomorrow and started
> performing miracles on request science would grow to incorporate this
> information,
I doubt it. More likely he'd be thrown in jail for disturbing the
peace or for performing street acts without a license.
>
> > "You can't prove scientifically that there is a God" is like saying
> > you can't cut down a forest with a herring.
>
> It is not for science to prove there is a god.....
We don't disagree. You just have a greater faith in the scientific
community than I have.
drew
> "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like
> a nail." - Abraham Maslow
I'll have to remember that one.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
No I haven't.
> The first sentence is quite exactly what he wrote.- Hide quoted text -
I actually think it is common sense. Only nutters would deny it.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tiger Would
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On Jan 11, 10:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
Yes you would be transformed to some form of energy when you die.
Energy doesn't vanish. That could be part of anything, I think. It
could be air, heat or some form of life or something else.
Mark
Unexplained phenomenon exist with regularity and
to a large degree I understand much of it
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On Jan 11, 11:05 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:49:28 -0800 (PST), progea <pro...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 11, 10:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
> > >There's no end to my life, nor beginning... Evolve off, Raja!
>
> > before i could speak. weird shit lidat. i remember i did not want to
> > be born and came here kicking and screaming but God (i guess) willed
> > it so here i am. i therefore think our spirit does not begin at birth
> > and maybe we are sent here because we were disobedient to God ? kinda
> > like satan ? difference being that we we not as bad as satan and after
> > hell on earth for a while we get to go back to the good life ?
> > possible ?
>
> I guess there are more under-developed brains out there than we
> originally thought. Maybe you are proof we are DEvolving- Hide quoted text -
He is a religious nut job, thats all. There are many out there.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 9:46�pm, "csman's sock" <csma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:42�am, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Thanks! Glad to see some intelligent beings here...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
..but you have evolved. You're now a male/female tennis star.
Wikus van de Merwe
> Most of that may have been the most sensible things you've ever posted.
Or not...
Shakes
wrote:
The fundamental thing that differentiates life from inanimate objects
is consciousness. That's what separates living things (even single-
celled bacteria) from non-living things.
My question is how did that "consciousness" get created ? Was that an
accident as well ?
TT
Are you sure?
>
> My question is how did that "consciousness" get created ? Was that an
> accident as well ?
>
Yes. And if that accident had not happened you weren't pondering about it.
Shakes
lol. Accident on a physical level is one thing. Accident on a psychic
level is quite another.
TT
Why?
Shakes
How do you create consciousness by accident ? You can explain creation
of life on a physical level as an accident that brought about chemical
reactions between different elements and therefore different physical
life-forms. It's hard to use the same explanation that brought about
consciousness.
Mike Smith
No it isn't. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently
complex nervous system.
--
Mike Smith
The Walrus was Danny
> > How do you create consciousness by accident ? You can explain creation
> > of life on a physical level as an accident that brought about chemical
> > reactions between different elements and therefore different physical
> > life-forms. It's hard to use the same explanation that brought about
> > consciousness.
>
> No it isn't. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently
> complex nervous system.
Mike is right..consciousness exists because we have evolved it because
surviving with a conciousness is easier than without one. Probably
just a development of memory..so you can remember where and what food
is..who your enemies are..who you like to shag..etc etc.
God didn't give us it anyway..on the fifth day or whatever it was
supposed to be. Because *God doesn't exist*.
Hey while I'm here among all these other Newsgroups I can spam a video
of me playing! Rec.music.beatles are already bored of me so now I'm
gonna make all you folk suffer! See Danny sing!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2xJtX339zU
Danny
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
> > > How do you create consciousness by accident ? You can explain creation
> > > of life on a physical level as an accident that brought about chemical
> > > reactions between different elements and therefore different physical
> > > life-forms. It's hard to use the same explanation that brought about
> > > consciousness.
>
> > No it isn't. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently
> > complex nervous system.
>
> Mike is right..consciousness exists because we have evolved it because
> surviving with a conciousness is easier than without one. Probably
> just a development of memory..so you can remember where and what food
> is..who your enemies are..who you like to shag..etc etc.
Yes if you are not conscious you could be doing stuff involuntary like
bacteria does. But we are much more complex than bacteria. We could
say that human being are complex form of bacteria with a great memory
and a complex brain.
>
> God didn't give us it anyway..on the fifth day or whatever it was
> supposed to be. Because *God doesn't exist*.
Perfect post. I agree.
TT
Man, that's horrible singing.
...Clearly God doesn't exist. THAT can't be intelligent design!
:-P
The Walrus was Danny
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2xJtX339zU
>
> > Danny
>
> Man, that's horrible singing.
