Discussion Topic #14: Creationism, Big Bang, Intelligent Design, Evolution--What do you believe?

I belive in both. WHy couldn't have a supirior being have helped create the universe and then the big bang took place to throw it all together.

this is one of those topics that makes the back of my necks scrinche up, yet..I believe in all of it. If I was a creative, intellegent being, I think, first I would have an idea. Wouldn't it be cool to create a universe, or another planet etc. Now how do I do that. How about letting the idea lead me. BANG. Cool, now that is one way of doing it. Now if I were that big, that powerful and that creative, a day to me, may be centuries. I mean, hey, think, a human is a piece of algae in comparison. Or perhaps there was no time before I the big god/goddess had the idea, talked about it (the word) and it was done (the bang) and while and as it was created (evolution) I saw that, hey this is good. And what is really good about it, is that all my little gods who act like Big Gods before they are ready, are learning to create and what it takes, what it means, and before they have any real godlike powers, they need to learn about love. And that is a tough road to hoe. So, Eve comes along and passes the knowledge on to adam because he is n't quick enough or brave enough to walk through the shadows inorder to be a child of God. The road has alot of pain. But adam did take it. So good for him. I have no idea, and never have, how science, evolution, creation, higher power...can be possibly separated without weakening the whole.

I believe that God created the world in 7 days...and all that is here was and is of his making.....and God has always been....there never has NOT been a God

I have always felt that Creationism and Evolution were not mutually exclusive. My church, the Catholic Church, teaches that the Bible's account of creation is a myth, developed by the nation of Israel during their Babylonian captivity/ It was then that they realized other cultures had an explanation of where they came from and they wanted their own.

go ahead and keep believing that religion mumbo jumbo relating to science.. and when you eventually cant get accepted by a good college and get a high paying job then its your own fault, sooo go ahead and keep yourself dumbed down, and sure, keep your children dumbed down too and screw any chances of them being very successful.

The world came to be. People who need an explanation will find one or make one up. As LL said above, the story in the Bible is a myth, because people need them. I believe that God caused the universe to come into being. How, when and why are particulars that are beyond my ken, and I'm okay with that.

Isn't it possible that the Big Bang was started by a Supreme Being and that evolution is the process by which life is created? There really doesn't have to be a debate, here.

Science will figure it out eventually.

Sure, I believe in evolution, and the evidence thus far appears to point to a "big bang." But to assume that we humans are capable of knowing everything there is to potentially know seems to me to be the height of arrogance. I don't know, I don't know if we will ever know, and I'm okay with that.

Science discovers processes. There will always be a place for it as long as man seeks answers.
God is very present to me. Has always been and always will be.

You have generated a lot of discussion here Carla. :)

Modern science and traditional teachings offer the simplest account of creation and the cosmology of the universe. They say that before the Unmanifest created the universe it divided its unity into three aspects: positive, negative and neutral or affirming, denying and reconciling. In this pre-creation state time and space were one; and observer and observer were also one. Creation proceeded by descending stages to form the galaxies, stars, planets , Earth, humanity, nature and so on.
The Bible , like the Quran, which were written for tribal societies stressed the notion of a personal "God." Unlike the more sophisticated societies that preceded them they expressed the idea of creation in simple language and metaphors that tribal peoples could relate to.

All of the above, and so much more! Because it's a multiverse/universe/no-verse, after all.

Seth is fond of calling it "The Big GUFFAW," btw - and why not? A cosmic joke.

Life, of course, is NOT dependent on physical/material form! Life goes on whether we have bodies or not, planet or not. There are so many ways of experiencing experience - so many times/spaces/dimensions....We can experience worlds as one or as many; we can be aware of one form of consciousness ["human"] or we can enter godescent enlightend omniscience.....and anything in between.

With Liz.......

I am that I am / I recreate mySelf / I am Hologram. I think that I am. I think worlds and bodies for myself, and they become.

Here, to me, we enter the realm of possibilities and not facts...Belief and not Knowledge. One thing all theories and myths seem to have in common is, is that whatever was at the beginning, is still with us now, and I find that comforting :)

God created the, "BIG BANG" and created the earth.

chapter 2, there were people already in the world and that way we explain the beginning of what would be known as jewish people and we do not dispute that man is older than 6 thousand years olds.

And I find much that I believe in many of those thoughts already commented about above and this saves me from spelling it all out at the moment ... though I had a good presentation in mind prior to reading all of the others ... maybe more later (too busy debating John elsewhere now). :-)

I might add though, that by far the best single book I have ever ran across, about all of that, is the Urantia Book ... do a Google search ... but be prepared to separate the wheat from the chaff, many die-hard "christians" are offended by it. :-(

At the risk of being (metaphorically) burned at the stake - I don't see why my "belief" matters. However the Universe began and whatever laws run it are not subject to my belief or disbelief. The Truth is just the truth.

I've long been an adherent of science, because science looks for the truth and is not afraid to test a theory and find it wrong, then move on. Religion tends to adhere to it's "beliefs" no matter how much the facts shows it to be wrong. All too often, Believers (of whatever religion) get into the "we must be right because we have X number of people who are members of our religious group" argument. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world hold a belief. If it is wrong, it will still be wrong.

Lol - separating wheat from chaff means separating Truth from [apparent] facts. Having grown up in Oak Ridge, TN, a town full of scientists - and then having two scientist brothers and an ex-husband scientist as well - I'm familiar with the dogma of the belief system we call science.
Well - there's material science, and - hmmm - there's also spiritual science.
Both desire to sort things out. Science dogmatists are often Left-brainers, as are religious dogmatists (including anti-religious, or atheistic, dogmatists).

Those who are most able to move through all the thoughtforms, theories, fields of mythos, etc. are those who have broken through the R-L brain barrier our deadly modern education systems set up.

So then we get to spiritual science/scientific spirituality, eh?

In one paradigm a belief system might register as "right."
In another paradigm that same belief system will be called "wrong."

It takes a shape-shifting (like God) seeker to be able to grok Truth and use it as a building block. The one Truth that serves as anchor to all the other fly-by understandings is Simple Love.

Ada, I disagree that our beliefs don't matter. I think that beliefs, opinions, the truth that we choose to live our lives by, will determine how we choose to live in the world and therefore what that world will look like. I believe that consistently held thoughts create. Science has shown that how we perceive something influences that observed subject. In other words, as we interact with something we have an influence or impact on it.

As for the Ultimate Truth, I believe that we are all coming to know that through the evolution of our consciousness in this and many lifetimes. Now we may have pieces of the puzzle but I don't believe that any of us here has all the answers.

