Not a God, a creator.

[cyborg]

That is pure conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever. What seed?

It all rather sounds like a spiritual notion of hard determinism to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

And that is why I harp on the human thing, they represent a new level of the process.

So what is the dividing line between the "old" level and the "new" level? What is it that quantatively changes to make something a "new" level?

In short, define consciousness.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

That is pure conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever. What seed?

Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.

This is another statement that is very limited. It is quite possible (some say likely) that intelligent life exists in other places in the universe, maybe even preceding humans on Earth.

Of course life exists in other parts of the universe, wherever the conditions are ripe. Humans represent a revolutionary level. I do not (and never have) believed that they are the purpose of the process. They can't be. The process will still be here when they are long gone.

Again, don't be so proud of big brains. They may not prove to be such a great adaptive trait.

Especially if they think of a way to destroy 4 billion years of work.

That you think there is a creator and it is intelligent indicates that you are still fitting things to your very human viewpoint.

I think light created life, but it does not have to be intelligent to have done it. It may just have been lucky enough to have the right characteristics.

There is no evidence that the universe is intelligent at all, even though intelligence is certainly a part of it. From what we can see, it is a very small part.

The evolutionary process is intelligent.

Well, I give you credit for recognizing this, because this is exactly how you seem to behave. It seems to me that you seek greater significance in the universe because you can't seem to bear the thought that it simply does not, and cannot, care.

I am not trying to get the universe to care, as you said, it can't. I am not even trying to get human kind to care. What I am seeking is to put forth my agenda-like it or not. Some will, and some won't.

 

[arthwollipot]

The evolutionary process is intelligent.

Really? By what criteria?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

So what is the dividing line between the "old" level and the "new" level? What is it that quantatively changes to make something a "new" level?

There is a level between organic, and inorganic. Life gave the process a whole nother set of options.

In short, define consciousness.

Awareness. Something that allowed humans to seek their own agenda. That agenda has spurred the creation of all things man-made. Things that includes the creation of new forms of life, and new elements. Things done in a fraction of the time that nature would have.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Really? By what criteria?

Network intelligence.

 

[Tricky]

Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.

No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.

Of course life exists in other parts of the universe, wherever the conditions are ripe.

How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.

Humans represent a revolutionary level.

How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?

I do not (and never have) believed that they are the purpose of the process. They can't be. The process will still be here when they are long gone.

Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?

Especially if they think of a way to destroy 4 billion years of work.

Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how? It is quite unlikely that humans will destroy all life on earth, but even if they somehow manage to do so, well, humans are creatures created by nature, so doing so would not be unnatural. No, I'm not in favor of it, but that is because I like having humans here. Call me selfish.

I think light created life, but it does not have to be intelligent to have done it. It may just have been lucky enough to have the right characteristics.

Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it. If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.

The evolutionary process is intelligent.

I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.

I am not trying to get the universe to care, as you said, it can't. I am not even trying to get human kind to care. What I am seeking is to put forth my agenda-like it or not. Some will, and some won't.

I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.

 

[wollery]

Sure there is evidence, if the universal constants were different, there would be no universe. They are "fine tuned" just right-on purpose, or by accident.

Wrong. Anthropocentrism again. We, as humans, would not be here if the constants were different, and there might not be life at all, but there would definitely be a Universe.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.

Fined tuned could also be something "throwing out" or "moving pass" what didn't work to settle on what does.

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.

This smacks of that "bogus" cry for evidence thing that was taked about in another thread.

How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.

Come on. With the same conditions, we should get about the same results. That is unless we are considering magic.

How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?

What about the life here?

Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?

When it has to do with non-human life, I think it is called direction, and the direction is towards more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how?

Sure, why not.

It is quite unlikely that humans will destroy all life on earth, but even if they somehow manage to do so, well, humans are creatures created by nature, so doing so would not be unnatural. No, I'm not in favor of it, but that is because I like having humans here. Call me selfish.

