A Question Of Intelligent Design


Recommended Posts

When I take my dog out for a walk she literally throws herself into the grass or snow to roll around in ecstasy. She doesn't attempt to define the experience, she simply wraps herself up in the moment. Her enthusiasm in the way she hurls herself to the ground makes me laugh every time. Her joy is contagious in its simplicity. When I come home she's all a-wiggle with love. Not because of what I provide for her, but just because I'm there. Despite all my intelligence and learning I think my dog understands G-d and the universe much better than I. I'm not trying to teach her, I'm trying to learn from her. :wub:

I love dogs. I have a mini schnauzer and I think animals in general (but especially dogs) make the world a beautiful place. I often reflect on my life as if this were my last day here, and I ponder what would I miss? I would miss my babies. My cats and dogs.

I do not want to live without them. Somewhere, on this forum, not this particular post, I gush about animals but I will happily repeat. They are born innocent and are incorruptable. They die as pure as they are born. Look into their eyes and you will see the proof of this yourself. They are untainted, pure of spirit, uncomplicated and a total joy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, I did some research and this is what I found.

What I proposed is that only one thing was in existence, Energy. The one casual item in my theory is the fact that energy works alone and happens by chance. Energy has the ability to act on its own without the help or accompaniment of another force or aide.

Vibration is the natural state of energy for vibration is a wave of shaking, quivering, fluctuation, pulsing, reverberating motion caused by a force of power.

Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Electricity is made up of subatomic particles composed of nucleons and atoms. These are what determines the electromagnetic interactions in energy.

The movement or flow of these electrically charged particles is what is vibrating. This vibrating energy influences all other particles that come in contact with it.

I don't believe that Electrical phenomena could recognize what is was, nor do I feel that it could have any awareness of "its own" or the ability to rebel; "I am."

Energy is power, it cannot comprehend, therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, or surroundings. In order to comprehend there must be a mind. To have a mind, there must be a brain so it can process, formulate, think, perceive, judge, grasp and understand.

Energy does not have a brain. There is no center of thought or central nervous system displayed in energy.

To explain my theory I will start by saying many of the particles that are found in all living things came from the energy of the stars. A star is a massive, self luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity.

The sun is considered a star. The sun is also the Earths largest energy source. When thinking of energy and how life came into being, we can use Einstein's famous equation mass in to energy: E=mc2.

In the beginning of creation subatomic particles assembled into atoms creating Hydrogen atoms which then vibrated into clumps under the force of gravity.

Once these clumps attached to each other and grew in size, the rapid speed of their vibration started a nuclear fusion which heated to such an extent that helium formed and began releasing large amounts of light into the sky; this light is now called a star.

A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. As a star gets hotter in temperature, the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen are formed. As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium.

Once a star has created enough iron it will burst inward with enough energy to immediately fuse some of the atoms into higher elements like Nickel, Krypton, Gold, Uranium. This quick and violent implosion releases an enormous amount of energy called a supernova.

The exploded remains from a supernova travel throughout the universe only to someday clump together with other stardust and give birth to a new star. This is the life of our universe: one energy source vibrates into another energy source until new life is formed.

It is said that besides water, about 93% of the mass in a human body is stardust. water, H20, whose molecule structure contains one part oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering about 70% of the planet's surface.

This info came from the book, Cosmos: By Author Carl Sagan.

Physics of the Human Body (Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering) By Author Irving P. Herman

Made from Stardust: Exploring the Place of Human Beings within Creation. By Author Denis Edwards.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=27757, http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=1477

P.S. This energy is what I refer to as Source Energy, IMO this is God, The unconscious creator of life.:smart:

Your head will hurt after reading this lol

http://www.trinp.org/Note/NeuPersp.HTM

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

What I proposed is that only one thing was in existence, Energy. The one casual item in my theory is the fact that energy works alone and happens by chance. Energy has the ability to act on its own without the help or accompaniment of another force or aide.

Vibration is the natural state of energy for vibration is a wave of shaking, quivering, fluctuation, pulsing, reverberating motion caused by a force of power.

This is incorrect. It shows a lack of understanding of what energy is and how it functions.

Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Electricity is made up of subatomic particles composed of nucleons and atoms. These are what determines the electromagnetic interactions in energy.