Our group, Spirituality Explorers, for the most part, is made up of open-minded people who like to discuss ideas and beliefs. We don't usually say that someone is "wrong" but rather "this is what I believe". Because I put this question out to several groups, we will probably get some answers from people who believe that their belief is "right" and others are wrong. But no one will be "burned at the stake" metaphorically or otherwise. :-)

Carla: I'm all for open-minded discussion!

My "belief" if you will, is that "actions speak louder than words." We influence the direction of the world by our actions (and interactions) with it. If all of those people burning fossil fuels going door-to-door trying to convert people to their particular belief system would use the time, resources and energy to stock soup kitchens, the world really would be a better place.

I'm not anti-religion, or "anti-belief." I do, however, judge people by what I see them do, not what I hear them say about what they think is Truth.

there seems to be at least two types of comments here.the literalist: "I believe that God created the world in 7 days", which we can safely dismiss as fantasy. and the individual who accepts the "scientific writing on the wall" and tries to reconcile that with thier religion. it seems like people want to describe natural selection as the tool with which their god creats. hey, why not? if you want to view natural selection(as defined and described by the scientific community) as "gods will" then go ahead.the only problem with that is "god"(natural selection) cant change his mind in the middle of something.he cant all of a sudden decide to allow the carbon atom to accept more than four chemical bonds, or change the density of water,etc..the idea of miracles becomes an even more silly one.someone mentioned the catholic churches position and its similiar to the idea of "god" being natural selection(as defined and described by the scientific community). some of the problems with thier position is that they say god can change the established rules of nature on a whim(human virgin birth,dead people coming back to life,etc.). another problem is that catholics see evolution in teleologic terms(goal oriented). evolution isnt striving for anything and humans are not the inevitable result of evolution.

i dont think anyone on this thread(including me)is educated enough to inteligently discuss the big bang theory.

These comments are great … a lot of very 'sane' and thoughtful people here. I would be very interested how your different groups comments compare overall Carla.

Rather than comment on individual ideas one at a time, I will speak again more in an overall coverage.

As Carla says a bit ago, I believe that it is creation that is creating as on ongoing process … in a sense that is what evolution does.

I would say that it would be helpful to first define God (big G) … God to me is the sum total of all there is withIN our realm of 'being' which I see as a singular unity (for the sake of discussion) which we would call our Universe.

That being the overall (external plus internal) macrocosm and microcosm, those things determined by objective 5 sensory experience as OUTside of our physical being … as well as those things which are much more subjectively INside, that Internal to everything OUTthere.

The latter which we most often evaluate by our 'other' sense(s) that we often call our 6th, that of our 'mind' (thought) … as opposed to the physical activities of the electro/chemical 'brain' sensing of the former (reaction).

The physically manifested and explicit 'touchable 'facts' of our perceived 'reality … as opposed to the nebulous, ephemeral esoteric of mysticism, the implicit and deep spiritual feelings .


Thus it would be the more objective literalist, in comparison, that values facts so much and who is quicker to see their facts as truth. The black/white and wrong/ right crowd, maybe the religious fundamentalist and the scientific fundamentalist, those more 'radical' with the polarized opinions of accept/reject.


Let us now discuss just what fact and truth might be … because they are both important to this discussion. As I see it, we must look at this philosophically first, and go right to the very essence of the matter. Thus I see the word God as defining the overall Truth … (that because I have had experiences which insist to me that there is most likely a God behind such experience). I thus posit that such a God is, as I have already attempted to define, the totality of our Universe which we consider ourselves, and all other worth any consideration, to be withIN.

Now the above would be "my" truth, which would be but "relative" to my thinking, thus all truths below the ONE ULTIMATE TRUTH (God) would be relative to the holders of such truths.

"Facts", on the 'other' hand, are then but something that people agree with each other on … those things that are most often considered objective, things taken as a 'given', irrefutable for all practical purposes. Though facts are usually NOT truths, they are often considered so by the believers of them, which at best makes them only relative truths also.

So as I see it and attempt to define it, facts are the more materialistic expression of intelligent agreement (knowledge) … and truth is the more subjectively 'felt' expression of said 'facts'.

Philosophically then, space and time are but expressions of differentiation … those terms that contain increments that we as a people have agreed upon to express such, so that we can communicate it to each other, common facts, such as 12 inches make 1 foot and/or 60 seconds make 1 minute. The 'totals' of each being seen as cumulative potentials as a FUTURE called Infinity and Eternity. Now realize that we here speak of where we are headed, an 'Omega' of complete re-unification. That, as opposed referentially to our 'perceived' beginning at Alpha (some call that creation, some call that Genesis). It was at THAT beginning (really only a relativity) which we relate to our Universal reality (some relate that only to their 'World' reality), thus we must differentiate also between world and universal realities to accurately communicate meanings.

The 'idea' of a God being involved, or not, makes a huge difference to our discussion here (and everywhere really). Those that know what I would call the truth of such a God, would have a Spirituality as the primary aspect of their reality. Thus they would allow more subjectivity associated with their Intuition, not being quite so hung up on FACTS that others use to define their reality(s).

It has been said, and it fits well my concept, that God in Essence deals with the total of all which amounts to NO time and NO space at the very CENTER of God's Being … I posit that at the most extreme OUTers of God's Being would be the culmination also of the fullness of POTENTIALS of such infinite space and eternal time, that being the Omega, WHEN that Truth will be simultaneously REALized by all of creation.

What is CRITICAL to "my" understanding, is that between BOTH of those views, I have, given of God, the beginning/ending, the inner/outer, God/gods/humans/nature, there IS God's SPIRIT that IS the intelligence, the power and the potential force, that ENLIVENS the totality, interconnects and allows communication between it all …

Without Spirit, we deal in Dualities, where the one 'side' is considered positive (too often 'good') and the 'other' side is considered negative (too often 'bad', and worse yet, 'evil') … in-between the two 'polarized' extremes, there is perceived an insurmountable Gap or Void, across which there is often misunderstanding and divisive conflict … that Duality expressed as (+/-) which is but the reduction of what humanity has been taught from day one, that (+=+) AND (-=-) … two different and separate concepts, brought together only as the one OVER the other, as in (+/-), separative and divisive, DUALITY !!

Where duality is the common and the norm of our world striving (in most cases and for all practical purposes) because THAT is the EGO concept of THINGS, where no real connection SEEMs to exist between people and things, most especially, no spirit.

Then when ONE KNOWS God, that one comes to know that Duality is no longer the real truth of the Universe, that person then comes to know that the Truth of the Universe IS a TRINITY where Spirit (of God) IS very much real and involved in everything … that SPIRIT, being now the EQUALIZER of the former Duality, replaces the Gap and Void of "/" between polar opposites, BRIDGING ACROSS all differences with LOVE … shown as the "=" in the Trinity Total of (+=-) !!!