Sure it would be natural, I just hope it does not happen, but I fear it can be done.

Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it.

Like it being the soul?

If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.

Still the soul though.

I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.

Humans are intelligent, and there are a lot of dead ends there too. And appearance isn't everything.

I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.

Light creating life is a small part of my agenda. As soon as I feel I "somewhat" know what I am talking about, I am going to use a small bit of "slant of hand" (a number code) to put ID into the school system. I'll leave it to you all and the courts to get it out. Only, since I am going to donate the profits to neighborhood schools, I might have a lot of parents trying to keep it in. I'm guessing they will be more concerned with what I am doing, than what I am saying. But who knows, they may like what I am saying.

 

[Tricky]

No, if they are "fine tuned", then it can't be by accident. Tuning, like creating, is a conscious action.

Fined tuned could also be something "throwing out" or "moving pass" what didn't work to settle on what does.

Both of which are conscious actions. They are not "accidents".

In order for you to claim this as evidence, you must show that they could be different. I'm guessing you can't do that. You can only post a "what if". Hypothetical statements are not evidence.

This smacks of that "bogus" cry for evidence thing that was taked about in another thread.

If you think that a call for evidence is "bogus", then that says a lot about your philosophy. It is religious, not scientific.

How do you know this? I say it is possible, but we have little or no evidence.

Come on. With the same conditions, we should get about the same results. That is unless we are considering magic.

It is quite possible, but we still don't know. And we certainly don't know what characteristics life and intelligence would have under other circumstances. You're treating it as if it would be just like human intelligence.

How do you know this, unless you have extraterrestrial life to compare them to? Do you?

What about the life here?

What about it? It has become (overall) more complex. So have minerals. Let's face it. Everything new is "revolutionary". Human intelligence is revolutionary, but whether or not the revolution has long-term survival advantage is very much in question. As revolutions go, breathing air was much more important.

Why do you think the process has a purpose? Is that your human brain overlaying its own meaning onto non-human things again?

When it has to do with non-human life, I think it is called direction, and the direction is towards more complex forms of energy, matter, and information.

Yes, things trend to more complexity, but that does not mean "purpose". What purpose is served when a mixture of sand, silt and mud is dropped into water and it sorts itself into more complex layers? It is simply controlled by physical laws.

Blue green algae destroyed the earth. They changed it so radically that the things that lived there before could barely live there afterward. Do you want to know how?

Sure, why not.

They ate carbon dioxide and pooped oxygen. The reason we have so much free oxygen on the planet is because of these organisms. Unfortunately for them, blue-green algae cannot live in oxygen, so they literally died in their own poop. They still exist (in places with no free oxygen) but they once were the masters of earth.

Or maybe life comes about to fit the characteristics it has to deal with. Light was there. Life adapted around it.

Like it being the soul?

Sorry, that makes no sense. What do you think a soul is?

If light had had different characteristics, then life might have evolved around those characteristics.

Still the soul though.

As I say, yours are religious beliefs, not scientific. I don't contest your right to hold religious beliefs. Don't try to pawn them off as science.

I don't see how you can look at all the evolutionary dead ends (which far outnumber the continuing lines) and make such an outlandish statement. Evolution, to all appearance, is literally dumb as dirt.

Humans are intelligent, and there are a lot of dead ends there too. And appearance isn't everything.

Still, this is strong evidence against your claim of evolution being "intelligent. Intelligent things don't make so many mistakes.

I don't think many will accept your agenda. Theists won't like it because it isn't their brand of magic. Skeptics won't like it because it is still magic. You don't have much of a demographic for your agenda.

Light creating life is a small part of my agenda. As soon as I feel I "somewhat" know what I am talking about, I am going to use a small bit of "slant of hand" (a number code) to put ID into the school system. I'll leave it to you all and the courts to get it out. Only, since I am going to donate the profits to neighborhood schools, I might have a lot of parents trying to keep it in. I'm guessing they will be more concerned with what I am doing, than what I am saying. But who knows, they may like what I am saying.