> ...Clearly God doesn't exist. THAT can't be intelligent design!
No, I evolved to be able to do that, because it attracts females to
want to shag me, thereby enabling me to spread my genes further...all
my offspring will also holler away and before you know it we have a
universe filled with singing little me's with females simply lying
about legs asunder...it also enables me to make money though singing
in the street..in turn enabling me to eat and drink beer which is an
essential ingredient for existance.
:-)
Danny
TT
Evolution theory and meaning of life in the same post. Not bad!
The Walrus was Danny
Thanks TT...I could probably sing it too! Triple whammy!
Danny
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
dahldude
wrote:
> There is no beginning or end to the universe. No one created it. It
> has always been there it always will be. We are life forms which have
> evolved on Earth. Some of the ancient life forms on earth could have
> been transported by comet or other space bodies colliding to earth.
> But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
> on Earth.
< snip >
Then, for the love of The All, please stop your wasteful spamming and
crossposting.
Why do you persist in so much arrogant nonconstructive behavior?
Respect the order of The All and please contribute to It, don't impose
your egotistical chaos onto It.
Thank you.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On Jan 11, 9:42 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There is no beginning or end to the universe. No one created it. It
> > has always been there it always will be. We are life forms which have
> > evolved on Earth. Some of the ancient life forms on earth could have
> > been transported by comet or other space bodies colliding to earth.
> > But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
> > on Earth.
>
> < snip >
>
> Then, for the love of The All, please stop your wasteful spamming and
> crossposting.
why does cross-posting bother you much? aren't there more serious
things in life that bother you?
>
> Why do you persist in so much arrogant nonconstructive behavior?
Maybe because I am arrogant and destructive ;-)
No one knows what it's like to be the bad man
To be the sad man behind blue eyes
No one knows what it's like
To be hated, to be fated to telling only lies
But my dreams, they aren't as empty
As my conscience seems to be
I have hours, only lonely
My love is vengeance that's never free
No one knows what it's like
To feel these feelings like I do and I blame you!
No one bites back as hard on their anger
None of my pain and woe can show through
But my dreams, they aren't as empty
As my conscience seems to be
I have hours only lonely
My love is vengeance, that's never free
When my fist clenches, crack it open
Before I use it and lose my cool
When I smile, tell me some bad news
Before I laugh and act like a fool
And If I swallow anything evil
Put your finger down my throat
And If I shiver, please give me a blanket
Keep me warm, let me wear your coat
No one knows what it's like to be the bad man
To be the sad man behind blue eyes
Superdave
then why does noone want to shag Raja ?
The Nice Mean Man
wrote:
> There is no beginning or end to the universe. No one created it. It
> has always been there it always will be.
>
But who created No One?
> evolved on Earth. Some of the ancient life forms on earth could have
> been transported by comet or other space bodies colliding to earth.
>
So then, where did THEIR world come from and who put THEM there, since
they haven't "always been here"?
> But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
> on Earth.
But then where did THEY come from, since they haven't "always been
here" either? Are trying to say that they just popped right out of
thin air? That sounds a little crazy to me. At least, not without a
higher power being involved.
>
> It is highly likely that there is life outside Earth. We don't have
> the technology yet to find it.
>
Nor do you have enough to answer your own puny questions! You don’t
even have enough to stop the decay of your own earthly bodies!
Personally, I’d work on that one first if I were you. And what… with
all of your generation’s amassed knowledge, you might eventually come
up with a good remedy for the common hangnail.
> But we are slowly going to get there.
>
No you're not. You can't handle the truth now. How the HELL is it ever
going to become any clearer? I mean, you think now that your frigging
navel is the center of the fucking universe. So you're right back to
where you started. Your teeth fall out... your head goes bald and then
you DIE. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Especially since you
don’t have your heavenly body yet. Nor does it appear that you shall
ever get one.
> Also one day we would be able to transform our energy (soul, brain
> whatever you call it) into a robot and live forever. Our bodies are
> mechanical and they wear out, thats why we die of natural causes when
> we get old.
>
You'd take that technology and pervert it into a machine that could
have a baby for you. Or better yet… it could perform abortions on
demand. Like, you could put it right next to the cola machines at the
high schools and such. Kewl…!! Or you'd want equal rights for them so
they could be an idiot like you and wanna marry someone who was
designed exactly like them.. I've already SEEN your world in the here-
and-now.. Forgive me if I'm not too keen on the future.
> There is no fate. I believe in chaos theory. Falling in love, war,
> sickness, accidents, lottery, death, success is all due to
> coincidental chaos.