Now I know this has been a lot to read, so I will end it here for now with all said being the old duality (+/-) having been replaced with the new realization of the BET (Basic Equation of Truth) as the TRINITY of (+=-) …


Please take this into consideration because it really answers all of the questions of this article in the ultimate sense … IMnsHO.

I've read quite a few creation myths. It seems interesting to me that the people who wrote the Bible managed to get so much "right" in terms of modern science (e.g. light comes first, then water; the sun and moon are not visible until after plant life clears the air; fish and birds come before animals, and man is a late arrival). Even if we postulate a really late date for the writing of Genesis 1, it's still amazingly modern. I find it easier to believe God had a hand in telling the tale than that all those details coincidentally came out agreeing with modern science.

As to how long creation took, I would guess those first humans who heard the story didn't have many "time" words. Probably day and period were the same word back then.

As to evolution, I delight in the evolution of stars, of ideas, of genetic codes, etc., and I'm sure God does too.

And then there's the second chapter of Genesis, where I imagine someone turning to God and saying "Hey, if you made us last, does that make us an afterthought." God tells them no, he had them in mind right from the start.

All of which is just human, and therefore flawed, interpretation of course, but it makes sense to me.

Who's to say the comments removed were not her own? I have done that on my own articles because there is just no way to edit a response without removing it.

Has anyone really taken into consideration the limitation that has been placed on all species of living beings? Everything passes away and is replaced with something new. Even stars die, but also new stars are being reborn every minute. How can we be the superior species if we are limited? And because we are limited in this physical life, we cannot know-it-all, we only know what we experience, and we pass that on to the next generation, who interprets it their own way, and call myths of some events that may very well have been reality for them. We weren't there, so we didn't see it, but Star Men may very well have helped establish life here.

Science has been known to be wrong and have to re-evaluate, why? because our scientists are limited. So how can we take everything scientists say as the gospel, it's just their own interpretation. But there has to be a reality to the creation. I say creation because none of what is here could alll be a coincidence, it was well thought out for everything to work together, like the sun and moon influencing the earth, and all the other planets. Do we think for one moment that the sun says, "I am superior and I know all that is." ??? And yet we couldn't live without the sun, so it must superior to us. Or is it? Maybe everything has its own place in the universe.

Creation is always changing, no two sunrises are exactly the same, and no two people are exactly the same. Perhaps we shouldn't be asking how this was created, but rather, asking WHY.... and why does everything pass away, yet creation never ceases?

We seem to see everything in either/or. Jerry, I liked your comment on duality, it makes humans rather closed minded to all the potenial.

"It seems interesting to me that the people who wrote the Bible managed to get so much "right" in terms of modern science"

the order in genesis is wrong(since someone brought it up).

their order:1.seed bearing plants that bear fruit(angiosperms)2. fish,birds3. creatures that move along the ground(amphibians)

the actual order(according to the concensus of the scientific community)1.fish(540mya)2.amphibians(375mya)3.birds(150mya)4.angiosperms(135 mya)

genesis is not even close

I hear this myth that the genesis story is correct in its order quite often. its just not true. if you really look at the genesis order you can see how it makes sense to someone without any science education.for example, you can picture someone writing genesis and assuming that plants were first.he was probably thinking 'well plants look very simple and they dont even move so they must have been first'(kind of a "warm up"for god). the genesis story is obviously the product of the imagination of someone who lived a long time ago who was just guessing.

Lucky for us, there are MANY creation-maps of the Mythos.....
Bottom line:

MIND REBIRTHS ITSELF / "GOD" IS A SHAPE SHIFTER

"MIND REBIRTHS ITSELF"

thats actually kinda correct(although not in the same sense that some people are thinking).once dead,the molecules that made us up(including the brain) are consumed by other organisms or released in to the environment(decomposers,nitrogen cycle,water cycle).thats that whole "circle of life" thing. the atoms that used to be "us" stand a decent chance of being incorporated into the cells of other organisms at some point in time.of course, there is no conciousness of this.

"Lucky for us, there are MANY creation-maps of the Mythos....."

you seem to be implying that there are some creation stories out there that got it literaly correct.

With the Hubble telescope it has been discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. so if there was a "big bang" why is it still accelerating? This they attribute to something called "dark energy" because they can see its effects but otherwise it is not visible. they have also discovered something they call "dark matter" that holds spinning universes together. Another interesting scientific discovery is that soem plants and animals mutate their DNA intelligently in relation to external conditions. So where does that leave us?

I wouldn't put my dime solely on science, Joseph. They have been known to be wrong, and change their minds. They once thought ours was a closed universe that would eventually collapse, but now they say it's been in expansion mode the whole time. They once thought dark matter accounted for the lack of mass needed in their plan of the universe, now they are saying there is no dark matter. They've told us our moon is a chuck of debris from earth and another planet colliding. Hmmmm, is that where all the other moons of other planets also came from? Are our telescopes getting bigger or are new planets being born? We already know new stars are born, or rather hatched from space eggs. That one they have on film. I'm not convinced they're even right about the CMB. It's all still very much a mystery. Space-time is very much on my mind because the ancients DID describe this, a day being like a thousand years. And... even before we failed to sail off the edge of the earth, the ancients wrote that earth was a sphere. How did they know this?

Here is the latest on dark matter

Click Here

Lol - Joseph, "literal" is the way many toddlers think.

The MYTHOS MYSTERIUM contains layers on layers of metaphor. Literal thinkers often get upset with the metaphorical mirrorings of TrueLove / Shape-Shifter!

darkmatter,dark energy,space eggs and the cmb are all fine and good but ill repeat my earlier statement(bad spelling and all):"i dont think anyone on this thread(including me)is educated enough to inteligently discuss the big bang theory." at least in any meaningful sense.ive always found earth science a bit boring.im more of a life science kind of guy.btw,that moon hypothesis is a wonderful explaination for the moons formation.

speaking of life science,
" Another interesting scientific discovery is that soem plants and animals mutate their DNA intelligently in relation to external conditions."

i hadnt heard this before.where did you read this?

"I wouldn't put my dime solely on science, Joseph."

that would be silly of me,but i think its a safe bet to put at least nine cents on science. on my little plane of existence ill go with the diversity of life being caused by differential reproductive success due to environmental factors.how do you explain it?

"Space-time is very much on my mind "

i know what you mean.i cant get it out of my head either;=)

Elisabet Sahtouris an evolutionary biologist did a wonderful book called Earthdance. She summarizes much of the latest discoveries on the micro scale. that is where I read about the intelligent mutation of DNA by plants, bacteria, and mice. It is a lovely book. I highly recommend it. It appears that all living cells are more intelligent than human beings give them credit for. It would appear the universe is saturated with intelligence that is a basis for intelligent design manifesting in an evolutionary process.

