Tippaporn

LOL. It's typical of people to say, "What makes you think you're so smart?" when confronted with people who have acquired knowledge which they do not as yet possess. People love to cut other people down to their size. As I've said before, my intellect is no greater than that of anyone who posts here. I have, though, acquired knowledge which others do not as yet possess. Anyone here can acquire for themselves that same knowledge. Along with the heightened perception which that knowledge brings. Don't worry, Woof999. I'm no more special than you are. I admit it freely with just as much vigor and sincerity as I use for all of my stances.

What the f? Over the edge? Dangerous? Cult? Unhealthy? Lordy, lordy, it certainly is over the top when anyone makes pronunciations on things they know less than zero about. Please do elucidate, Hummin. What evidence do you offer to show that it's dangerous. And don't give me an opinion. You've just made a claim that they're dangerous so you must be in possession of solid evidence which supports your claim. Cult? Again, provide evidence that this is true. No opinion. Evidence only. Unhealthy? Once again, provide evidence that this is true. No opinion. Evidence only. What do you know about Seth, Hummin? Let's hear it. I would hope you have in depth knowledge. For if you don't you just put your foot in your mouth big time with that load of BS. You're a pretty good poster, Hummin, and I enjoy your posts. But this statement is a very surprising embarrassment. There you go again with your demands for evidence while you ignore calls for the same. On the contrary. I state that you create your own reality as fact. There is only empirical evidence, which can be backed by solid logic, for that fact. I've pointed out before that science's methodology is incapable of proving it in such a way that it would satisfy their definition of "fact." Thoughts are purely subjective and therefore science's methodology, which must deal solely with objective reality, cannot possibly be applied. I've said often enough that the evidence is all around us. Evidence to show that one creates their own reality lies within ourselves, rather than outside of ourselves. That evidence can indeed be obtained but it requires that one look for it. Once one determines in seriousness to look for it they will find it and be able to connect the dots. Now some events make it easier to see the evidence that we create our own realities. If you walk across the room then it's patently obvious that you've created the event. You start with the thought to do so, you add the desire to do so, you apply the intent to so, you generate the emotive force, you hold the belief that it's possible to do so, and you imagine yourself doing so. Viola! You've just created your own reality in which you crossed a room. Not all events are as easily traced back to the specific thoughts, desires, intentions, beliefs, and imaginings as the above most simplistic example. Some events are much more complex in nature with much more added to the mix. And therein lies the rub. Because of this fact then it appears that some events are brought into being by another process, or perhaps some interceding force - be it God or chance or any other designation given to some outside agency. Yet the appearance is deceiving and the process which is used to walk across a room is the same process used to create all other events in one's life. One of the complexities is the fact that beliefs do not operate in isolation. For instance, and I'll simplify, you may have a belief that says the individual is fragile and vulnerable. You may also hold a subsidiary belief that then concludes that the world is a dangerous place. Another belief might be that the individual is powerless. Add another belief in which you believe implicitly in your good health. And another belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous. Now let's say you're entertaining thoughts of vulnerability which will naturally produce emotions of fear. Both thoughts and emotions are composed of energy. If you entertain these thoughts of fragility and vulnerability long enough and with enough intensity then build up enough energy which begins the process of the manifestation of these ideas from subjective reality to the objective world. But this manifestation must have a pathway from subjective reality to objective reality. In my simple, but more complex example, when the thoughts of vulnerability and the the emotion of fear they produce begin to seek a pathway to manifestation then the energy will follow the path of least resistance (a scientific fact, no?). If it attempts to produce a manifestation of illness it will encounter a roadblock. Your supreme belief in good health manifests that reality so the energy of your other beliefs cannot counter it and express itself through ill health. As a pathway is continued to be searched for this energy finds the belief that driving in Thailand is dangerous. That belief is in concert and thus allows the energy generated from the belief in fragility and vulnerability , coupled with the belief that the world is a dangerous place, coupled with the belief in powerless to then flow through it. Those beliefs of similar nature create the pathway. Let's say an accident follows. The ideas, while each being themselves unique, attract each other due to the similarity in nature. They are a match. Like attracts like. I believe that, too, is a scientific established fact. Like attracts like is always in operation when creating reality. By the way, the specific details of the accident -time, place, severity, injurious or not, etc. - will all be determined by yet other beliefs held by the individual. The individual then reacts to the accident in perplexed fashion. Their first thought might be the question of how this happened. Why it happened. They can see no apparent link between themselves and the event. And thus they begin to create explanations, based on yet more beliefs, that it was caused by either the will of God, or pure unfortunate luck, or karma, or as punishment for earlier misdeeds. All sorts of wild theories will be created in an attempt to explain the event. And once a particular conclusion is settled upon and adopted it becomes another belief in the guise of "truth." It would be true to say that I cannot produce the evidence of the truth that we create our own realities for anyone else. Each individual must provide the evidence which confirms the truth for themselves. And so I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make them drink. I can point the way but it is up to each individual to make the effort of understanding. I've also made the claim, stated as fact, that emotions come from thoughts. Period. So, for a very easy exercise which anyone can successfully perform and which would produce evidence of that fact I'd ask each poster to pay attention to what thoughts they're entertaining and the emotions they then feel. Negative thoughts produce negative emotions. Positive thoughts create positive emotions. I'll challenge anyone to be brave enough to make this effort and report back their findings. Again, for the same reasons I gave in the above example of creating one's own reality I cannot produce the evidence that emotions flow from thought for anyone other. That's the job of each individual.

