Theory of Crevolution

[Blitzers]

The Theory of Crevolution"

If nothingness did exist, wouldn't the mere fact that it is identifiable mean it was no longer nothing, but something? It would have to have a distinguishable trait that man could see, hear, smell, feel, or even taste. So if nothingness is impossible, then a constant existence of something must have always existed. Thus being the "Source" of all that is Life and Unlife. This Constant existence must have had every feature "Man" & "Nature" possess at the maximum capacity if we believe man evolved from "Nature." If man evolved from Nature and Nature materialized from the Constant then all of Man's activity both Good & Evil is to be considered the intent by Nature and the Constant.

[Aesop]

I don't know about that little bit of mental masturbation but evolution could still be the product of intelligent design yes.

[Aesop]

It is* is what I should have said.

[maskedmelon]

The Theory of Crevolution"

If nothingness did exist,




wouldn't the mere fact that it is identifiable mean it was no longer nothing, but something?




It would have to have a distinguishable trait that man could see, hear, smell, feel, or even taste. So if nothingness is impossible, then a constant existence of something must have always existed.






Thus being the "Source" of all that is Life and Unlife.





This Constant existence must have had every feature "Man" & "Nature" possess at the maximum capacity if we believe man evolved from "Nature."




If man evolved from Nature and Nature materialized from the Constant then all of Man's activity both Good & Evil







is to be considered the intent by Nature and the Constant.

Build for us a bridge or three, or four or more if need be, wrought of cold, hard, immalleable reason, that we might cross these canyons without descent to the madness and at once join with you on that lonely plain of enlightenment from which you nobly beckon our deranged minds.

[Blitzers]

If man and science is incapable in upholding the scientific standard of requiring evidence and or proof that nothingness exists, then the default position of a Constant must be true. The evidence needed to prove the existence of nothingness would disprove it. Would it not?

[maskedmelon]

I ask for a bridge and you show me the stairs.

Very well, I shall join you below, though I am now mostly awake and have just eaten, so my descent may be slower than you or I should like. Let us continue this discussion as I work my way down.

First, why is nothingness so important to you? Can God create nothing? If so and creations must exhibit all aspects of their creator, then nothing is everything. By the same reasoning, that creations must exhibit all aspects of their creator, man is omnipotent, therefore man is god and created himself. It all seems to boil down to the undeniable truth that everything including nothing is everything and therefore nothing.

[Daywolf]

It is* is what I should have said.
Or better said, at least by me now :D which evolution?
micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.
One is proven, the other a theory or a guess.
One we have seen in action often, the other we have never seen in action.
Yet many call them one in the same, mistakenly so, even use one to account for the other, but they are not the same.
Yes, one could be by design, but does the other even exist?
How can something then that doesn't exist, and may have never existed nor will, be by design?
Sometimes nothing really is nothing.

As for "Crevolution" *shrugs* made up word.

[Swish]

http://i.imgur.com/0HURhJc.jpg

[Pokesan]

nature isn't a sentient force or entity

[Daywolf]

[/IMG]
I would need proof that there was a sound :)
...if no one was there to hear it.
See: Digital Physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics)

[Laugher]

What is 0 anyway if not a proposed lack of value amirite or amirite

[Pokesan]

What is 0 anyway if not a proposed lack of value amirite or amirite

are you talking about daywolf or blitzers posts?

[Blitzers]

"Man's Link and Separation from Nature"

I would agree evolution existed, to an extent it played a role for a period of time, and achieved a desired result. Unfortunately evolution alone doesn't provide the full explanation man seeks in regards to the development of man. So would it not be derelict of man to ignore alternative sources?

Genesis 1:11 & 12
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Notice the wording and sentence structure in the verses. The Author quotes God and then in the Author's narration attributes the vegetation as being produced by the land and its result was "good" in the eyes of God. Let's take a look at another couple verses.