I find it unlikely that you are going to have significant profits. You have no market for your religion. How much have you raised so far?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Both of which are conscious actions. They are not "accidents".

When an element settles into a stable pattern, that can be said to be "fine tuning." Are you saying that that is a conscious action?

If you think that a call for evidence is "bogus", then that says a lot about your philosophy. It is religious, not scientific.

You know I can't test the results of changing the universal constants. And you know that the universe would not be the same place without them.

It is quite possible, but we still don't know. And we certainly don't know what characteristics life and intelligence would have under other circumstances.

I said under the same conditions as happened here-on earth. Are you saying that the natural conditions here are unique in all the universe? Science is looking for similiar conditions in space in their search for life.

You're treating it as if it would be just like human intelligence.

Isn't intelligence, intelligence?

What about it? It has become (overall) more complex. So have minerals.

Right, the evolutionary process trends towards more complex in everything, not just life. Non-life is part of the process, some people just think evolution starts with life.

Let's face it. Everything new is "revolutionary". Human intelligence is revolutionary, but whether or not the revolution has long-term survival advantage is very much in question. As revolutions go, breathing air was much more important.

It has served them so far, and some think humans can't exist without it. Intelligence gives humans the advantage of moving under ground, or under water, and perhaps even into space, if they mess up the land too much.

Yes, things trend to more complexity, but that does not mean "purpose". What purpose is served when a mixture of sand, silt and mud is dropped into water and it sorts itself into more complex layers? It is simply controlled by physical laws.

Yes, intelligence came about due to natural laws. And why you keep talking about "purpose"?

They ate carbon dioxide and pooped oxygen. The reason we have so much free oxygen on the planet is because of these organisms. Unfortunately for them, blue-green algae cannot live in oxygen, so they literally died in their own poop. They still exist (in places with no free oxygen) but they once were the masters of earth.

I knew that, though I thought they breathed out oxygen. With that in mind though, aren't we destined to do the same thing by pooping methane? And who was it that they killed off in order to takeover the planet?

Sorry, that makes no sense. What do you think a soul is?

The "how" and "why" behind the drama.

As I say, yours are religious beliefs, not scientific. I don't contest your right to hold religious beliefs. Don't try to pawn them off as science.

Sorry, science can't cross that line.

Still, this is strong evidence against your claim of evolution being "intelligent. Intelligent things don't make so many mistakes.

Why would intelligence rule out mistakes? Especially with a process that is about finding the best means of survival? It does not "know" already (no matter how smart) it has to find them.

I find it unlikely that you are going to have significant profits.

I'm betting that you are wrong. I bet you doubted Dr Dino too?

You have no market for your religion.

There is always a market, even if one has to be created. I intend to use something rarely tried-generosity. Loving me isn't going to be hard at all.

How much have you raised so far?

Profit isn't my only motive. I have to sharpen the axe first, then I'll cut open the money bag.

 

[Tricky]

When an element settles into a stable pattern, that can be said to be "fine tuning." Are you saying that that is a conscious action?

If it just happens on it's own, that is not tuning. Tuning is a conscious recognition of something that could be fixed or improved.

You know I can't test the results of changing the universal constants. And you know that the universe would not be the same place without them.

So essentially, you're creating a hypothetical situation which you know cannot exist. Universal constants simply are what they are. It is meaningless to speculate on what things would be like if they were otherwise. You don't know. You can't know.

I said under the same conditions as happened here-on earth. Are you saying that the natural conditions here are unique in all the universe? Science is looking for similiar conditions in space in their search for life.

As you are probably aware, the situation on earth is a very careful balancing act between many factors. If life elsewhere exists, it might be completely different. It might, for example, be silicon based rather than carbon based.

Isn't intelligence, intelligence?

I couldn't say. I only have experience with intelligence on earth. Lots of sci-fi stories deal with other kinds of intelligence, but how possible they really are, I can't say. I am perfectly happy with "I don't know", as an answer to this question.