Well, see there, George answered the reproductive success question for me, LOL. Thanks George!

Joseph, all I'm saying is: Just when we think we have it all figured out, things change, creation changes, or evolves, for those who like that term better. I don't think it was meant to be figured out scientifically. I see the universe(s) as intelligent mind. We can't deny this. The influences other objects in the galaxy have on earth, those that sustain life here, cannot be just a coincidence. The whole map is just too detailed to have been a big boom accident.

Like Carolion is saying, our ancestors (all over the world) intrepreted what they saw the best they could. In those days they used a lot of symbols to relate their experiences. To me, most of what they wrote is symbolic of the truths they were given. Back then, the many skeptics who did not witness supernatural events had a mind to burn people at the stake. That even happened here in America. But so many different cultures have similar beliefs that are symbolized in different ways. It's all over their drawings/carvings.

If you were living in ancient times and an advanced civilization paid a visit, you might actually see them as gods due to their intelligence being beyond yours. You might see their spacecraft as chariots of fire. Don't laugh, we're on the verge of being able to do our own visiting in space. What will find out there? How would they receive us?

Back at ya ;=)

There are some that believe there is but one mind (which some may call God) and that we all share in the intelligence of that one mind.

There are others that say that we are each a cell in the body of God.

I believe that all living things have a consciousness, an intelligence that varies by species and life form. There was a book entitled, "The Secret Life of Plants" about experiments done that showed the reaction plants had to various stimuli including music, harsh words, etc. It is an amazing book and changed the way that I think about plants.

wow, that elisabet sahtouris person is kooky! here is a quote:

"I pray that all the religions will recognize the importance of the uniqueness in each story and the unity of All That Is. I pray that scientists, who have been given the role of "official" priesthood, with the mandate to tell us "how things are," will soon officially recognize the one alive, intelligent universe in which spirit and matter are not separable and in which creation is continuous. I pray the indigenous people who never separated science and spirituality will be honored for that. It is time for the true communion which alone can save our species and all others, which alone can bring about the perfectly possible world we all dream of-a world expressing this understanding of ourselves as the creative edge of God!"

im always amazed when people latch on to every fringe hypothesis that pops up.her conclusions are not peer supported.

"If you were living in ancient times and an advanced civilization paid a visit, you might actually see them as gods due to their intelligence being beyond yours."

are we talking about a supernatural god or are we talking about an advanced alien civilization?i think the scientific community would love the idea of some type of alien. is that what we are talking about or are we talking about jesus' dad again.

" Back then, the many skeptics who did not witness supernatural events had a mind to burn people at the stake. That even happened here in America"

not sure what your point is but it wasnt the skeptics who burned others it was the believers.

" The influences other objects in the galaxy have on earth, those that sustain life here, cannot be just a coincidence."

why on earth not?

""The Secret Life of Plants" about experiments done that showed the reaction plants had to various stimuli including music, harsh words, etc."

sorry, but i just cant let a misconception hang out there. the authors assertions in that book have been discredited. and the idea that plants "feel" stuff has no accepted evidence to support it.

Joseph, there are so many ways of seeing and hearing......

Those who are "awake" telepathically, often find themselves receiving messages from plants and stones, mountains, rivers, machines, cells, internal organs, animals, comatose patients, newborn babies, etc.
It's all Godmind, and it all communicates.

sorry,i just dont buy it(although i acknowledge that im probably in the minority)

Joesph you just go on living in your skeptical world. Why don't you go rain on someone elses parade. Try reading the whole book before you judge someone by a single quote. I think that quote is wonderful.

read the title of this article again

Look Joesph, I was referring to the supernatural world in general, Godmind, which is why people got burned at the stake for using powers others didn't believe in, and yes even Christians were involved in that. Not everyone who beleves in craetionism is a so-called Christian, and it is possible to believe what Jesus said without joining a religious cult.

My point was that the accumulation of what has been told, what we call myth, is mostly misinterpreted because we don't even talk the way they did back then, and the symbology of one culture may be different from another. To not listen to what our ancestors had to say on the subject of creation is absurd. They went to a lot of trouble to leave us some kind of record, on cliff walls, carved in stone, on giant pyramids, on tombs..... it must have been important to them, and yet we sluff it off like it was all a joke on us.

Surely you don't really believe that everything that exists is just coincidence that dropped out of the sky with a boom. To believe that is to believe that nothing really matters. To believe in intelligent design is to believe thaere is purpose to life. If you don't believe that I feel sad for you.

"odmind, which is why people got burned at the stake for using powers others didn't believe in, and yes even Christians were involved in that"

wait a second, are you saying that they WERE witches!?!

"To believe in intelligent design is to believe thaere is purpose to life. If you don't believe that I feel sad for you. "

you just proved my point that id is not based on logic but rather wishful thinking. i do appreiciate that you feel my pain however.its not easy being the oddball on these threads(especially when im just repeating accepted science).

No... I said they were using powers that others did NOT believe in. Did you know that nearly 90 % of the frontal lobe in most humans is unused? Very few access it. Are those that do considered witches? Pagan? Why because they are different, perhaps evolving?

To me id is not "wishful' thinking, just thinking. I believe Planck when he stated that "we must assume there is an intelligent mind at the center of the matrix." A thinking mind with a plan/purpose, meaning there IS a point to all that is, rather than it being just a fluke. If we think there is no purpose in the universe, then why bother with this whole messy business... er, I mean fluke.

BTW, I went back and reread your thread on evolution. You made a lot of good points, and Greg, too. I liked the point that was made that everything came from a single cell. Hey, all that exists is related. Yaaaay, we agree. That one cell created a magical moment didn't it? Wonder where it came from..... that magical cell that could transform itself into anything. An absolute miracle of life.

What an absolutely wonderul discussion! I have enjoyed everyone's comments. My feeling has been that we are spiritual beings having the experience of living in a physical body which is made up of cells which also have an intelligence within them.

I believe that we are all evolving as living beings, both physically and spiritually. Spiritually we are evolving as we become more aware of our true nature and inner perfection. Physically, I believe that we are also evolving and that as we realize our ability to utilize our intelligence and awareness to heal and change even the cellular make-up of our bodies we will become even more evolved. As we have been told, we use very little of our capabilities and intelligence. Our emotional intelligence is still evolving also.

And thank you, Rosa, for putting things so beautifully. Yes, it is quite a miracle.

Joseph, your concepts, acceptable only after peer review just follow the sequences that science offers, really just another faith in objectivity.

Religion on the other hand suggests it's adherents hold faith in it's supposed subjectivity, that from an objective viewpoint of course.

True Spirituality then is based upon actual experience where the objective meets and blends with the subjective causing a mix of the two, a trinity really.