Genesis 1:24 & 25
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Notice the wording and sentence structure in these verses. See anything similar? They both begin with a quote from God, followed by the author's narrative in his own words what happened and its result being "good in the eyes of God. So, How could Moses, who wrote Genesis even conceive the notion that "the land" could produce "living creatures" without having some sort of audience with God? In Fact he could not, and his narration of verses 24 & 25 after the quote from God is Moses reconciling what God did and attributing it to creation rather then evolution. Moses doesn't attribute verse 11 & 12 to creation because it was self-evident through his own observation that "the land" produced vegetation. So how could Moses thousands of years before the "theory of evolution" be able to conjure such an idea in the 2nd quote from God if it did not come from God? He obviously couldn't fathom the idea when it came to living creatures so why would he use the almost identical wording and sentence structure to describe both events if he didn't have communication with God? So, we can assume that evolution existed, and it was God's instruction, to Nature, to develop, "Life." So where's man's link to Nature?

Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Using what nature provided, God assembled man's physical body and because man wasn't an evolved state of nature, but an assembled work of God, God had to breath life into the "being" which is man.

Man's link to Nature is also man's separation. The substance of Man is Natural, but our formation is divine.

"The Instinct & Sentience of Man"

If you are still of the belief man evolved solely from Nature, then all that is man must be at the least concealed in Nature and at this point unidentifiable by modern science. Modern science has not been able to distinguish the "sentient traits of man" within Nature, so do those traits actually exist in Nature if "we" cannot observe them? Just like nothingness being unidentifiable by man, are these characteristics indistinguishable or non-existent because man cannot identify them in Nature? We can identify them, we can see, hear, and feel them. So where did man derive his sentience from? The only Source we have is the Constant/God.

If Nature cannot decipher "Good from Evil" and Nature is not conscious of its own actions, but man is, then God must have endowed man these capabilities absent of Nature.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

We've already established that God assembled "Man's" physical form from what Nature provided, but in addition to the substance of man which came from Nature, God bestowed upon man his "likeness" or free will. So now we have a being unlike any that evolved from Nature. This is Man in his "original state." If you have ever seen the 1960 Movie "The Time Machine" I would suggest that the Eloi are as close as we are going to get as to describing man in his "original state." Now Remember the Land having the ability to bring forth life? The narrative that Moses composed suggested that God saw that it was good. Now is this just Moses' own rationale or is Moses attributing the word good to mean sufficient and the task was finished by the land. I contend God meant both, that the land's task of developing vegetation and life was both pleasing to God and the desired result was achieved. So Man's physical substance, who God formed from the dust of the land, was "good." I also contend this goodness is part of the natural instinct of man.

So now we have Man in God's image, free will, and natural instinct. Does man have a "purpose." Yes, here as instructed by God.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God gives man ownership:

Genesis 1:29 & 30

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Is Man sentient yet? No, he is not. Finally God gives man a commandment.

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Man's state of oblivion leads him to be deceived by woman and woman by the serpent. Man now knows why, he can decipher good from evil and what does God say and do?

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

Thus the Sentience of Man.

[Lune]

If man and science is incapable in upholding the scientific standard of requiring evidence and or proof that nothingness exists, then the default position of a Constant must be true. The evidence needed to prove the existence of nothingness would disprove it. Would it not?

This is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever read.

[Blitzers]

This is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever read.

Is that not the same standard applied when disproving the existence of God? There is no proof therefore it cannot exist?

[Lune]

Is that not the same standard applied when disproving the existence of God? There is no proof therefore it cannot exist?

Yes, nobody who really understands logic is going to go around trying to completely disprove some kind of God, because you can't, for the same reasons you can't prove it.

We can't make definitive statements about what conditions were like before the Big Bang, assuming that's an accurate model for expansion of the universe, because we have zero information. So we know nothing about the character of 'nothingness' or 'constant' or any of this stuff you're talking about. And the bible is not evidence of anything.

[Blitzers]

God curses all of the guilty, the Serpent, the Woman the Man, and finally the land, all which had a role in the disobedience of God.

^^^ this is to be placed between the Final line and the last biblical verse. Copying from notes on my iPhone please forgive me.

[maskedmelon]

Your quotes just illustrate the apathy of God and the presence of at least one other actor. All God does is talk. Who does the work? His wife perhaps? I am not so sure your source offers a complete accounting.