Right, the evolutionary process trends towards more complex in everything, not just life. Non-life is part of the process, some people just think evolution starts with life.

Not necessarily. Stability is what matters. Stability is what makes things maintain their existence. That stability can be very simple, such as a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion for billions of years, or as complex as a molecule of DNA that falls into different paths of reproducing itself. In the universe as a whole, the "DNA" form of stability is quite uncommon, based on everything we know. Therefore, it is hard to make a case for the universe "striving" for this kind of complexity.

But on the word "evolution" we are in agreement. Evolution simply means "change over time". In recent years, the word has been co-opted to mean "biologic evolution", but the word existed before the knowledge of biologic evolution. Still, for the sake of clear communication, I make it a point to point out to others when I am talking about a kind of evolution other than biologic.

It has served them so far, and some think humans can't exist without it. Intelligence gives humans the advantage of moving under ground, or under water, and perhaps even into space, if they mess up the land too much.

Intelligence has proved to be a temporary advantage for humans, much like pooping oxygen was for blue-green algae. The real measure of success, in a universal sense, is stability. In this sense, humans are much less successful (so far) than dinosaurs.

Yes, intelligence came about due to natural laws. And why you keep talking about "purpose"?

You brought it up. See post 163.

I knew that, though I thought they breathed out oxygen. With that in mind though, aren't we destined to do the same thing by pooping methane? And who was it that they killed off in order to takeover the planet?

Technically, they excreted it. Breathing is a process of excreting carbon dioxide. Humans don't excrete much methane, unlike cows. Mostly we burn methane, but both methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gasses.

As for who they "killed off", there were other organisms on earth before blue-green algae, although BGA are among the most primative of organisms. Who they mostly killed off was themselves.

Sorry, science can't cross that line.

No, and religion can't cross that line either. Yet many religious people try to cross the line into science, as countless creationists have done in opposing teaching of evolution and as you have done on your website.

Why would intelligence rule out mistakes? Especially with a process that is about finding the best means of survival? It does not "know" already (no matter how smart) it has to find them.

Intelligence learns. You might expect a few mistakes at the beginning, but as evolution progresses, you would expect fewer if evolution were intelligent. That has not been the case. There are just as many extinctions in the more recent life as there have been in more ancient life. What has evolution "learned"? To create an intelligent species that may wipe itself out in short order, along with many other species? You must be kidding.

I'm betting that you are wrong. I bet you doubted Dr Dino too?

Well, don't bet too much. Dr. Dino had a target market(Christians). You don't have anything like that. Besides, Dr. Dino is in jail right now.

There is always a market, even if one has to be created. I intend to use something rarely tried-generosity. Loving me isn't going to be hard at all.

Based on the reaction here, it's going to be extremely hard to love you. And if you don't think generosity has been often tried, you haven't paid much attention. Besides, what are you going to be generous with? How are you going to get it?

Profit isn't my only motive. I have to sharpen the axe first, then I'll cut open the money bag.

Well, don't quit your day job.

 

[thoth108]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman. If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective. There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.

 

[wollery]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman.

I'm not going to read a whole book, I don't have the time. Perhaps you could introduce some of his arguments here for discussion.

If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective.

There are always questions. If you don't have questions then you aren't thinking. Science is all about questions. I should know, I'm a research scientist, and the most interesting things aren't the discoveries or the answers, but the new questions they bring.

There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.

Such as?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

This is an interesting debate. I'd like to throw somethings in here though:

As for the existence of a soul, see "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" by Dr. Rick Strassman. If you have questions after that, then maybe you're being too cynical in your approach to science, and need to be more objective. There is more evidence for the existence of a soul than there is against it if you open your eyes.

I'm going to read the book (I need all the ammo I can get) till then, I'll listen to anything you say about it here.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

If it just happens on it's own, that is not tuning. Tuning is a conscious recognition of something that could be fixed or improved.