Of course this leaves something for everybody which is natural diversity. To each their own and everything has it's equal but opposite. The truth of the Universe, (+=-), insures that for every known there will be an unknown ... and only God knows it all.

"Religion on the other hand suggests it's adherents hold faith in it's supposed subjectivity, that from an objective viewpoint of course."
"To each their own and everything has it's equal but opposite"

i dont know what that means. the language people keep using on this thread is lovely and it sounds very deep but i find philosophy very boring. the truth of the "Universe" , and "To each their own and everything has it's equal but opposite", and "+=-", and ""awake" telepathically", and "Godmind" dont really mean much except as pretty words. i mean its hard to argue with someone that "knows" the "truth of the Universe". my point on these threads is to address factual misconceptions that have been stated as accepted facts(concious cells,plants that feel pain). believe what you want to believe unless its known to not be true(except in "Godmind").

Joesph, science/philosophy/spirituality are all as neccessary as think/do/feel.

And there is no factual evidence that plants DON'T feel either. But we see the fruit of what happens when we talk/sing to our plants. Just because there life blood isn't red, doesn't mean they can't feel when their life is cut short. When they're cut, they bleed..... just like us.

You can believe whatever you want, and from that you will think your own thoughts, and from that you will experience your life. If it's a closed circuit routine and you aren't open to anything else, then you just won't experience anything else. That's how I see the "to each his own" matter. If we are open to all that is, and ponder the experiences of others, we expand our mind, and can even feel more deeply, but in order to do that we have to surrender our know-it-all-mind. Trust me, I literally had to die to myself in order to be able to understand my husband's anguish.

Oh and you could call that intelligent mind at the center of the matrix, anything you want. Some say Godmind, some just say God, other cultures might call it the Great Spirit.

"And there is no factual evidence that plants DON'T feel either."

"feeling" is a function of our nerve cells.plants lack nerve cells.

"When they're cut, they bleed..... just like us"

no,not like us. our blood is made of cells,a plants "blood"(i feel silly calling it that even in quotes) is made of non-living sugar.what is that statement supposed to prove anyway?

"Joesph, science/philosophy/spirituality are all as neccessary as think/do/feel"

"neccessary" is a strong word. are you sure you mean "neccessary"

" If it's a closed circuit routine and you aren't open to anything else, then you just won't experience anything else"

being open minded doesnt have to mean gullible does it?

"If we are open to all that is, and ponder the experiences of others, we expand our mind, and can even feel more deeply, but in order to do that we have to surrender our know-it-all-mind."

again, very pretty words,but that statement isnt curing any diseases.incidently, the lovely wendy r calls me a know-it-all all the time. i guess i picked the right day job.

Joseph, scientists themselves admit that they don't have the answer to everything. There is much about life in this universe that we don't know. Doctors can't always explain why someone's tumor suddenly disappears or why someone receives a spontaneous healing. It is a mystery. We all develop our theories based on our philosophies and theologies, but I don't think that we can definitely say that anyone is "right" or "wrong." We have to be willing to live with the ambiguity--the mystery. That is difficult for some people.

Not knowing the answer to everything is built into science. Science is dynamic. It never claims to have the answer. It does claim to have the best explanation we can come up with given what we know.

The good thing about science is that the explanations it provides account for a lot of things but leave the door open for new discoveries. There's something to be said for that over religious doctrine. Science is built on the premise that it could be wrong.

Nippy, there are a number of us who consider ourselves to be spiritual rather than religious. I am not a fundamentlist Christian, so do not claim that my way is the right way and that everyone else is wrong. I do not appreciate the religious superiority that some people have about their beliefs. My beliefs have come about over the years, having studied different religions and having developed a personal relationship with God as Spirit. I have the greatest respect for people of different relgions and even those who are atheists. Some atheists are more moral and live the teachings of Jesus much more closely than Christians.

Science is the secular religion of this world ... it differs from most 'other' religions in that it is constantly looking into the future as much as the past, that keeps it centered and balance which is good ... but it's tendency to seek peer review of every thing keeps it very cumbersome and even dogmatic. Change is always sought yet change once discovered is very slow to be accepted, thus it (the field) is always behind the curve of reality, maybe too self limiting ... but then that is the way the people seem to want.

True Spirituality is dynamic and real time. It recognises the old and is always open to the new, it trusts it's own INtuition as being spiritually directed moment to moment and often better than assurances from another person for things that are personally most important.

Anyway Joseph, when one such as I speak in abstract subjective terms it is normal for a rational objective valuing person to not understand, but those are my truths now, and they came to me rather suddenly due to a spiritual awakening after about 50 years of thinking very much just like you do now ... it took me quite a while to just get comfortable with the meanings between the two word of objective and subjective ... and now my values are most likely the opposite of what yours seem to be ... call it evolution because it is ... IMnsHO.

Jerry, I like the way you put this. My evolution was much more gradual. I call it a personal involution as I slowly began to turn inward for more and more of my guidance. Spirituality depends upon faith. Faith is built over time as we come to experience personally what is unseen in life as well as what is seen and the connection between the two. It is a beautiful journey for those that are open to it. Thanks for always taking the time to write about your journey, Jerry. And, by the way, I plan on checking out The Urantia Book.

Thanks Carla, your word INvolution does fit better (by far) than evolution, which in some cases has become EVILution it seems ...

"but it's tendency to seek peer review of every thing keeps it very cumbersome and even dogmatic. Change is always sought yet change once discovered is very slow to be accepted"

yeah,i guess,but it does get things right most of the time.isnt that all that matters?

"those are my truths now, and they came to me rather suddenly due to a spiritual awakening"

im genuinely intrested in stories of conversion or being "born again". would you share?

Joseph, ... " yeah,i guess,but it does get things right most of the time.isnt that all that matters? "

Now remember, this is coming from a deeper philosophical base ... right (and wrong) are really but two different perspectives, what is one for one may be another for another.

You are aware that some very few of the most fundamental of Christians may see the literal word (their impressions) of 'their' book which they will swear that the earth is only about 6,000 years old ... I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone could actually believe that, in fact, I doubt that many of them, that swear to, really do ... but I would assume that those that really do, they will lead a far different life than the rest of us ...

A scientist on the other hand is much more likely to have 'other' outlooks on life and those that stay within their fields of inquiry will probably accept and go along with the peer review process ... because that is the standard procedure there will be far more people doing it 'that' way ... and of course 'they' will be the determiners of what is "right" ...

So, be it religion or science, or anything else for that matter, certain people will see things differently, as each will, at least want to, think they are right and the other is wrong. In a sense, we do create our own realities that way ... IF we believe hard enough.

How we believe and what we believe in will often be based upon how we view what we call a lifetime ... and whether we connect it at all to spiritual considerations related to eternity or not.

