Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_Themis]

If you tossed a germ into a petrie dish and then open it an hour later and they were trying to launch rockets, wouldn't you wonder if that germ had the ability the whole time?

That's what happen over a period of billions of years, but I didn't think they would have had that ability at the start. DrW did give you some good answers, yet you didn't engage him or his answer at all. I suspect you avoided it because you are ignorant about the subject, which honorentheos brought up and everyone else recognized.

[_SPG]

This is why your claim that you've read multiple books and have a solid understanding of the topic rings hollow. Your meandering thoughts on how little we really understand compared to the power of the mind may be something that flips folks like Amore's switch who want to gobble up esoteric, feel good claims about the power of belief. But if you are in that game you should get to know Deepak because he is the apex predator with all the influence and raking in the cash through it. Get your SWOT on and get a business plan.

Honestly, when I first heard Deepak years, he sounded a lot me, but I didn't like the way he said it. He does sound like a con to mean, but I admit he says a lot of things I agree with it, just not the "the universe owes your a living" sorry of talk.

My understanding of evolution, concerning the giraffes, was that during hard times, as the food got higher the short giraffes died. The tall ones lived, they had young and they were more likely to be one. The tall moms could feed their young. Traits became dominate.

Same reason we avoid in-breeding.

It's believed that turkeys used to be rappor dinosaurs. But food got small, an ice age must have come. Seeds and small animals were the food source, those that could get warm and eat small food and reserve energy lived, those that couldn't died.

It's not that evolution had a plan, the life form adapted. I watched a Star Trek Voyager where Janeway followed a prescribed evolution and became some sort of river creature. I don't believe that evolution decides who we become, I think those that survive the environment become the new life.

I get that evolution is dominately about genes. What exists is what was successful in the environment. Ancient Egypt was probably very powerful, but for whatever reason, they didn't survive. Some of the cultures in the rain forests of South America are probably more successful then Egypt was. But not necessary because they were better.

My question, was a spiritual one. If a single life source could become all is these life forms without external interference, then that life source, considered in it's entirety, must have been awesome.

[_SPG]

If you tossed a germ into a petrie dish and then open it an hour later and they were trying to launch rockets, wouldn't you wonder if that germ had the ability the whole time?

That's what happen over a period of billions of years, but I didn't think they would have had that ability at the start. DrW did give you some good answers, yet you didn't engage him or his answer at all. I suspect you avoided it because you are ignorant about the subject, which honorentheos brought up and everyone else recognized.

So, input=output. Time is part of the input? When doing electric engineering, we never used time as input. We used time to measure and compare input to output, but we never used time as a input itself.

I might put in 3 amps for 10 minutes and draw out 2.5 amps for 20 minutes, but I never input time expecting to get it out of the other end.

[_Themis]

So, input=output. Time is part of the input? When doing electric engineering, we never used time as input. We used time to measure and compare input to output, but we never used time as a input itself.

I might put in 3 amps for 10 minutes and draw out 2.5 amps for 20 minutes, but I never input time expecting to get it out of the other end.

You are not addressing your assertion about germs building rockets. It's not hard to figure out some of the vital attributes needed to even build a rocket are completely lacking in germs. In order to get those attributes you have to have some major changes to their physiology. Those changes are what we have seen from single celled organisms to humans beings over a billion years in the making.

[_SPG]

So, input=output. Time is part of the input? When doing electric engineering, we never used time as input. We used time to measure and compare input to output, but we never used time as a input itself.

I might put in 5 amps for 10 minutes and draw out 2.5 amps for 20 minutes, but I never input time expecting to get it out of the other end.

You are not addressing your assertion about germs building rockets. It's not hard to figure out some of the vital attributes needed to even build a rocket are completely lacking in germs. In order to get those attributes you have to have some major changes to their physiology. Those changes are what we have seen from single celled organisms to humans beings over a billion years in the making.

I am too addressing it.

There are two basic theories about how life started on Earth.

1. Chemicals and energy mix to create pre-life that becomes life. Basically, a germ.
2. Life floats in from space on an asteroid or a cosmic dust cloud.

From there, the system is basically sealed. Enter the petrie idea. The Earth is a pure and clean environment.

Germ into the petrie dish.