Really? Yes, really. The post to which you replied is an extension of the below post which preceded it, to which you did not reply. Go ahead and defend, provide evidence, or justify your position that Seth was a figment of Jane's imagination despite the fact that you know nothing about Seth or Jane. You're the one claiming something of which you know nothing to be true. Don't back out now. The post you responded to was one in which I gave illustration to, by use of analogies, the typical ways in which folks deal with new ideas that don't fit in with their currently held ideas. I used you as an example. If you wish to dispute my assessment then do so. I put those analogies up as truisms. Just as the truism, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink." That's a truism, which is to say that it a truth which requires no evidence. It's as plain as the nose on one's face. Do not make the mistake of writing a book review on a book you've never read. You're making that mistake now. You know nothing of Seth yet you've concluded he's a figment of Jane Robert's imagination. Are you in the habit of claiming to know something when in fact you do not? There's a term for that. I believe it's an imposter. Since credentials are important to you then I'll provide some of Seth's. His technical information is of such quality that he's been visited by a number of scientists. The Seth material is housed in the Yale University Archives, not by any means an obscure university. It's said that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale. A figment of Jane's imagination, indeed. With statements like that you expose yourself and do not put yourself in a good light. On the other hand, what is offered by science and religion in terms of a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves is extremely lacking, contradictory and discombobulated to say the least. So much doesn't fit together, so much information opposes other information, and so much which doesn't work in a practical and functional manner. Before you laugh and disparage other's knowledge, only because your personal beliefs keep you blind to it and prevent your understanding, take a good, hard look at the whole of contemporary knowledge, much of what you've been taught to believe, and you'll find that most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Given that then you are in no position to laugh or ridicule, my friend.

Jut so you know, Hummin, neither is it the intention of my posts to ridicule or insult you, either. I will, however, ridicule or disparage your ideas. But you, nor anyone, is their ideas. I've said this before. Ideas are like the paints an artist uses to create his artistic two dimensional masterpiece. We use ideas to create the three dimensional masterpieces which are our lives. Yet unlike a static two dimensional painting ours is an interactive one, and one in which the painter paints himself or herself into the medium as well. Not only do we get to experience the effects of our ideas as manifestations for the purpose of feedback on our ideas but we also get to react to them and manipulate them from within the creations which are our lives. Again, Ideas are not who we are. We can change our ideas at any time, and we often do. The body of ideas which make up anyone's world view, the framework which is then used to view and interpret events and reality, is not a finished product. It is not static. It is ever changing as we continually toss out and take in ideas. Now granted, people often erroneously identify with their beliefs to the extent that they and their beliefs are one and the same. With that explanation I hope that you realise and understand that it is the beliefs you hold which I challenge. And admittedly I do tend to continue pressing on with my challenges to you, and everyone here. While it may seem to you at times that I press you too much just know that I would never do the same to any man or woman I meet out on the street. Here, however, we have all made the conscious choice to willingly engage in an exchange of ideas about God and all which that entails where we present our ideas. Those specific ideas which we use quite practically to view and interpret our private reality and then as guides for our thoughts and actions. We present those ideas here to argue for them and to defend them when challenged. May the best idea win! So all is fair here. Other than attacking and disparaging the individual instead of their ideas. Which we all know happens now and again.

I must be in deep doo-doo as I've worked the Ouija board for 13 years. Got some great advice. Never encountered a demon, though. You provide us with an excellent example of how beliefs operate in the real world. All information is sifted through the framework of your religious beliefs, to which you are completely blind. All events are interpreted using that framework of beliefs so that even the most innocent of actions are cast as something sinister. What you don't yet understand is that it's all made up. No reality behind it other than the imaginary reality painted by your beliefs. It's an illusion. The Ouija board was created in 1890. Religion interpreted any other-worldly communication as evil. It was not that the board itself was inherently evil. But religion declared it such. No supporting evidence required. Why was the devil chosen when it could have just as well been angels communicating? In any case, you've supplied us with an excellent example in the extreme of how one's personal world is continually interpreted according to one's personal beliefs. I suggest that other posters apply AsianAtHearts beliefs to their own. Anyone thinking that some of their own beliefs are not as irrational or absurd needs to think again.