The person that is purely objective in everything holding tight to the 'ego' perspective that a singular lifetime on earth is as involved as it gets will live life a certain way and most likely never seriously question it, they just 'conform' to 'it'.

A person such as myself who always thought it (life) could and should be 'better' (a relative term) never would conform completely, I always resisted that conformity, seeking to express my individuality, daring to be different, a bit of a rebel. Thus I found myself eventually depressed about my place in such a conforming mass that I often disagreed with and did not really want to be a conforming part of ... I sought truth, what ever it was and wherever it took me, I needed something that I could wrap myself around with commitment ...

That search eventually took me into the philosophic area of the basis for everything, the essence of it all. That led to a first time personal meditation where I found something unexpected because I had never experienced anything like it and it was wonderful beyond words ... subsequently in a very short amount of time, I was led to even more experiences related to that ... I came to believe without a doubt that it was related to the Love of God which was for all practical purposes TRUTH ... the truth that actually set me free from earth worries and concerns ... I then had a relationship (and a duty here) to eternity ... something not readily put into words that could have any real meaning for one that had not yet such an experience ...

But to cut a long story short, I wrote a book about the whole experience (which my icon represents) and it is available through my own web site where there are free downloads or links for purchase (recommended of course) So, if really interested, check there or in my Gather files where I often write of it or things very much related ... Peace, j.

this discussion has lost its focus.i think some people are trying to convince me that some humans can communicate with stones.everyone(including me) seems to be in agreement that humans can not know anything about whatever gods may be hanging out.if thats true then any conception of a god someone might have is just a product of the human imagination. i guess that means that i know exactly as much about those gods as anyone on this thread.

Joseph, we can know God through spiritual writings, but that is not the same as an experience of God in one's life. All believers have a conception of what God is like based often on the writings of others. But over time, those become limiting, as I have found. My conception of God has moved from being a big man with a beard on a white cloud to an energy or force that is everywhere present. We are told that at one point Jesus said that God is spirit. The earlier conceptions of God had an image which reflected man's along with man's emotions and characteristics such as impatience, anger and jealousy.

And yes, we are taking a slight detour off the path, but so be it. I sense that you are searching and looking for some meaning in life. Science can't give us that unfortunately. That is why we look to spirituality.

"I sense that you are searching and looking for some meaning in life."

i understand that an internet conversation has inherrent difficulties and i say this with all due respect ,but maybe you should fine tune your senses. i appreiciate the "bandwagon effect" of religions and the projection of its advocates but ive got "meaning" coming out of my ears. i get the sense that religious people think they have the market covered on "meaning" or some sort of "depth" because their "meaning" is based on invisible,undetectable forces. going to church one day a week and praying then going back to work selling insurance during the week is one persons definition of meaning. another is teaching bed-stuy kids from the marcy projects(the birthplace of crack) how science is done.gaining meaning through "spiritual writings" is easy.

what i am looking for is someone to write a new "evolution" article on gather.(not that there is anything wrong with this one its just kinda lost steam) btw,why didnt you write the "evolution" tag for this article?

Joseph, I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions in participating in our discussion here. You had previously written that you were interested in "stories of conversion or being "born again". I would ask why? Whenever someone writes about their faith or their beliefs, you criticize and are very sarcastic. You also seem to lump people of all religions into a category and assume certain things about them.

As for your question about an evolution "tag"...I have no idea what you mean.

" You had previously written that you were interested in "stories of conversion or being "born again". I would ask why?"

im fasinated by the different recruiting techniques of the different faiths. from the random luck of the draw of children being born either christian or muslim and being innoculated at birth to the birth control ban of the catholics.im most interested in paradigm shifts in adults. ive heard people tell me they converted after in jail or rock bottom after reading the words "jesus" or something like that scratched into the paint in their jailcell.one guy told me that he was homeless and on drugs and drove past a sign that said "trust jesus".he saw it as a personal message from god.as a teacher, misconceptions and faulty logic are intresting to me.its not admiration.

" You also seem to lump people of all religions into a category and assume certain things about them."

i assume that people in that category accept that supernatural events exist.if anyone reading this does not believe in the supernatural then im not talking to you.

"As for your question about an evolution "tag"...I have no idea what you mean."

you know, the tags or keywords that you attach to your article when you upload it to gather.you listed,"creation, religion, christianity, the bible, god, theology, spirituality ".you didnt mention evolution(although its in the title)

Joseph, as for the tags, I don't spend much time thinking about those. This question was primarily aimed at our group, Spirituality Explorers.

As for your fascination with the recruiting techniques of different religions, I don't know what that has to do with this topic that we are addressing. We are not trying to recruit anyone here. Other than the occasional fundamentalist Christian who wants to save souls, we are very accepting and respecting of all religions and enjoy learning about each other's beliefs.

Joseph, you don't seem to be interested in what others believe or how their lives have been changed for the better through their faith. You seem to want to only find fault and criticize. You make a comment about "misconceptions and faulty logic". Again, you have made your conclusions and are looking to support them. You belittle everyone's experience. Because of that, what is shared here will never make sense to you or be understood. We don't judge people in our group for sharing their very private beliefs and experiences. I would ask again, what is your real purpose in commenting here?

" I would ask again, what is your real purpose in commenting here?"

to address factual misconceptions that can be corrected using science.intelligent mutations of dna, plant "feelings", plant "blood", 6000 year old humans, creation in 7 days, the creation order,etc.. the rest is just filler

"I don't know what that has to do with this topic that we are addressing. "

jerry brought it up and then you asked for clarification

Joseph, my last comment was an honest attempt to supply you with some information based upon your own interest when you said something to the effect that you were interested in 'born again' experiences.

Maybe I should have known but I gave you the benefit of any possible doubt not knowing it was information for you to laugh about how stupid I and people like myself are to you ... you would yourself and mankind a service if you were not so quick to judge us ... I would challenge you to read my book, you would find things that you had no idea even existed ... you have much to learn my friend, very much, and you would be so fortunate to have such experiences that we speak of ... to each their own, when the student is ready the teacher will appear ... but not before.

"you would yourself and mankind a service if you were not so quick to judge us"
"you have much to learn my friend, very much"

dont you see the irony there?

i still get a kick out of the fact that im the oddball because i dont believe that people can communicate telepathicly with rocks. but i guess i have much to learn,very much....

Science isn't a belief system. It's a technique. The idea that science and religion are opposites is like saying that volley ball and tool steel are opposites.

I don't see that Joseph was challenging anything except "factual misconceptions." You can't have a belief system that ignores science if it deals in any way with the material world.

Nippy, I don't think that anyone here denies that science has answers for many things and we certainly don't "ignore science". But there are things that science does not have answers for and the scientists are the first to admit it. There are also many scientists who are very spiritual.