A few billion years later, the germ is launching rockets. Time not withstanding, the germ has found the need and the ability to launch rockets.

Either the germ had the potential and thus the ability from the beginning, or something interfered. Either the germ was endowed with the powers of God, or God came along later on. Because we are far from done.

[_Themis]

There are two basic theories about how life started on Earth.

1. Chemicals and energy mix to create pre-life that becomes life. Basically, a germ.
2. Life floats in from space on an asteroid or a cosmic dust cloud.

Both are one and the same. The only difference is the starting area.

From there, the system is basically sealed. Enter the petrie idea. The Earth is a pure and clean environment.

Germ into the petrie dish.

A few billion years later, the germ is launching rockets. Time not withstanding, the germ has found the need and the ability to launch rockets.

Either the germ had the potential and thus the ability from the beginning, or something interfered. Either the germ was endowed with the powers of God, or God came along later on. Because we are far from done.

So we shouldn't expect a germ to change enough in one hour to start making rockets, but we should look at whether germs, or simple life forms have the potential to change enough to one day start making rockets. DrW initial post starts to deal with this issue so it would be good to address his post. Your first question about adaptation is that it is part of the evolutionary process. You didn't go out into the cold though and adapt as an individual. If you didn't have the ability to survive the cold you die. The thing is that not all members of the population have the same tolerances due to differences in each individuals genetics.

[_honorentheos]

This is why your claim that you've read multiple books and have a solid understanding of the topic rings hollow. Your meandering thoughts on how little we really understand compared to the power of the mind may be something that flips folks like Amore's switch who want to gobble up esoteric, feel good claims about the power of belief. But if you are in that game you should get to know Deepak because he is the apex predator with all the influence and raking in the cash through it. Get your SWOT on and get a business plan.

Honestly, when I first heard Deepak years, he sounded a lot me, but I didn't like the way he said it. He does sound like a con to mean, but I admit he says a lot of things I agree with it, just not the "the universe owes your a living" sorry of talk.

My understanding of evolution, concerning the giraffes, was that during hard times, as the food got higher the short giraffes died. The tall ones lived, they had young and they were more likely to be one. The tall moms could feed their young. Traits became dominate.

Same reason we avoid in-breeding.

It's believed that turkeys used to be rappor dinosaurs. But food got small, an ice age must have come. Seeds and small animals were the food source, those that could get warm and eat small food and reserve energy lived, those that couldn't died.

It's not that evolution had a plan, the life form adapted. I watched a Star Trek Voyager where Janeway followed a prescribed evolution and became some sort of river creature. I don't believe that evolution decides who we become, I think those that survive the environment become the new life.

I get that evolution is dominately about genes. What exists is what was successful in the environment. Ancient Egypt was probably very powerful, but for whatever reason, they didn't survive. Some of the cultures in the rain forests of South America are probably more successful then Egypt was. But not necessary because they were better.

My question, was a spiritual one. If a single life source could become all is these life forms without external interference, then that life source, considered in it's entirety, must have been awesome.

Realizing your position is primarily that of the biocentrists, I'm choosing to not engage further on these non-scientific ideas in this thread that really have no bearing on Steelheads interesting OP. If you care to discuss the article in the OP, cool. If you want to discuss the above, feel free to move to the biocentrism thread where I think this is much more appropriate. Or not, if you wish. But my position is as noted when it comes to this thread.

[_SPG]

I was unaware that there was a biocentrism thread. That you would call biocentrism unscientific, just enforces what I was trying to say earlier. there are some things about this universe that simply do not fit into our science.

[_Themis]

I was unaware that there was a biocentrism thread. That you would call biocentrism unscientific, just enforces what I was trying to say earlier. there are some things about this universe that simply do not fit into our science.

Maybe on the other thread you could provide how you think it is scientific.

[_SPG]

I was unaware that there was a biocentrism thread. That you would call biocentrism unscientific, just enforces what I was trying to say earlier. there are some things about this universe that simply do not fit into our science.

Maybe on the other thread you could provide how you think it is scientific.

I cannot, but I can provide how it explains and addresses things that science cannot. Such parallel realities, where the Big Bang came from, how energy of the soul is real energy and doesn't cease to exist at death.