Subatomic particles are SUBatomic (sub means under). Subatmoic particles make up nucleons and atoms. Not the other way around. Are you confusing electrons with electricity?
In physics or chemistry, subatomic particles are the smaller particles composing nucleons and atoms. There are two types of subatomic particles: elementary particles, which are not made of other particles, and composite particles. Particle physics and nuclear physics study these particles l interaction|interact]].[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle

I don't believe that Electrical phenomena could recognize what is was, nor do I feel that it could have any awareness of "its own" or the ability to rebel; "I am."

This doesn't make sense to me. Why and how could electrical phenomena be self aware? they are just natural processes. So why bring this up in the first place?

Energy is power, it cannot comprehend, therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, or surroundings. In order to comprehend there must be a mind. To have a mind, there must be a brain so it can process, formulate, think, perceive, judge, grasp and understand.

Energy is Energy. Power is energy being converted.

To explain my theory I will start by saying many of the particles that are found in all living things came from the energy of the stars.

This is almost correct except that the particles do not come from the energy of the stars but from the leftovers of stars.
The sun is considered a star. The sun is also the Earths largest energy source. When thinking of energy and how life came into being,
The sun is a star.
we can use Einstein's famous equation mass in to energy: E=mc2.

It is not mass into energy it is mass-energy equivalence.

The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] Mass–energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement, or requirement, of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter, a more poorly defined idea in the physical sciences. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed, but the precursors and products of such reactions retain both the original mass and energy, both of which remain unchanged (conserved) throughout the process. Letting the m in E = mc2 stand for a quantity of "matter" may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2

In the beginning of creation subatomic particles assembled into atoms creating Hydrogen atoms which then vibrated into clumps under the force of gravity.

gravity is not a force. Refer to Einstein's general relativity.

In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion, and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground.[7][8] In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.

A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. As a star gets hotter in temperature, the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen are formed. As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium.

Stars glow quite simply because they are hot.

Light from Stars

Do stars give off light? If so, how?

Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.

Dr. Eric Christian

(September 2001)

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html#light

Stars do not produce iron until their final stage. In fact that is the marker for the final stage.

The final stage is reached when the star begins producing iron. Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy. Likewise, since they are more tightly bound than all lighter nuclei, energy cannot be released by fission.[68] In relatively old, very massive stars, a large core of inert iron will accumulate in the center of the star. The heavier elements in these stars can work their way up to the surface, forming evolved objects known as Wolf-Rayet stars that have a dense stellar wind which sheds the outer atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
The exploded remains from a supernova travel throughout the universe only to someday clump together with other stardust and give birth to a new star. This is the life of our universe: one energy source vibrates into another energy source until new life is formed.
A star is not "life", also the remains from supernovas can also form planets.

Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short-lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements. When these stars die with a bang they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe. New stars condense and new planets form from these heavier elements. The stage is set for life to begin. Understanding when and how these events occur offer another window on the evolution of life in our universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html

P.S. This energy is what I refer to as Source Energy, IMO this is God, The unconscious creator of life.:smart:

What energy exactly?

Edited by Blackthorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect. It shows a lack of understanding of what energy is and how it functions.

Subatomic particles are SUBatomic (sub means under). Subatmoic particles make up nucleons and atoms. Not the other way around. Are you confusing electrons with electricity?

As the reverend explained quite clearly and seemed to understand quite well,: "Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Energy works alone, its movement comes from its electrons." (Electrons can be made to move from one atom to another. When those electrons move between the atoms, a current of electricity is created.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle

Please quote a more reliable source.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why and how could electrical phenomena be self aware? they are just natural processes. So why bring this up in the first place?

As The reverend said, it could not be self aware. Reread and reflect. The reverend stated; "Energy is power it cannot comprehend therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, to comprehend one must have a mind. To have a mind one must have a brain so that they can process, formulate thinks, perceive, judge, grasp and understand. Energy does not have a brain."

Energy is power, it cannot comprehend, therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, or surroundings. In order to comprehend there must be a mind. To have a mind, there must be a brain so it can process, formulate, think, perceive, judge, grasp and understand.

Energy is Energy. Power is energy being converted.

This is almost correct except that the particles do not come from the energy of the stars but from the leftovers of stars.

Energy exists without the help of stars, stars are just one energy source. Radiant or solar energy, which comes from the light and warmth of the sun. Thermal energy, associated with the heat of an object.Chemical energy, stored in the chemical bonds of molecules. Electrical energy, associated with the movement of electrons.Electromagnetic energy, associated with light waves (including radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, infrared waves. Mass (or nuclear) energy, found in the nuclear structure of atoms.

The sun is a star.