>
So then, you will remain in your hopeless state. Because my life is
FULL of Godley blessings! Things that you imaginary fate and
unpredictable chance could never erect for a person in a million
years :)
The reason I'm smiling about it is because it's a FACT.
> There is a word the phrase "being at the right/
> wrong place at the right/wrong time" is used. It is all coincidental.
> Death is coincidental, birth is as well. You could have been born a
> cockroach but you were born a human (luckily or unluckily... its up to
> you to decide).
>
So... you acknowledge that you were alive before you were born. GOOD!
We're getting somewhere. Let me ask you then.... where will you go to
live next when your body dies here?
> Human beings are the most equipped organism with one
> Of the biggest brains... hence we are the most advanced models with
> ability to think and solve problems as well have complex speech.
>
I know!! And all that just HAPPENED! Lucky us for chance and fate to
be on our SIDE like they have been! Too fucking bad they can’t be
appealed to or reasoned with. Or coaxed to show…. change.
> Some
> of the other organisms on Earth, though more powerful didn't/don't
> have an advanced brain like us. That’s why we are dominating Earth.
>
So why are people like you usually vegetarians?
> Our human race will come to an end one day. It will be a mass
> extinction (Earth is bound to be hit by a comet, asteroid or some of
> body soon) just like the dinosaurs.
>
"And you will see the Son of God coming in the clouds with great power
and glory. And at the name of Jesus, every head will bow under heaven
and earth and below the earth, and every tongue shall confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God Almighty"
THAT is the only thing that YOU should be concerned with. Since that's
the way the entire universe is going to end... and you aren't in the
life-boat yet!
> And we won't be able to do crap...
> unless we figure out a way to redistribute ourselves to other planets
> in the universe. And it is possible we will be able to do so.
>
Yeah... I saw that episode of Star Trek..
> In a few hundred years, God, Religion etc will be proven to be a big
> farce and our successors will be laughing on our (and our ancestors')
> stupidity.
>
> Phew... that was heavy...
That's funny, because Christianity has been growing steadily ever
since it got its start. It’s just like Jesus says… “Why can’t you see
the signs of the times”?
Look to the clouds, Moe-Foe. And get ready to do some bowing and
confessing.
The Nice Mean Man
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
>
> So then, where did THEIR world come from and who put THEM there, since
> they haven't "always been here"?
>
> > But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
> > on Earth.
>
> But then where did THEY come from, since they haven't "always been
> here" either?
Organisms evolved. It was all bacteria on earth before. Bacteria which
evolved out of different chemicals. Most of them evolved into some
organisms or the other.
>Are trying to say that they just popped right out of
> thin air? That sounds a little crazy to me. At least, not without a
> higher power being involved.
What higher power? Who created the higher power? Thin air? Where did
thin air come from? Why did this higher power create things at once
and disappeared from the face of the Universe. Has become a fat lazy
bastard? . Why there are no new organisms being sponatenously created
without any kind of evolution as you say. Why no more Adams and Eves
out of dust?
"Genesis 2 opens with God fashioning a man from the dust and blowing
life into his nostrils. God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) and
sets the man there, "to work it and watch over it," permitting him to
eat of all the trees in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil, "for on the day you eat of it you shall surely die."
Yes that is truly believable.... BWHAHAHAHAHAH....
Dale Houstman
> On Jan 12, 2:44 pm, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is no beginning or end to the universe. No one created it. It
>>> been transported by comet or other space bodies colliding to earth.
>>> on Earth.
>>> Also one day we would be able to transform our energy (soul, brain
>>> whatever you call it) into a robot and live forever. Our bodies are
>>> mechanical and they wear out, thats why we die of natural causes when
>>> we get old.
>>> sickness, accidents, lottery, death, success is all due to
>>> wrong place at the right/wrong time" is used. It is all coincidental.
>>> Death is coincidental, birth is as well. You could have been born a
>>> cockroach but you were born a human (luckily or unluckily... its up to
>>> of the biggest brains... hence we are the most advanced models with
>>> ability to think and solve problems as well have complex speech. Some
>>> of the other organisms on Earth, though more powerful didn't/don't
>>> Our human race will come to an end one day. It will be a mass
>>> extinction (Earth is bound to be hit by a comet, asteroid or some of
>>> unless we figure out a way to redistribute ourselves to other planets
>>> in the universe. And it is possible we will be able to do so.
>>> farce and our successors will be laughing on our (and our ancestors')
>>> stupidity.
>>> Phew... that was heavy...
