Well there is a fungus (honey mushroom) that is said to be one organism.. and it covers over 3 square miles in OR. It wouldn't be 'illegal' cause if it were, I'd have a smile on my face as all those people who believe the universe is a living being get locked up.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9sCXlyxa8 We are always discovering new things.. and we might find that life can get even smaller one day. Not really sure where this was going actually, lol, but yeah.. with time comes new discoveries and new knowledge. Maybe one day when we are out exploring the universe we will find an organism whose eye ball is the size of the moon? Even trickier when you realize that something can't be dead without it first being alive. A rock will never die because it was never living.. and dead is a rather mixed definition. Obviously the universe (from a scientific stand point) can't be dead because it was never alive. Dead also means no longer functioning or active and lacking energy, which does not describe the universe.. at all. Like I said, the idea that science sees the universe as dead is a gross misinterpretation.
Ah, right! Forgot about the giant fungus. So that scales our "living bandwidth" up a bit. What I mean by "illegal" is whether or not it is socially acceptable to talk about or not. For instance, if I went around talking about how the planet Saturn is intelligent, there's a good chance I might get locked up, albeit in a slightly more padded cell. This looks progressive. So we cannot call it alive and we can't call is dead but can we call it aware or intelligent? One other thing about that 2nd episode of Cosmos that sorta stuck out for me was the way he explained the process of Natural Selection and how the environment essentially carved out all of the diversification we see through all of the manifestation of species who have adapted to environment changes. The way he described it really seemed to personify the environment as though it were doing something intelligent. And so the thought of "why can't the environment be intelligent and aware?" came up. Neil says that 'random mutations' are essentially one of the main reasons why there seems to be no sign of intelligence behind (physical) evolution but I find this reasoning to be very short sighted and wrong. And what it the real sign of intelligence? How can we identify something expressing intelligence to us? What about...shapes. Say if I had a dog and I was able to teach it how to draw the outline of shapes in the dirt. And I say "come over here and check this out". And my dog, on command, draws out a more or less symmetrical form of a hexagon in the dirt. What would you say about the intelligence level of the dog? What if we were exploring the asteroid belt, and we happened upon a hexagonal shaped asteroid. How would that make you feel? Alright, so what in this universe can express the shape of a hexagon? 1.) People can express the hexagon. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/225180050088042345/ 2.) The atmospheric environment of the Earth can express the hexagon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake#/media/File:Bentley_Snowflake1.jpg 3.) The planet Saturn can express the hexagon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzL194jiTyY Now that's intelligent! Neat-O. ------
Well, it's not really my belief.. someone who holds the belief would have to chime in, but as with all belief systems.. those who hold it can pick and choose. Some might see it all as God, some might see an intelligent universe that is apart from God.. Personally, no.. you cannot because there is no actual evidence for it being aware or intelligent. The only evidence you'll find is personal evidence, such as below with Saturn's hexagon and snowflakes. To me and people who don't hold a supernatural belief, Saturn's hexagon, snowflakes, and any and all natural events are just that, natural occurrences. As to how they occur could still be a mystery and you'd probably ask "well if you don't know how it happens, how do you know it's not God or some other supernatural concept?" and I would say that I don't know, but I don't have any supernatural beliefs and in order for me to believe there is a supernatural cause, I am going to need to see evidence for it. Pisser of it is though, if a supernatural concept has evidence.. then it's not really supernatural, it would be part of the natural world. Just like evolution, it is a natural occurrence. Random mutations are one of the main factors. Genes mutate all the time, but through natural selection the bad mutations get weeded out. Say you have a cute lil green jumping spider who is pregnant. She has 100 babies.. 96 which are green, 1 that had a random mutation to make it black, 1 that was red, 1 that was yellow, and one that was blue. The green ones can already blend into all the plants around them, the black one can hunt in the shadows easier, the red one sticks out and gets eaten right away, the yellow one find a yellow flower to hide in, and the blue one gets eaten too. Since blue and red were bad mutations, they got naturally selected. Black and yellow lived in it's new hunting grounds.. but the black one can't find a green spider to mate with it, so their genes die off. The yellow one mates and half their offspring are yellow and half are green. The yellow ones will stick to the yellow flowers and more than likely only mate with yellow spiders once established and eventually go through their own mutations to make them even more specialized. That's the thing about random mutations, they are random.. so it could be 10 bad mutations til one that is beneficial occurs or 10 billion bad mutations til there is a beneficial one. Nature is a bitch though, not intelligent or guided.. it is chaos where only the strong survive, the order from the chaos. So those bad mutations typically get knocked off in a hurry.. As for evolving from one species to another.. it's pretty much the same as the above example only drawn out over insane spans of time. Life more than likely began in the oceans.. so life started swimming. As the oceans filled, life got pushed further and further inland. In the shallow waters, fish had to evolve a better way to move around the sea floor.. which turned into limbs used to walk and sift through the shallow sea floor. Then there was a random mutation that allowed a fish to take a few steps on land.. and from that started a chain reaction of life evolving from fish in the sea.. to amphibious fish that lived in the sea but can walk on land.. to amphibians who live on land but have to stay near water.. to reptiles with thicker skin and hard shelled eggs to where they won't dehydrate and can live away from water.. right on up to rodents and bigger mammals. You can literally see all the stages of evolution alive today.. it's a never ending process, just takes a long time. The fact that it is more or less a haphazard, chaotic mess where the weak get weeded out and the strong survive is more than enough for someone who doesn't hold a supernatural belief to see no signs that there some sort of all encompassing intelligence guiding it all.