The Greeks offer valuable insight. Prometheus (God) actually did craft man from mud (wet dust, which makes more sense because people are mostly water) and life is actually breathed into him by Athena, so clearly man's origins were a collaborative effort.

[Blitzers]

Your quotes just illustrate the apathy of God and the presence of at least one other actor. All God does is talk. Who does the work? His wife perhaps? I am not so sure your source offers a complete accounting.

The Greeks offer valuable insight. Prometheus (God) actually did craft man from mud (wet dust, which makes more sense because people are mostly water) and life is actually breathed into him by Athena, so clearly man's origins were a collaborative effort.

I think "God" would be able to create/construct by just speaking it into existence, he is God ya know.

You did ask for a bridge, I provided the bridge, like God and Man you have the choice to cross it or not.

[Blitzers]

By the way, the Theory of Crevolution is not what I believe. I attribute that theory to those who believe solely in evolution and Nature as man's only Source.

[maskedmelon]

I think "God" would be able to create/construct by just speaking it into existence, he is God ya know.

You did ask for a bridge, I provided the bridge, like God and Man you have the choice to cross it or not.

Sorry, that looks like it was a lot of work. Thank you. What I was looking for is the reasoning that you use to move across the gaps that I highlighted in my initial response. Logic doesn't get you there with the information provided in your original post and none of the information in your second post helps because it cannot be verified :(

You argue pretty heavily against "nothingness". Who have you found arguing for it?

[Ahldagor]

I'll sum this up in a question: Does the sun exist without man?

[Blitzers]

I am Not arguing that NOTHINGNESS cannot exist. I am only applying the scientific standards required when proving existence. If you apply those scientific standards consistently you would have a theory like what I "fabricated" Crevolution.

[Ahldagor]

Doesn't answer my question.

[Blitzers]

I'll sum this up in a question: Does the sun exist without man?

Yes the sun would exist, but if you were to apply scientific standards then it would not in absence of man.

So our scientific standards for proving existence are FLAWED.

[maskedmelon]

I am Not arguing that NOTHINGNESS cannot exist. I am only applying the scientific standards required when proving existence. If you apply those scientific standards consistently you would have a theory like what I "fabricated" Crevolution.

Blitz, I don't think anyone cares whether "nothingness" exists or not. It exists in the same realm as gods and ghosts: unverifiable and therefore outside the purview of science.

We are free to speculate and philosophize, but in the end we have no way of knowing whether the universe was always here, sprang from nothing, or was created.

We've evidence to support various theories, but ultimately when trying to assess the nature of something so distant in the past, it is statistically moronic to assert with any confidence that something must have happened a certain way. That is why reasonable people do not. As Lune said, we cannot know what preceded the Big Bang, assuming it was indeed a thing.

Asserting itherwise is akin to the madness of man-made climate change. Our climate data for the past 250 years or so suggest that the earth which has been here for 4,500,000,000 years and which we suspect to undergoes wild climate deviations of periods of thousands of years is most certainly warming due to human activity. 97% of the great minds who devote their lives to substantiating the proposition agree it is the truth. How could they be wrong?

[JurisDictum]

When I was about 9, I was fascinated with the concept of nothing. I remember feeling extremely cleaver that there was no "such thing as nothing."

But in the end, I was just playing around with semantics. Just because I kind write "circular square," doesn't mean such a thing exists and I have to find some way to philosophically coup with it.

[Aesop]

pretty good panel on nothingness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo

[Blitzers]

Blitz, I don't think anyone cares whether "nothingness" exists or not. It exists in the same realm as gods and ghosts: unverifiable and therefore outside the purview of science.

Again, your asserting that my objective is to prove or disprove nothingness, that is NOT my objective as previously stated.

We are free to speculate and philosophize

Yeah, exactly what I have been doin.

We've evidence to support various theories, but ultimately when trying to assess the nature of something so distant in the past, it is statistically moronic to assert with any confidence that something must have happened a certain way. That is why reasonable people do not. As Lune said, we cannot know what preceded the Big Bang, assuming it was indeed a thing.