The universe may be a conscious effort.

So essentially, you're creating a hypothetical situation which you know cannot exist. Universal constants simply are what they are. It is meaningless to speculate on what things would be like if they were otherwise. You don't know. You can't know.

I have read where people have said that "if the strength of the forces were different..." and that is what I was referring to. And it is not meaningless to speculate. If we were closer to the sun, the conditions here would be different.

As you are probably aware, the situation on earth is a very careful balancing act between many factors. If life elsewhere exists, it might be completely different. It might, for example, be silicon based rather than carbon based.

Different, but recognized as life. And I'll stick with finding the conditions for carbon based life-it must be out there somewhere.

I couldn't say. I only have experience with intelligence on earth. Lots of sci-fi stories deal with other kinds of intelligence, but how possible they really are, I can't say. I am perfectly happy with "I don't know", as an answer to this question.

I'm speculating that intelligence is intelligence.

Not necessarily. Stability is what matters. Stability is what makes things maintain their existence. That stability can be very simple, such as a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion for billions of years, or as complex as a molecule of DNA that falls into different paths of reproducing itself. In the universe as a whole, the "DNA" form of stability is quite uncommon, based on everything we know. Therefore, it is hard to make a case for the universe "striving" for this kind of complexity.

Stability of what? More complex structures. We have the structure of simple elements, and then the more complex ones. We have that even before we reach life. And by the way, since there is a process that produces the elements, why wouldn't life be expected to come from that same process-especially since it already has.

gence has proved to be a temporary advantage for humans, much like pooping oxygen was for blue-green algae. The real measure of success, in a universal sense, is stability. In this sense, humans are much less successful (so far) than dinosaurs.

So if you caught the dinosaurs 50,000 years into their reign, you would have said the same about them.

You brought it up. See post 163.

And I dropped it for the word "direction" in reference to non-life.

Intelligence learns. You might expect a few mistakes at the beginning, but as evolution progresses, you would expect fewer if evolution were intelligent. That has not been the case. There are just as many extinctions in the more recent life as there have been in more ancient life. What has evolution "learned"? To create an intelligent species that may wipe itself out in short order, along with many other species? You must be kidding.

The process is intelligent, it seeks the best mode of survival. Individual lifeforms "feel" their way in reference to it.
The process was intelligent enough to allow for a way to encode a way to maintain what it built. The DNA code was a smart thing to do.

Well, don't bet too much.

Did you think he would get as far as he did?

Dr. Dino had a target market(Christians). You don't have anything like that.

My target is the ID debate, getting it into schools. What I got is nicely suited for that.

Besides, Dr. Dino is in jail right now.

That takes nothing away from what he pulled off. And learning from his experience, I'll pay my taxes.

Based on the reaction here, it's going to be extremely hard to love you.

Come on, here is not the norm. To most of the world, death is the opposite of life, negative is the opposite of positive, etc, etc. I am going to leave it to you all to explain why they are not.

And if you don't think generosity has been often tried, you haven't paid much attention.

Generosity with money, trumps most other types.

Besides, what are you going to be generous with? How are you going to get it?

If you notice, my site is not trying to sell anything, I made it to draw the fire it has. Once I feel that I am ready, I am going to gear up, using all I have learned. Then, all I have to do is draw attention to it. I'm going to do that by putting the number code attached to it into the school system, (I can pay several of their football teams to do that) media attention will do the rest.
I won't be exploiting kids, because I will donate the profit to them-I'll direct where it will go though. I will get my "splash" and neighborhood schools will get an additional, more dynamic, source of income. I'll even donate the number code to anyone who wishes to do the same thing where they are.

Well, don't quit your day job.

At least not yet.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Any citation for that?