Yes so the reverend Irma said.For millennia, humans considered the sun and the stars to be very different, but modern science proves they are fundamentally the same.

It is not mass into energy it is mass-energy equivalence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2

Again, please quote a more reliable source.Mass into energy by NASA;

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question13.html

Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?".[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite.

gravity is not a force. Refer to Einstein's general relativity.

Gravity is indeed a force

The force of Gravity by NASA;

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

To keep the Moon moving in that circle--rather than wandering off--the Earth must exert a pull on the Moon, and Newton named that pulling force gravity.

A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. As a star gets hotter in temperature, the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen are formed. As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium.

Stars glow quite simply because they are hot.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html#light

Stars glow because of their components. besides iron which glows at very hot temperatures, stars are filled with plasma. The high temperatures inside a star charge up the atoms and create plasma.Plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume. All stars are made of plasma, and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, Plasma consists of a collection of free moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma. The energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

Stars do not produce iron until their final stage. In fact that is the marker for the final stage.

This is exactly what the Reverend Irma confirmed. A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron. As a star gets hotter in temperature the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen are formed. As a star ages, it then fuses the helium with hydrogen to form lithium. Once a star has created enough iron it will burst inward with enough energy to immediately fuse some of the atoms into higher elements like Nickel, Krypton, Gold, Uranium. This quick and violent implosion releases an enormous amount of energy called a supernova! The supernova is at the END of the stars life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

There are much better sources to quote then Wiki.

A star is not "life", also the remains from supernovas can also form planets.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html

This is exactly what reverend Irma says. Supernova production of heavy elements over astronomic periods of time ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible.

(Every element heavier than iron, was produced in a supernova. This includes gold.)

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_supernova_important#ixzz1ApnRzprl

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_supernova_important#ixzz1ApnGYXwu

What energy exactly?

I believe the reverend was quite clear in stating the energy that she speaks of is the energy that formed creation. Since the answer to that is all speculation one can only presume it was partly the vacuum energy of space and the dark energy of the "Big Bang."

None the less, please be aware that your corrections on the Reverend Irma’s post are deviating from the truth, It appears your authority on this matter is a bit erroneous and inaccurate not to mention completely unbecoming and inappropriate. The reverend Irma quotes Carl Sagan the Founder and First President of The Planetary Society and consultant and adviser to NASA and you say she is incorrect?

Do you realize when you say that she is incorrect that you are also calling her source Carl Sagan incorrect?

How are you more of an authority on this matter then Carl Sagan? Are you aware that Carl Sagan briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets. He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperature of Venus (a massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (windblown dust) and the reddish haze of Titan (complex organic molecules).

For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA Medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and for Distinguished Public Service twice, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award.

Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him. He was also given the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolokovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonautics Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society:

To substantiate that The reverends information is accurate, please refer to the following reference material:

The sun is considered a star by; NASA;

http://sunearthday.gsfc.nasa.gov/2009/TTT/64_nearest.php

Energy and Electricity by NASA;

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/What_Is_Electricity.html

Energy and Electricity books;

http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/Problem_Board/problems/electricity/electricity2.html

Electricity By; Steve Parker and Laura Buller

What Is Electricity? By; Lisa Trumbauer

Edited by Messiah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

None the less, please be aware that your corrections on the Reverend Irma’s post are deviating from the truth, It appears your authority on this matter is a bit erroneous and inaccurate not to mention completely unbecoming and inappropriate. The reverend Irma quotes Carl Sagan the Founder and First President of The Planetary Society and consultant and adviser to NASA and you say she is incorrect?

Please show me how I am deviating from the truth and how I am in error.

edited for.

I'm sorry i didn't notice your posts inside of mine.

Edited by Blackthorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

As the reverend explained quite clearly and seemed to understand quite well,: "Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Energy works alone, its movement comes from its electrons." (Electrons can be made to move from one atom to another. When those electrons move between the atoms, a current of electricity is created.)

The parts in bold are not her words.

This is what she stated.

What I proposed is that only one thing was in existence, Energy. The one casual item in my theory is the fact that energy works alone and happens by chance. Energy has the ability to act on its own without the help or accompaniment of another force or aide.

Vibration is the natural state of energy for vibration is a wave of shaking, quivering, fluctuation, pulsing, reverberating motion caused by a force of power.

Electrical phenomena does not need another primordial force to exist. When I speak of energy I speak of the electric currents in the universe. Electricity is made up of subatomic particles composed of nucleons and atoms. These are what determines the electromagnetic interactions in energy.