Joseph seems to want to make everyone wrong if there is no scientific explanation for what they've experienced. We appreciate the mystery and the mystical and have found peace with it. Joseph trys to make everything a "factual misconception", even our personal relationship with God.

I don't understand the importance of trying to destroy someone else's faith. Is it because one has been so hurt and disappointed in one's own religious experience? I have had my own dark night of the soul and have struggled with my beliefs, so I can understand. But it was temporary. And I certainly did not try to destroy the beliefs of anyone else because I was struggling myself.

I think that Joseph has pretty much lost any hope of someone continuing in this conversation with him. We're here to discuss and share, not to tear down, criticize and belittle others for their beliefs.

when we get right down to it, none of us, science types, religious types, or even spiritual types, know anything for absolutely 100% sure ... and we do not ever know more about another than we do about our selves ... thus it is ALL subjective anyway in that regard. But then what is this objectivity that is supposed to be so factual and even truthful ? Does anyone think that the dimensions of time and space commonly used are anything more than agreed upon constructs by men to be used as a common reference for communications ... ? It is but "those" fabrications that we have built what we call our reality upon.

It seems that Joseph deals ONLY in OBJECTIVITY, thinking that is all that matters, typical for one that uses only their 5 senses and ignores their own intuition, not really a very well developed or trusting person, probably quite fearful of those "other" subjective potentials, best to flatly deny them before they lead you to loss of control I guess ...

Sorry Carla, I am not one to respect ALL beliefs when I see them leading to some of the major problems in this world, thus I will call people on the ones that I see in error, and unlike many, I do feel qualified to do so to a degree at least. Of course that means that I can be called out also, but I think the world needs more clarification of their beliefs, too many hide behind politically correct platitudes while they often practise something else ... I speak here of many in this world who consider themselves religious and that the "level" they deem themselves at, to be as good as it gets ... many that are at a very superficial level, yet claiming the epitome, are the ones that turn many secular people off completely and away from all such ... of course there are those so simple minded that would lump all spiritual people as just people who converse with rocks ... as if only he knows it all and the rest of us are the ones lacking.

Truth be known, most of all of the most dramatic and important discoveries in our sciences were related to spiritually inspired intuitive revelations to those credited for renown ... all one has to do is read a little about them. Take Einstein for an example, he was a very spiritual person and recognised that relationship, there was much written about it ... same with many others.

I doubt that Joseph even knows that not so long ago all matters of science were just a part of metaphysics, and that a part of philosophy, only when things seemed too complicated did religion and science take on lives of their own, usually in opposition ... He probably denies the existence of metaphysics also, right along with religion and spirituality ... too smart for such foolishness, huh Joseph ? Do you really think that Quantum physics is completely divorced from the subjective realms ? Where does epistemology fit into "your" science Joseph ? Ever hear of it ?

Bravo, Jerry! Well said, my friend. As for my respect for what those of other religions believe, I do not always agree but I will defend their right to believe it. When it begins to affect how I live my life, then I will speak up and take action if need be. The conservative Christians are a good example. I do not agree with mandating prayer in public schools (usually in the name of Jesus). It infringes upon the rights of those of other religions and those who choose to practice no religion (yes, Joseph, I'm looking out for your rights too.)

" We're here to discuss and share, not to tear down, criticize and belittle others for their beliefs."

since were all focused on our hurt feelwings(like it makes sense to take an anonymous internet conversation personally),ill list some meanie things that i didnt say:
"simple minded"
"not really a very well developed or trusting person"
"quite fearful"
"you have much to learn my friend, very much"
"are very sarcastic."
" I sense that you are searching and looking for some meaning in life"
"EVILution"
" If you don't believe that I feel sad for you."
"Why don't you go rain on someone elses parade"
"Now remember, this is coming from a deeper philosophical base"
"Joesph you just go on living in your skeptical world"

sniff,just give me a second to compose myself.that was quite a barrage of "discuss(ing) and share(ing), not to tear(ing) down, criticize(ing) and belittle(ing) others for their beliefs." joseph r has hurt feelwings.sniff

metaphysics!!! oh my goodness!!!metaphysics changes everything!!!!!touche,jerry,toooooouche.
oh yeah,epistemology is used all the time by creationists who dont like the evidence in front of them so they say,"how can we prove the color red?" yes, epistemology is a very productive topic.i think a better topic is figuring out how people who believe in the supernatural draw the "supernatural line in the sand". i mean, how can you not believe that people can communicate with rocks after you have accepted that supernatural events exist.arent all bets off once youve crossed that supernatural line. if you accept the supernatural, then ANYTHING is possible(including communicating with rocks).if your intellectually honest, you have to accept the possibility of fairies,humans that can fly,bees that can speak english, etc.. you cant make a judgement on any of these things if anything is possible

btw, please dont start talking about "subjective" and "objective". that arguement is just not compelling enough to use it so often.let me guess, its in your book once or twice.

I was going to avoid responding (and almost did) because I see comments are being removed by Carla. Not knowing the nature of the comments, but seeing the disagreement permitted in the comment string, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, though I am against censorship in academic and philosophical arguments. Also, this is interesting. I have noted a few comments from people I know that I would like to single out as they seemed to strike an immediate response in me . . . so a few comments:

"Science will figure it out eventually. "
Nonsense. The true nature of reality will ALWAYS be one step beyond man's ability to explain it.

"Not knowing the answer to everything is built into science. Science is dynamic. It never claims to have the answer. It does claim to have the best explanation we can come up with given what we know. "
In a book entitled "The Tao of Physics", this concept is developed further. Science progresses due to the formulation of a hypothesis, experimentation to prove or disprove a theory which supports that hypothesis and the ability to recreate the experiments and reach the same results and conclusions consistently which could then lead to a theory . . . but where did it start? In the formulation of a hypothesis. A thought. An idea. Where did that come from?? Even scientists cannot answer that.

Science is a system of man's devising to formulate answers to life (which remains a step ahead of our ability to provide those answers). (See: Light, waves, matter) In other words . . . religious people will see a miracle (not the birth of a baby which is not, in fact, miraculous) when such miracle is defined as a violation of natural laws (See Water, walking on) and call it a miracle. Scientists will see it and say that they don't know this natural law yet, immediately formulating theories to explain the event and seeking to make it an explainable event. Until then, it's a failure of science to explain a natural phenomenon, not a miracle.

Great discussion.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

"We produce proteins based off DNA changes that say it's cold, it's warm, we're eating we're not."

maybe but there is no evidence that says that those initial dna changes(during recombination) were caused by some intelligence rather than random mutation.anyway, the production of proteins that your talking about are caused by physical factors(chemical reactions).if this process were to be "intelligent", it would be expected to make those proteins whenever it wants regardless of the temperature.