Even without citation, it is obvious that the process has moved in the direction of more complex forms, but The Conquest of Energy says: "For more than four billion years before man appeared on earth, nature had been experimenting in the endless processes of evolution, building up ever more complex patterns of matter which guided the flow of energy into ever more diverse channels.
First, large numbers of the protons and neutrons which the elementary universe contained gathered to form the stable nuclei we know, and about each nucleus clustered as many electrons as its electrical attraction would permit it to hold. Thus were formed more than a hundred varieties of atoms-today, plus perhaps some others that have since become unstable and disappeared."

 

[wollery]

Even without citation, it is obvious that the process has moved in the direction of more complex forms, but The Conquest of Energy says: "For more than four billion years before man appeared on earth, nature had been experimenting in the endless processes of evolution, building up ever more complex patterns of matter which guided the flow of energy into ever more diverse channels.
First, large numbers of the protons and neutrons which the elementary universe contained gathered to form the stable nuclei we know, and about each nucleus clustered as many electrons as its electrical attraction would permit it to hold. Thus were formed more than a hundred varieties of atoms-today, plus perhaps some others that have since become unstable and disappeared."

Well, that quote proves quite conclusively that he doesn't have the first clue about physics, in particular nucleosynthesis, and that he couldn't be bothered to actually research it or even ask someone. Only hydrogen existed in large quantities in the early Universe, with traces of helium, deuterium, tritium, and lithium. It took stars to produce heavier elements (up to oxygen) and a second generation of stars to produce the rest, many only produced in supernovae.

Furthermore the statement about some elements forming and then later becoming unstable and disappearing is pure speculation with absolutely no basis in any physics that I know of.

The man hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

 

[Tricky]

The universe may be a conscious effort.

The only conscious things yet discovered have been living organisms. The universe has (so far) exhibited none of the hallmarks of consciousness. Of course, it may yet be conscious, but based on evidence so far, it is unlikely to the n'th degree.

I have read where people have said that "if the strength of the forces were different..." and that is what I was referring to. And it is not meaningless to speculate. If we were closer to the sun, the conditions here would be different.

We know that planets can be closer to the sun. Two of them are. We don't know that universal constants can be different. But when I say 'meaningless to speculate', I meant that it is not meaningful to expect that they are different somewhere else. Certainly for the purpose of illustration, you can say "what if the speed of light were 100 miles per hour?" but you don't really expect that such a thing happens, or can happen.

Different, but recognized as life. And I'll stick with finding the conditions for carbon based life-it must be out there somewhere.

It could be. It might even be statistically likely. However, it is incorrect to say that it must be. However, even if statistically likely, it is still much more likely that life as we know it is relatively rare in the universe. I love reading science fiction. I don't forget that it is fiction.

I'm speculating that intelligence is intelligence.

Speculate away, but unless you have evidence, don't expect that your speculations will be given much weight.

Stability of what? More complex structures. We have the structure of simple elements, and then the more complex ones. We have that even before we reach life. And by the way, since there is a process that produces the elements, why wouldn't life be expected to come from that same process-especially since it already has.

Not necessarily. As you point out, conditions could be different. We know, for example, that silicon-based computer chips are capable of "remembering". Could they somehow become that way on their own? Could other things? Remember, the universe is a big old laboratory where lots of "experiments" may be going on.

So if you caught the dinosaurs 50,000 years into their reign, you would have said the same about them.

Nevertheless, we know they were extant for many millions of years. The same is not true of humans.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the story of the young baseball pitcher who plays in his first major league game. He gets the first batter out, but the second one hits a home run deep into the bleachers. "Dang", says the kid, "You messed up my no-hitter."

The process is intelligent, it seeks the best mode of survival. Individual lifeforms "feel" their way in reference to it.

You have not shown that it "seeks" anything. You are looking at the results and then imagining how they arrived there.

The process was intelligent enough to allow for a way to encode a way to maintain what it built. The DNA code was a smart thing to do.

The process was so stupid it took hundreds of millions of years to get the first life to appear. All you have shown is that DNA is complex. You have not shown that something intelligent made it that way. Remember the experiment with the sediments sorting themselves.

