Project 1999 - Theory of Crevolution

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)

- Off Topic (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Theory of Crevolution (/forums/showthread.php?t=244059)

Theory of Crevolution

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.

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

It is* is what I should have said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzers (Post 2284176)

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aesop (Post 2284180)

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.

nature isn't a sentient force or entity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swish (Post 2284267)

[/IMG]

I would need proof that there was a sound :)
...if no one was there to hear it.
See: Digital Physics