>> fairly mediocre sci-fi films. And - just as a lesson on effective
>> writing - it is difficult to add a text up to "heavy" when it is so full
>> of "it is possible"'s and "I believe"'s and "it is highly likely"'s -
>> irritatingly tepid bits of rhetoric. You could also try composing
>> original phrasings and an image or two as opposed to totally flat
>> assertions lacking any linguistic "oomph".
>>
>> All in all, your suppositions are neither startlingly new or freshly
>> presented.
>>
>> dmh- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> YoUr WoRlD.
If your delusions comfort you as your central nervous system spirals
downward into the last fading hums of consciousness, so be it.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> On 12 Jan., 04:42, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no beginning or end to the universe.
>
>
> 1. Evolution has nothing to do with the begin or end of the universe.
> Evolution is about life.
> 2. Every serious scientist says actually there is a begin and a end of
> the universe. The age is calculated to be about 15 Mrd (American:
> Billions) years.
>
Certainly MOST "serious scientists" would attest to this, but there are
any number of equally serious scientists who do in fact consider the
possibility that A universe (if not necessarily THIS universe) has
existed forever and that it might - in some form - continue to exist
forever. This partly stems from string theory, which can involve a
description of a (perhaps) nine dimensional universe which collapsed
down into our four dimensional version (thus the "Big Bang") and that -
for instance - gravity is such a weak force because some part of that
force now exists elsewhere. My theory? Combining string theory with
notions of dark matter, I hypothesize that the universe is actually made
of string licorice and is - thus - delicious.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>>> believed
>>> in UFO crap??? WOW!!!! Flying saucer over American-born ass head!!!!
>>> I believe in UFO only if pig can fly....
>> "UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". Are you saying that
>> there has never been a flying object that was unidentified?
>
> He's saying that aliens and spaceships from other planets is bollocks.
> there..many billions I imagine..
I have to disagree with the "definitely" in that paragraph: there's no
"definitely" about it. So far, the odds against intelligent life on
other planets are roughly 8 to 1 (or 9 to one, if you're sentimental
about Pluto), and some more distant observations have so far revealed
several "hot Jupiters" (gas giants orbiting in the distances previously
thought to be "saved" for more Earth-sized bodies) around other stars,
which doesn't add to the probability of life, much less intelligent
life. So - "who knows?" is the best response to the question of
intelligent life outside Earth.
> the distances between stars is too
> great for anything to travel between them...so therefore aliens and
> spaceships are bollocks. He's probably right.
And that part's pretty much a fact. Of course, the counter "argument"
(if it can be termed as such) is that a vastly more intelligent race of
beings might have perfected faster than light travel or even
instantaneous transference across such huge distances, and while I like
science fiction as much as anyone, the notion is not very compelling in
terms of physics.
dmh
The Arranger
> The Walrus was Danny wrote:
>
> >>> I have to answer for all your problem ---> UFO... is American-born ass
> >>> believed
> >>> in UFO crap??? WOW!!!! Flying saucer over American-born ass head!!!!
> >>> I believe in UFO only if pig can fly....
> >> "UFO" stands for "unidentified flying object". Are you saying that
> >> there has never been a flying object that was unidentified?
>
> > He's saying that aliens and spaceships from other planets is bollocks.
> > Whilst there are definitely other intelligent life forms out
> > there..many billions I imagine..
>
> I have to disagree with the "definitely" in that paragraph: there's no
> "definitely" about it. So far, the odds against intelligent life on
> other planets are roughly 8 to 1 (or 9 to one, if you're sentimental
It's 7 to 1 (or 8 to 1).
The Arranger
Superdave
<zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 12, 8:14�pm, The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> So then, where did THEIR world come from and who put THEM there, since
>> they haven't "always been here"?
>>
>> > But it is highly possible most of the life forms evolved from scratch
>> > on Earth.
>>
>> But then where did THEY come from, since they haven't "always been
>> here" either?
>
>Organisms evolved. It was all bacteria on earth before. Bacteria which
>evolved out of different chemicals. Most of them evolved into some
>organisms or the other.
Science can NOT explain LIFE. Not one iota. When science can create
life from chemicals, call me. Until then the existence of God is just
as rational.
>
>>Are trying to say that they just popped right out of
>> thin air? That sounds a little crazy to me. At least, not without a
>> higher power being involved.
>
>What higher power? Who created the higher power? Thin air? Where did
>thin air come from? Why did this higher power create things at once
>and disappeared from the face of the Universe. Has become a fat lazy
>bastard? . Why there are no new organisms being sponatenously created
>without any kind of evolution as you say. Why no more Adams and Eves
>out of dust?