Did you think he would get as far as he did?

Based on the fact that I have seen religious con-men get rich many times before, I'm not terribly surprised. But they have an audience. You do not.

My target is the ID debate, getting it into schools. What I got is nicely suited for that.

As the case in Pennsylvania showed, proponents of Intelligent Design are not looking for a new way of explaining how things work. They are looking to get Christianity into schools. Your ideas are not compatible with Christianity (or any other major religion) and contrary to science. You have little hope of ever getting a following.

That takes nothing away from what he pulled off. And learning from his experience, I'll pay my taxes.

I'm guessing you won't earn enough of of this project to be subject to taxes. No offense, but in my opinion, you are not clever enough to perpetrate a successful scam and your ideas are not supportable enough to get a following any other way.

Come on, here is not the norm. To most of the world, death is the opposite of life, negative is the opposite of positive, etc, etc. I am going to leave it to you all to explain why they are not.

We spent many pages on this on your original thread. I don't see any reason to rehash it here.

Generosity with money, trumps most other types.

Where are you going to get the money? From whom? Do you think collecting a bunch of money and then giving some of it back is can be called "generous"? I'm telling you, this has been done countless times before. Eva Peron did it. She wasn't a very nice person.

If you notice, my site is not trying to sell anything, I made it to draw the fire it has.

Yes, it has drawn fire. What sort of positive attention has it drawn?

Once I feel that I am ready, I am going to gear up, using all I have learned. Then, all I have to do is draw attention to it.

How do you plan to do that? Who are your backers?

I'm going to do that by putting the number code attached to it into the school system, (I can pay several of their football teams to do that) media attention will do the rest.

Pay them with what? The money you don't have? And if you think getting your ideas into the school curriculum is an easy thing to do, all I can say is that you are hopelessly naive. You will need supporters. Lots of them. I cannot see that you have any.

I won't be exploiting kids, because I will donate the profit to them-I'll direct where it will go though.

About this "profit" that you will be donating. Where is it going to come from? The kids' parents? Will you be charging the school system for your ideas? The local government? Will you be taking a bunch of their money and then giving some of it back? If you expect anybody to give you money for your ideas, you are going to have to be a whole lot more convincing than you are now. Maybe if you say "it's for Jesus" then you could get somewhere. You could wind up like Dr. Dino.

I will get my "splash" and neighborhood schools will get an additional, more dynamic, source of income. I'll even donate the number code to anyone who wishes to do the same thing where they are.

I'm still missing the part on where you make an income. Who will give you money for this idea?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

The only conscious things yet discovered have been living organisms. The universe has (so far) exhibited none of the hallmarks of consciousness.

Its orderly workings make it look conscious. It knows what to do. Now it need not be conscious of what it is doing, but that suggests it was engineered. And then there is that feeling that...

Of course, it may yet be conscious, but based on evidence so far, it is unlikely to the n'th degree.

Perhaps, but that is "evidence so far."

We know that planets can be closer to the sun. Two of them are. We don't know that universal constants can be different. But when I say 'meaningless to speculate', I meant that it is not meaningful to expect that they are different somewhere else. Certainly for the purpose of illustration, you can say "what if the speed of light were 100 miles per hour?" but you don't really expect that such a thing happens, or can happen.

Who said anything about "somewhere else"? Though, with the talk of other universes, I don't see how that can be done without speculating. Or do you just not like it when I do it?

It could be. It might even be statistically likely. However, it is incorrect to say that it must be. However, even if statistically likely, it is still much more likely that life as we know it is relatively rare in the universe. I love reading science fiction. I don't forget that it is fiction.

Okay, does that mean 3 times, 40, or a billion in this infinite universe?

Speculate away, but unless you have evidence, don't expect that your speculations will be given much weight.

I'll take the risk.

Nevertheless, we know they were extant for many millions of years. The same is not true of humans.