Please quote a more reliable source.

sub·atom·ic

adj \-ə-ˈtä-mik\

Definition of SUBATOMIC

1

: of or relating to the inside of the atom

2

: of, relating to, or being particles smaller than atoms

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subatomic

Atoms are composed of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are not composed of atoms.

Atoms are composed of three type of particles: protons, neutrons, and electron. Protons and neutrons are responsible for most of the atomic mass e.g in a 150 person 149 lbs, 15 oz are protons and neutrons while only 1 oz. is electrons. The mass of an electron is very small (9.108 X 10-28 grams).

Both the protons and neutrons reside in the nucleus. Protons have a postive (+) charge, neutrons have no charge --they are neutral. Electrons reside in orbitals around the nucleus. They have a negative charge (-).

It is the number of protons that determines the atomic number, e.g., H = 1. The number of protons in an element is constant (e.g., H=1, Ur=92) but neutron number may vary, so mass number (protons + neutrons) may vary.

The same element may contain varying numbers of neutrons; these forms of an element are called isotopes. The chemical properties of isotopes are the same, although the physical properties of some isotopes may be different. Some isotopes are radioactive-meaning they "radiate" energy as they decay to a more stable form, perhaps another element half-life: time required for half of the atoms of an element to decay into stable form. Another example is oxygen, with atomic number of 8 can have 8, 9, or 10 neutrons.

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html

Her statement was;

Electricity is made up of subatomic particles composed of nucleons and atoms.

Atoms are composed of subatomic particles, as I said, it is not the other way around.

That reliable enough for you?

As The reverend said, it could not be self aware. Reread and reflect. The reverend stated; "Energy is power it cannot comprehend therefore it cannot be aware of its own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, to comprehend one must have a mind. To have a mind one must have a brain so that they can process, formulate thinks, perceive, judge, grasp and understand. Energy does not have a brain."

If you want to get philosophical I could argue against that but otherwise it is a statement that is obvious. which is why it is confusing to me that it even needs to be mentioned.

Energy exists without the help of stars, stars are just one energy source. Radiant or solar energy, which comes from the light and warmth of the sun. Thermal energy, associated with the heat of an object.Chemical energy, stored in the chemical bonds of molecules. Electrical energy, associated with the movement of electrons.Electromagnetic energy, associated with light waves (including radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, infrared waves. Mass (or nuclear) energy, found in the nuclear structure of atoms.

I am not sure what in my statements you are arguing or refuting against since they do not pertain to what you have stated as a correction of them. Please clarify for me what exactly you are arguing in my statement there.

Again, please quote a more reliable source.Mass into energy by NASA;

It is not mass into energy, it is mass-energy equivalence.

http://starchild.gsf...question13.html

Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?".[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite.

Sorry the link you gave doesn't work right now so thanks for copying and pasting.

I would like you to see the red text in your quote. This confirms what I have stated to be correct. It is not mass into energy it is mass-energy equivalence. Thanks for the help :)

Also here is a more reliable link for you.

By far, Einstein's best-known equation is "E=mc2 - energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared." According to this equation, any given amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy, and vice versa.

http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/speedoflight.html

Gravity is indeed a force

The force of Gravity by NASA;

http://www-istp.gsfc...ze/Sgravity.htm

To keep the Moon moving in that circle--rather than wandering off--the Earth must exert a pull on the Moon, and Newton named that pulling force gravity.

The current science on gravity is relativity by einstein. Which displaced newtons law of gravity.

The large ball will cause a deformation in the sheet's surface. A baseball dropped onto the sheet will roll toward the bowling ball. Einstein theorized that smaller masses travel toward larger masses not because they are "attracted" by a mysterious force, but because the smaller objects travel through space that is warped by the larger object. Physicists illustrate this idea using embedding diagrams.

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

One of the foremost pioneers of modern science, Isaac Newton developed his three laws of motion and a theory of gravity, not to mention the calculus needed to develop and express these theories in math! He set his concepts in a framework of space and time which he (like everyone else at that time) assumed to be absolute.

For two centuries that omission was overshadowed by his triumphs in celestial mechanics and optics.

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinLegacy.html

More on relativity;

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast3033/Relativity/GeneralRelativity.htm

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

This is exactly what the Reverend Irma confirmed. A star glows because the fusing atoms are releasing energy and creating iron.

This is not why stars glow

As I stated.

Stars do not produce iron until their final stage. In fact that is the marker for the final stage.