>
>"Genesis 2 opens with God fashioning a man from the dust and blowing
>life into his nostrils. God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) and
>sets the man there, "to work it and watch over it," permitting him to
>eat of all the trees in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of
>Good and Evil, "for on the day you eat of it you shall surely die."
>
>Yes that is truly believable.... BWHAHAHAHAHAH....
It's allegorical you twit.
Joe Ramirez
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:43:07 -0800 (PST), Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
>
And it's a bad allegory to boot. A person who does not know the
difference between good and evil cannot be blamed for any of his
actions. Because Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil
before eating from the Tree, their choice to eat from it was not wrong
in any meaningful moral sense, because they did not *know* it was
wrong. They were innocents, and their actions were blameless. The only
test they failed was the test of blind obedience, i.e., not based on
recognizing the distinction between right and wrong, but based on
doglike fidelity to orders for their own sake. Thus, the "sin" of Adam
and Eve was becoming independent moral beings rather than remaining
irrational, reflexive animals. That's some wonderful spiritual
guidance, no? Only dogs are admitted to Paradise.
The Nice Mean Man
wrote:
An encounter that will turn your carnal belief system upside down and
change it into an impenetrable knowledge is just a little ways out
there… just beyond the realm of your worldly understanding. Always
knocking. Always waiting for you to turn around and open the door.
That’s the easy part. Whether it lasts or not is strictly up to you.
"I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me.
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
Dale Houstman
Math, schmath...
dmh
The Walrus was Danny
> I have to disagree with the "definitely" in that paragraph: there's no
> "definitely" about it. So far, the odds against intelligent life on
> other planets are roughly 8 to 1 (or 9 to one, if you're sentimental
> about Pluto), and some more distant observations have so far revealed
> several "hot Jupiters" (gas giants orbiting in the distances previously
> thought to be "saved" for more Earth-sized bodies) around other stars,
> which doesn't add to the probability of life, much less intelligent
> life. So - "who knows?" is the best response to the question of
> intelligent life outside Earth.
Yes but the even the amount of Galaxies is billions..there are
billions of stars just within each Galaxy...I'm gonna stick my neck
out and say "Definately"
Danny
JohnB
wrote:
And I'll stick my neck out a bit too and say almost certainly
definitely (probably) there is intelligent life out there, but I'll
bet it won't be anything like we expect.
Right now it's not the probability of intelligent life out there that
concerns me but the possibility of intelligent life here on earth...
Superdave
If you believe in God then there is an excellent chance that we are
the only intelligent life in the universe.
If you don't believe in God than the chance that we are the most
intelligent life in the universe is 0.
The Walrus was Danny
Tiny penis. Ignoring the fact that Raja can't sing, females obviously
need to be penetrated sufficiently enough for the Lurve juice
(snigger) to achieve it's destination. A tiny penis won't do this,
therefore females will show disinterest in males that don't have the
tackle to help them pass on their genetic profile onto the next
generation...also they would be worried that if their progeny is male,
then this child in turn will possibly also have a tiny penis...it's a
lose lose situation..Poor Raja is doomed! Still at least he has the
God situation sorted out.
Danny
TT
Yeah. Who wrote that shit anyway!
Pelle Svanslos
You forgot the cats. What about cats?
TT
Not obedient. Free spirits. No heaven.
Pelle Svanslos
Fuck the cats anyway.
Superdave
No animals go to heaven. None. Only man as he is the only of God's
creatures with a soul.
How dumb are you anyway ?
TT
But clearly animals are conscious.
And if animals are conscious they would have that "magic element" which
makes them conscious...soul.
TT
Yeah. To hell with them!
Superdave
wrong. when animals die they are "dead".
only man can reason. only man has a soul. only man was made in the
image and likness of God. not squirrels.
TT
Well I didn't actually take Joe's statement "Only dogs are admitted to
Paradise" literally...as you seemed to do.
Superdave
fucking cats ?
and up till now i thought scotsmen fucking sheep was bad !
TT
But you have argued in another thread that human can't create life
because he's no God. Surely that must be because there's this
soul/rhythm&blues factor involved? Why else can't human create life from
the very particles of universe?
So that would mean that indeed animals must have soul, according to you.
TT
...If this "soul" is an energy that can't be measured...it must go
somewhere when animals die. So where....heaven or hell?
Pelle Svanslos
You're willing to overlook Scots fucking Feds?
TT
And how about that Noah's ark thing. How the hell did they build ship
large enough for all animals? How about Santa Clause...how can he
deliver all those presents in one day?!
Superdave
Nope. You are drawing your own conclusions. Animals have no soul. Just
because science can not create animal life does not mean they do. It
means they can't even create any life ! Even life without a soul !
Do not be so dumb ok.