So because you "deem" it moronic no one else should engage in any attempt the otherwise? I'll be sure to tell Charles Darwin how you feel when I see him. Seriously, How esoteric of you, if you find the discussion beneath your intellect then please move on. No one forced your participation.

Asserting itherwise is akin to the madness of man-made climate change. Our climate data for the past 250 years or so suggest that the earth which has been here for 4,500,000,000 years and which we suspect to undergoes wild climate deviations of periods of thousands of years is most certainly warming due to human activity. 97% of the great minds who devote their lives to substantiating the proposition agree it is the truth. How could they be wrong?

I don't remember forcibly telling anyone they must agree with anything I said or theorized, and I definately did not suggest they be punished for disagreeing. If this conversation is beneath you then fine disengage. I was doing nothing more then try to spark a civil discussion where parties could voice their own positions. Not be pseudo-intellectual assholes.

[maskedmelon]

Again, your asserting that my objective is to prove or disprove nothingness, that is NOT my objective as previously stated.



Yeah, exactly what I have been doin.



So because you "deem" it moronic no one else should engage in any attempt the otherwise? I'll be sure to tell Charles Darwin how you feel when I see him. Seriously, How esoteric of you, if you find the discussion beneath your intellect then please move on. No one forced your participation.



I don't remember forcibly telling anyone they must agree with anything I said or theorized, and I definately did not suggest they be punished for disagreeing. If this conversation is beneath you then fine disengage. I was doing nothing more then try to spark a civil discussion where parties could voice their own positions. Not be pseudo-intellectual assholes.

Lol <3

[Chaboo_Cleric]

The thing that makes me laugh... If god is so almighty and powerfulll and created the universe etc.... Why the fuck does any human think they could even comprehend such a being on any level... It's beyond me... dumb as fuck.,

[Daywolf]

Why don't you just cut to the chase and call it volume. Everyone understands volume, and that noting can be a measurement within a volume. All these word inventions only cause confusion, then lead to weird theories no one at all discusses or acknowledges. Then things break down and facepalm at about as confusing a rate as preterism.

Ultimately, space is a result. In fact time-space is constantly expanding. Not just to an outer edge, but within the volume of space it is expanding constantly, being added to, and expanding apart. Don't believe me? What is the Universe Expanding Into? (https://youtu.be/kV33t8U6w28) from one of my fav younoob channel subscriptions.

We already know noting is nothing, and that noting is always being pulled/pushed into nothing becoming something or volume. This has even visible results, even though we cant actually touch time and space, but we observe the results. Even at the quantum mechanic level things are ever expanding and changing by way of order, and often at a statistically impossible order seemingly.

[myriverse]

Or better said, at least by me now :D which evolution?
micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.
One is proven, the other a theory or a guess.
No. Theories are not guesses. Macroevolution is proven.

[Nihilist_santa]

The thing that makes me laugh... If god is so almighty and powerfulll and created the universe etc.... Why the fuck does any human think they could even comprehend such a being on any level... It's beyond me... dumb as fuck.,

Exactly. This was summed up well in the Flatlanders analogy. These 2d circles are all trying to describe a 3d sphere they have never seen or experienced much less can comprehend.

[Daywolf]

Macroevolution is proven.I'm not counted among the faithful, it takes a great deal of religious type faith on the alter of science-ish to believe in macro-evolution. Then it's treated about as holy and exalted as the man made global warming farce. Micro-evolution although is wholly proven, it is a scientific fact of real and actual science, and sadly erroneously confused with macro-evolution by many laymen.

But as proof stands for macro-evolution, it's at a point where even Alien planet seeding or de-evolution has more credibility. Even theories of this being one big digitally simulated existence in a computer has more credibility. It's just a guess, and a poor one at that ...and sometimes even falsified, much like global warming as well.

What you believe, I don't care, it's your freedom and I support that as long as it doesn't harm others. But mankind needs to start practicing a little more honesty within the realm of science, especially as mankind is usually wrong. The new communal group-think consensus taught in schrools is real cute and all, but it doesn't add to science in any way either.