Stars glow before their final stage. They actually glow brighter before this stage. The iron being produced is not a reason they glow. it is quite simply because they are hot. Which you confirmed in your statement here.

Stars glow because of their components. besides iron which glows at very hot temperatures,

There are much better sources to quote then Wiki.

True but this does not make the information any less accurate. I did so for convenience as sorting through a ton of links to find information, I already possess, that is already presented in an easy format at wiki can be a hassle. I do not use wiki to display information that I have not already confirmed and checked out myself, at previous times, with more reliable sources. I also included links to other sources such as Nasa in that post.

This is exactly what reverend Irma says. Supernova production of heavy elements over astronomic periods of time ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible.
This is not exactly what she said. Just because you credit correct statements to her does not make her actual statements correct. I also don't believe you speak for her. Unless you have some sort of personal connection with her that i am not aware of.

The exploded remains from a supernova travel throughout the universe only to someday clump together with other stardust and give birth to a new star. This is the life of our universe: one energy source vibrates into another energy source until new life is formed.

This is what she stated. She never said that it "ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible." She did not reference life on earth she was refering to new stars being formed. Stars are not "life".

I am aware of carl sagans work and achievements. This does not make irma's statements correct.

Edited by Blackthorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me how I am deviating from the truth and how I am in error.

edited for.

I'm sorry i didn't notice your posts inside of mine.

This reply is going to bring this wonderful post sorely off track, however, since you responded and I am quite new here, there are somethings I find quite disturbing. Things that I have never encountered on other forums.

To answer your question; I hope you find the answers inside your last post satisfactory as to why I felt that you digressed, from the reverends original reasoning.

I come not to judge you but perhaps you do not realize how you seem to be representing yourself. I can tell you are an intelligent man and this is why I am so baffled by your remarks.

For the past four months I have been reading and observing many of the posts on this forum and from an impartial outsiders point of view I can’t help but notice that you and many others have misinterpreted and distorted information while choosing to give false or misleading information that misrepresents and exaggerates your own authority.

Reading your reply to a fellow reverend, I can only say that I am getting the impression that many of you enjoy prevaricating your answers by deliberately misstating, misconstruing, altering and, bending other people’s quotes incorrectly.

My words I speak in peace as I confess that in my opinion I see you speaking in curves while you allow your words to warp and pervert the truth. Again, read your responses carefully you’re words reinstate what has already been stated as if it was never stated at all.

To me this looks like you are trying to turn people away from what is acceptable or correct by confusing the issue. I am not determining what is acceptable by what is INDIVIDUALLY correct or right, I am determining what is acceptable by what behavior is fair to all.

By the disagreeable answers that you and many others here have given to members that supply valid sources and statements, I can only assume that these responses are well planned, purposeful vexations that are carefully worded to rile the speaker into a verbal battle of wills.

An example of this is your statement that; The Reverend Irma did not understand what she was speaking of and your statement stars glow just because there hot.

I am certain no one would speak of things they did not understand so why did you misread and misunderstand the most logical statements at another person’s chagrin?

The explanation given for energy and why stars glow was sound and reasonable and yet you dismissed and debunked it as if it had no validity. May I be so bold to ask why you feel that YOUR statements and opinions are CORRECT and others are not? I am certain you will ignore this question for the answer is obvious, you enjoy the game and the lure of catching a victim in your tormenting snare and it seems like any provocation will do. This of course is just friendly observation coupled with astounding realization.

I mean you no harm but do you enjoy your own peevishness? I find the game quite intellectually boring and depreciative.

What is your Incentive to keep it up? I have been noticing that a lot of these posts have been intellectually stimulating until someone of your scope and lack of restraint comes along and ruins their integrity by discrediting a fellow forum members beliefs with brazen insolence and impertinence. Blessed are the peacemakers yet there is no peace to be found in defaming words.

Many topics I would have enjoyed responding to, yet this demeaning behavior that so many here display has spoiled any chance of intellectual feedback. I mean no offense of course.

As a noble gesture I must say that surely others must notice this repetitive and continuous display of arrogance throughout this forum.

I am new here and noticed it immediately. In fact, it was your post that made me sign in and respond. Up until this point I was taking a backseat enjoying the intellectual flow of the conversation until it was completely interrupted by disrespectful, ambiguous, prevaricating, and irrelevant language and arguments that only accomplished evading the point of issue and getting the topic off tract.