Hey Dean, you posted your comment on the wrong thread. Go to the article about books which followed this one. Great books, by the way!

I'm enjoying the discussion here and glad that we're getting some additional input from you, Doyle and Melinda. As for your comment about me deleting comments, Doyle, I only delete comments when someone personally attacks someone else, uses inappropriate language or tries to take over the discussion directing it away from the original topic.

have any of my comments been deleted?

No, Joseph.

Joseph, sorry if you are confused about the relationships and values of the subjective vs the objective ... that explains your thinking.

the original comment someone made was:
"Another interesting scientific discovery is that soem plants and animals mutate their DNA intelligently in relation to external conditions."

the implication from this comment is that the cell or dna is "thinking" about the best way to deal with some "external condition".as if the cell is pondering its options from a list of possibilities and then "choosing" the right course of action. you know,weighing the pros and cons of each action it might take.that is the context that "intelligent" was used.that would be "intelligent" if it were scientifically accurate.i maintain that this is not the way cells work.cells (or dna) are not pondering the best action to take.dna certainly does not change(or mutate) the order of nucleotides because some other order might work better.

"Purposeful mutation happens in our immune system everyday."

mutation means a change in the dna.the dna of the cells in our immune system are not changing in order to more effectivly fight off a disease.

Joseph, I'm curious as to what your education is. You present yourself as an expert on these things. Are there no mysteries in the universe that you are aware of that you, or science has no answers for?

I am interested in the holographic nature of the cells...the idea that the whole is present in the parts. I believe that intelligence is present within living cells.

I seem to remember that it was a physicist, when asked what holds the cells together, said that it was love or God. Does anyone know about this?

"Joseph, I'm curious as to what your education is. You present yourself as an expert on these things."

im just a science teacher.im just regurgitating the evidence that has been gathered by working scientists.im open to being corrected if anyone sees a mistatement of fact.

" Are there no mysteries in the universe that you are aware of that you, or science has no answers for? "

ill take this on its face that this a real question(because i never said or implied that there were no things that are unknown,science just doesnt invent answers for those unknowns without evidence).of course there are.the idea of a first cell is still controversial.its not controversial because some think it appeared supernaturaly though.there are some very credible ideas about how it happened.lots of circumstantial evidence but not really any "hard proof".this doesnt mean that it didnt happen like some of the leading hypothesis,it just means its tough to replicate.

btw,i dont know the name of the physicist that said that cells were held together by love.i always thought it was the lamella.

The physicist: You have to watch out for scientists who comment on scientific things that are outside their own discipline. They may be well informed but often they don't know any more than an educated lay-person on that subject.

Answers: Science doesn't really go for answers. It's about explaining and predicting natural phenomena. Science is great but it's not philosophy or religion. Asking science to provide answers is a little like asking a portable radio to provide grated cheese.

The answers from religion and philosophy may or may not be capable of being tested by logic but the explanations from science are always subject to verification because of the way the scientific method is designed.

"purposeful mutation happens in our immune systems daily"

ive just looked into somatic mutations and its neat stuff.from what ive seen though it seems that the cell makes a bunch of different of different receptors during a response and not all of them are effective.it seems like kind of a "shotgun response" where some but not all will match.

"This is why ALIENS are here. Yes they are here. They are here as representatives of that GREATER BEING and are being kept secret by the gov't. because to admit there is a GOD/GREATER BEING would really foil all their purposes. "

now that i think of it, thats what i believe too

Really Joseph!!! as indicated earlier you never seemed the one to go for conspiracy theories, thought you found them "scary"!!!

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977175013

Of course in my case i've never made a secret of fact that i believe in conspiracies. The question of course is which ones? There are those we may find in declassified documents (a number of which i have presented before) and there are those that are many a times (arrogantly) admitted.

The problem with the alien hypothesis in modern times often owes itself to a large number UFO (hover craft/saucer) sightings, whereby the probability of such crafts are somehow automatically associated with aliens. Even then, Flying saucers imply an advanced form of technology that at the very least is unknown to the masses, it does not necessarily imply the existence of aliens.

Besides, despite the many unknown variables in a particular possible conspiracy of this kind, it is not so far out to think that we are not technologically capable of such deign here on earth. Nickola Tesla, a man who has almost fully been eliminated from history for his great science contributions, was responsible for great inventions in the early parts of the last century. His funding for his research was deliberately cut by the international bankers and he went bankrupt later on in life. I believe a number of his patents have not been disclosed to the public and more importantly it was he who pioneered the study of electromagnetic (what a number have suggested is what is actually responsible for maneuvering hover crafts; "electromagnetic propulsion"). And then again, it isn't like there haven't been a few who've come out suggesting that we've already got this technology. Given the "possibility" of a government conspiracy in this case, we can conclude with sufficient ease that we've been visited by aliens (at least as far a UFO's are concerned). Moreover, given the vast documentation of in regards to other covert (but declassified, documented & public information) mind control programs (like Mk Ultra; by humans of course) & false memory implantations, this can explain a possibility as to why a significant number of people suggest they were visited by aliens or were abused by them. These in contrast are also far different from UFO sightings which on a number of occasions were witnessed by people in masses (in numbers; and of course most likely not in any altered state of mind)

These are but a few reasons why I've not been able to buy the whole alien visitation stuff (even if it were true; there just isn't enough concrete info to begin with). Proving that UFO's exist is hard enough itself (even though a lot of it does adds up), proving that aliens exist is even harder than that.

"Really Joseph!!! as indicated earlier you never seemed the one to go for conspiracy theories, thought you found them "scary"!!!"

hehe,everybody gets the joke but you dar r

He he, you certainly managed to crack one this time.

"everybody gets the joke"

Strange but funny presumption since the only comment since your previous comment, other than mine, is your own. But I suppose you accounted for that when you considered "everybody" who had gotten it.

Oh & what might one make of the explicitness of a one liner such as this?:

"now that i think of it, thats what i believe too"

Regardless, I still get to laugh at a joke in the end.
………..
………….
Correction to my earlier comment:
"we can 'NOT' conclude with sufficient ease that we've been visited by aliens"

ive just spent the last 80 comments advocating a materialistic and logical explaination for the origin and diversity of life based of physical evidence. the good natured joke (that everyone who has been following the thread gets but you) is that when confronted with claims that agents of god have infiltrated the government and have infused apes with souls to turn them in to humans,i suddenly get convinced by this compelling arguement and renounce my materialistic perspective on life. its not so funny when i have to explain it though.this is the second time in a couple of days that you have completly failed to comprehend an internet disscusion(for everyone following along, see the link that dar r has kindly provided)please keep up dar r and laugh at the appropriate times.