I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the story of the young baseball pitcher who plays in his first major league game. He gets the first batter out, but the second one hits a home run deep into the bleachers. "Dang", says the kid, "You messed up my no-hitter."

Half empty, half full, I see half full.

You have not shown that it "seeks" anything. You are looking at the results and then imagining how they arrived there.

I'm going with what the people I quoted think.

The process was so stupid it took hundreds of millions of years to get the first life to appear.

So speed does it for you? That was weak. You talk like someone wishing the genie do it... now! Or I won't believe.

All you have shown is that DNA is complex. You have not shown that something intelligent made it that way. Remember the experiment with the sediments sorting themselves.

Everything happens because of the influence of the natural laws. Life plays through them faster. Perhaps life is the answer to that "slow thing" you just spoke of.

Based on the fact that I have seen religious con-men get rich many times before, I'm not terribly surprised. But they have an audience. You do not.

I think I do, but even if I didn't, i'll create one. You do know that can be done? Where have you been?

As the case in Pennsylvania showed, proponents of Intelligent Design are not looking for a new way of explaining how things work. They are looking to get Christianity into schools. Your ideas are not compatible with Christianity (or any other major religion) and contrary to science.

There you go with limited thinking again. My target is the ground between them. Any real answer has to be between them. I think they are two sides of the same coin. I am going to see if I can take that coin to the bank.

You have little hope of ever getting a following.

We'll see.

I'm guessing you won't earn enough of of this project to be subject to taxes. No offense, but in my opinion, you are not clever enough to perpetrate a successful scam and your ideas are not supportable enough to get a following any other way.

I don't need a scam, the diagram says what it does, and I, what I do. Even if I am not clever enough, I'm willing to work on it. I got plenty of persistence.

We spent many pages on this on your original thread. I don't see any reason to rehash it here.

I wasn't rehashing, I was stating that most people believe that life is the opposite of death.

Are you going to get the money? From whom? Do you think collecting a bunch of money and then giving some of it back is can be called "generous"? I'm telling you, this has been done countless times before. Eva Peron did it. She wasn't a very nice person.

Boy. Now I know why you don't think I am clever enough, you know you are not. You figure if you can't find a way, I surely can't. The process I am talking about has to do with magnetism. If the neighborhood school owned a supermarket, their families would have to shop there. That would focus the money into a sustainable loop. The neighborhood would work there, increasing the local economic potential to shop there.

Yes, it has drawn fire. What sort of positive attention has it drawn?

I have only been to places like this one. I have been here since Aug 06, I am here because I found a rock to beat my head against, not for the hugs and kisses-though they would have been nice. What sought of reaction has your negative attention drawn from me?

How do you plan to do that? Who are your backers?

They will be the people who think between science and religion, those who want to support their children, those left out of the job market, those who believe light created life, those who think that even if what he is saying is total bull, as long as he does what he says, I'll buy two.

Pay them with what? The money you don't have? And if you think getting your ideas into the school curriculum is an easy thing to do, all I can say is that you are hopelessly naive. You will need supporters. Lots of them. I cannot see that you have any.

There you go with that limited thinking again, "in the school" can be arrived directly through students. It will give them a chance to "help themselves" or "thumb their noses". They are literally the "wooden soldiers". Are they army enough for you?

About this "profit" that you will be donating. Where is it going to come from? The kids' parents? Will you be charging the school system for your ideas? The local government?

From the internet sale of the graph and the number code. All it has to do is produce one school owned store, each school will be required to set aside a fund to do the same thing for the next nearest high school.

Will you be taking a bunch of their money and then giving some of it back?

A non-profit program will direct the effort-I will direct it.

If you expect anybody to give you money for your ideas, you are going to have to be a whole lot more convincing than you are now. Maybe if you say "it's for Jesus" then you could get somewhere. You could wind up like Dr. Dino.

Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

I'm still missing the part on where you make an income. Who will give you money for this idea?

You will, negative attention is still attention, you will help me spread it.