It is so unpraisworthy to see such petty carping and criticism, such as calling peoples theories incorrect, this form of retorting is hardly valid objections. In fact, it is nothing more than contentious baiting and tempestuous onslaughts on a person’s good character.

Incidentally encyclopedias do not provide up to date information and therefore it is best to seek alternative resources when attempting to substantiate valid information. The best resources are those that provide direct knowledge on the subject at hand. Encyclopedias are sets of books containing articles on various topics, covering all branches of knowledge. All aspects of one subject are usually not covered in these types of resources and many times the information relayed is bias to the opinions of the researchers who are sharing the information with the resource directory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
I am new here and noticed it immediately. In fact, it was your post that made me sign in and respond.
Telling tales out of school now are we?

I recommend reviewing the Tos again.

Here is a link to it for you.

Edited by Blackthorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling tales out of school now are we?

I recommend reviewing the Tos again.

As I stated; I did not expect a sincere or intellectual reply. However,When quoting posts you must read the entire string. The post was concerning the beginning of life and consciousness.

So yes, she was referring to; how energy formed life on earth. reflection goes a long way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

As I stated; I did not expect a sincere or intellectual reply. However,When quoting posts you must read the entire string. The post was concerning the beginning of life and consciousness.

So yes, she was referring to; how energy formed life on earth. reflection goes a long way.

Perhaps you missed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

In the end, I believe we all wind up where we spent our whole lives imagining we would, by virtue of the creative thought process.

i.e if we believe in something, we create this belief as an imprint and it takes form and shape in the etheral plane where we will go to once we leave our vessel.

Could you please explain this concept further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please explain this concept further?

Yes. I believe we create what we think about. If we believe we will go to heaven and sit on the right side of Jesus (a belief of my catholic aunt), I believe we will indeed experience this.

If we believe there is nothing beyond the physical existence, we will not experience an after life.

The only variables that occur to change this are dependant on the state of mind we are in when we die, and how strong our belief is.

For instance, we may believe in the concept of heaven, yet if we die violently, in shock, the mind may be caught in a freeze frame of this emotion, and the result would be a recurrence of the event (a residual haunting).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Yes. I believe we create what we think about. If we believe we will go to heaven and sit on the right side of Jesus (a belief of my catholic aunt), I believe we will indeed experience this.

If we believe there is nothing beyond the physical existence, we will not experience an after life.

The only variables that occur to change this are dependant on the state of mind we are in when we die, and how strong our belief is.

For instance, we may believe in the concept of heaven, yet if we die violently, in shock, the mind may be caught in a freeze frame of this emotion, and the result would be a recurrence of the event (a residual haunting).

Thank you for the reply. I have heard similar views before and I find it to be an interesting thought.

Check out Quantam Death.

And if you study these groups the very first thing yo will notice is the word death is not in their vocabulary. They use the more conscious words “Transition, Journey, Awakening” etc.

And that is what it is. A transition from a physical reality to a non-physical reality. It is a reality for the Soul, because that is what we all are, indestructible Souls. According to the new laws of Quantum Physics we “Blink out” and “Blink back” into the Quantum Ocean.

Each “Blink in” is a physical reality for the Soul. Each “Blink out” is a spiritual reality for the Soul.

“Death,” to most people is a fearful journey into the unknown, because that is what they believe it to be.

But it does not have to be unknown. The Age of Aquarius, with it's new paradigm of the Laws of Spiritual Quantum Physics, gives us a way out from these false, fearful “Piscean beliefs.”

Another law of this new Age is that your belief system creates your reality.

If you are a Christian, and you believe you will go to Heaven or Hell, you will certainly go there. If you are Muslim, you will either go to Paradise or you won't.

A Native American will go to the Great Spirit in the sky.

A pagan Viking will go to Valhalla or Hel.

http://www.quantum-physics-spirituality.com/Quantum-Death.html

Based on what you have stated before I think you should also check out transcendentalism. If you haven't already.

Among transcendentalists' core beliefs was the belief in an ideal spiritual state that "transcends" the physical and empirical and is realized only through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions. The major figures in the movement were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Margaret Fuller, and Amos Bronson Alcott.[citation needed] Other prominent transcendentalists included Cyrus Bartol, Charles Timothy Brooks, Orestes Brownson, William Ellery Channing, William Henry Channing, James Freeman Clarke, Christopher Pearse Cranch, John Sullivan Dwight, Convers Francis, William Henry Furness, Frederic Henry Hedge, Sylvester Judd, Theodore Parker, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, George Ripley, and Jones Very.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Amulet locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.