This is the hypothesis for the hexagon on Saturn. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140408074827.htm
I think i made it to episode 2 as well. I thought it was garbage aside from the visuals. Imo Tyson is a tool/shill revelling in the cult of authority. More on saturn http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html
Well I'm not laughing at you as I have experienced enough in life to come to know that I ultimately know nothing, so if you were to make a thread about your ideas I would read it. ------
In my experiences I have found this to be untrue, as there is a pattern in nature, or better stated within the fabric of animated reality, that calibrates itself around the growth of human consciousness. The danger of dealing in generalizations, labels, and more importantly stereotypical thought processes is that you risk missing critical details that are not represented through the generalizations of stereotyping or labeling something. If you think of your brain as a transducive computer which takes in all informationally based inputs and renders an output "picture of reality", the brain that runs on Stereotypical Thought Processes v4.0 would render a picture of reality that would be similar (analogous) to the graphic capabilities and resolutions of an Atari game console from the early '80's. Big block style pixels and few colors (not much detail because it accepts all assumptions). On the other hand the mind that runs an operating system called Critical Thinking Processes v7.1 will render a far greater detailed view of reality simply because it will question any and all (even the ones that might be socially uncomfortable to question) assumptions and will continue to question, which in turn produces far more of a detailed and thus a clearer picture of reality because it's resolution is much finer. So instead of an "Atari generated picture of reality", you'd have a "Cray 5 generated picture of realty". You get to chose what operating system your brain runs on. So can all of this play out within the motivation of a living universe which wants to create something (us) which has the capability of getting to know itself? I don't see why it cannot be. One more thing about labels...Evolution Theorists label that which "the environment" affects as "Natural Selection" whilst any effect that humans make is labeled "Artificial Selection", yet human are a naturally occuring product of the universe as we are grown out of it, which would logically make anything we create just as natural. To me a better label would be "Main Motivational Evolver" (universe) and "Sub Motivational Evolver" (humans). ------
String Theory is based upon the idea that at the heart of the "smallest particle" lies a vibrating band of energy. And that the frequency of the vibration of this theorized band of energy dictates the form that matter takes. I'm not exactly sure where mainstream science stands on the topic of Cymatics, but here it is on a bench test... http://youtu.be/GtiSCBXbHAg Seeing as the article you posted says that the hexagonal structure on Saturn appears to be deeply rooted to the planet, I would strongly suspect that the form is a result of the planet "singing". I wonder if it knows any other tunes. : ) ------
That sounds like Sagan. Sagan used the court of public opinion (stereotypical thought processors) to try and surpress Robert Temple and his work on the Dogon Tribe and more importantly what the Dogon Tribe was aware of... http://www.robert-temple.com/papers/Sirius-AnswerCritics.html ------
Belief is not required and 6,000 years is pretty close. "The World" is NOT the planet. "The World" is our shared understanding of our situation, which is made of words. Written words first appeared some 5,000 years ago and ever since we've been using more and more words to get a more accurate understating of our situation. And "The World" ends (apocalypse) when we stop using words to explain "The World". ------
So you're saying the "6,000" doesn't refer to the age of earth but rather to the "next era" or humanity, being this one?
Yes, I believe the world is around 6000 years old from studying the bible, and other sources of information, which I believe is scientific evidence for our existence.
But isn't the 6,000 years theory based on the life span and order of the people mentioned in the bible beginning with Adam around the time the world was created. The bible doesn't talk about creating a mindset but rather the creation of the entire universe. The bible doesn't say outright the world is six thousands years old. This is only assessed when you take all those prophets into account. You start with Jesus (around 2000 years ago) and track the past based on, what basically is, a family tree. The geological findings show that this is impossible. Like the fact that we're finding the fossils from identical creatures in both S. America and Africa. We know that these two continents we're one before being split due to continental drift. Unless you believe God put those creatures on both continents, or that the continents used to travel at much higher speeds. By the way that's how mountains form. Tectonic plates collide but keep moving so they end up moving up. If it takes a mountain 6k years to form we should be able to see considerable difference in height in a matter of decades.
If our universe was made by the Big Bang then why don't we see solar systems, planets, or stars today forming? We have never seen a star form, only die.
All I'm saying is that our shared understanding is based upon words and the sequence we put them in. And that written words emerged 5,000 years ago. That is my only point here. ------
The formation of a star is a long process that scientists have seen and analyzed many times. Right now scientists are looking at stars taking their shape. And they have been watching it for years. You and I on earth can't see this. These events happen too far. The fact that our planet is covered by light pollution just lowers our chances of seeing the grandiosity of heaven. The death of a star is also a long process but it ends with a boom. Strong explosion and radiation shooting straight into space. Scientists have both seen the explosions and measured the radiation from them. I don't see the correlation between the big bang and stars forming tho. The big bang was not caused by a star. What I'd like to know is why God would create trillions of stars, planets, nebulae, galaxies etc. How does any of that fit into God's plan? We can barely see stars outside of our own galaxy. So they don't benefit us whatsoever.
According to the bible it all stars with the creation - six thousand years ago. Am I to understand then that you do not believe the age of our planet to be 6k yrs?