What the f? Over the edge? Dangerous? Cult? Unhealthy? Lordy, lordy, it certainly is over the top when anyone makes pronunciations on things they know less than zero about. Please do elucidate, Hummin. What evidence do you offer to show that it's dangerous. And don't give me an opinion. You've just made a claim that they're dangerous so you must be in possession of solid evidence which supports your claim. Cult? Again, provide evidence that this is true. No opinion. Evidence only. Unhealthy? Once again, provide evidence that this is true. No opinion. Evidence only. What do you know about Seth, Hummin? Let's hear it. I would hope you have in depth knowledge. For if you don't you just put your foot in your mouth big time with that load of BS. You're a pretty good poster, Hummin, and I enjoy your posts. But this statement is a very surprising embarrassment.

Would I be skeptical of aliens landing in my backyard? Certainly. But I would divest myself of any preconceived notions and evaluate them according to my observations. No naïveté on my part there. Now how would you know whether I take Seth too literally when you know nothing of the information he conveys? You wouldn't. Neither would you be able to conclude that it's similar to literal interpretations of the Bible. You state that you do believe that we create our own reality. For you it's in part. For me it's complete. The difference between us is the extent to which we create our own realities. Since I believe that it's 100% and you believe in some lesser percentage does that mean I take my interpretation too literally or does it mean that you don't recognise the full extent to which we create our own reality? Which is it? Now I would say that you find areas in your life in which it seems you have no control. Since you are convinced that there are experiences in which you seem to have no control then it's only natural that these areas of experience would lead you to limit the extent to which you have control in your life. Now if you were to read Seth in full then you would find that Seth would clear up any misunderstands where you've concluded other than full creative control. It's called learning. An inquisitive mind seeking the truth would say to itself, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you the opportunity to perhaps correct any of my misguided thinking." But that does not appear to be the approach you take. The approach your mind takes would be to say, "On it's surface I don't agree with your claim and I don't believe it to be true and therefore I will look no further." That's the difference between you and I here in our respective approaches to seeking answers. If confronted with fitting a square peg to a round hole I don't automatically give up and toss the square peg away. I'm venturesome enough, and patient enough, to see whether or not I need to reshape my round hole to that of a square. And I'll again bring up the old question I posed to you some time ago. If it is not you who creates your experience then who? You've thus far adamantly refused to address that question head on because you have no answer for it. So it remains one of those questions which you decide not to cherry pick. Which is the same reason, I believe, that you did not address a single other thing in my post. As to my presenting my ideas, or AsianAtHeart presenting his beliefs in over the top fashion is it really over the top? Or is it your interpretation that when someone has firm beliefs and expresses them unwaveringly, with conviction, and passionately when you're not open to those ideas then you feel that person to be assaulting or imposing on you? Now if, on the other hand, the information which is expressed so adamantly by another happens to agree with your ideas then you would assuredly not consider it to be over the top. You would rather be happier than a pig in mud and look forward to hearing more. Do you see the difference? Now we are each on this thread to express our beliefs about God, science, and everything in between. Everyone of us has a framework of ideas which are then used to view and interpret reality and life. Each of us makes claims as to what we believe reality to be. The religious types make their claims based upon the totality of information they have available to them. The science guys do the same. And those of a mix, or those whose framework is neither - like mine, also do the same. Now I'm trying to think of the old joke of a Muslim, a Jew, and a Catholic in a bar arguing and each making claims that their God is the one and only God. I can't recall now how it goes but in the end they can't all be right. And perhaps none of them are. In that sense we each argue here for our point of view and make claims that our view is the accurate representation of reality. Now we can't all be right and perhaps none of us are. Yet regardless we challenge each other's beliefs as to their ultimate truth and attempt to find the fallacies in another's beliefs. You do it. I do it. Every other poster does it. In our conversations I challenge your beliefs. I have no problem with you challenging mine. Now when the challenge to your beliefs becomes too much for you then you complain with the reasoning that you may not be ready to hear or accept ideas which grate against yours. Would that be a fair assessment?

Key word . . . fear. Fear that alien life would be just like us. Fear that then creates imaginings of a negative light. Why wouldn't they be like the alien's in the comic book story I related? Is a negative perspective more real, more plausible, than a positive one? People tend to project their ideas, good or bad, outward. God is a personification in that sense. We create him in our own image. True enough? I recall you wrote this: Then Seth fits the description of an alien, does he not? He's not of this world, or of this physical universe, though he can travel to our world. Not in a spacecraft but through psychological pathways. Perhaps he's symbolic of the aliens in my comic book story. He certainly comes offering great knowledge. Seems to me that you would play the character of a general in my comic book story who gives the order to blow Seth back to Hell, using AsianAtHeart's framework of viewing reality.

Naïve in what way? Expound. Don't be afraid of possibly insulting me. I welcome criticism. Now I do understand the concept of creating one's reality through the use of ideas and beliefs. My understanding of it is not merely on an intellectual level. I put it to quite practical use. It bears consciously intended results. An understanding of this concept also provides much insight into others. One cannot help but expose what they believe in. Is it not plainly self evident that Seth's concept of creating one's own reality does not fit into science's belief system in which the process controls life experience and further determines the direction of life? Creating one's own reality is the diametric opposite of that. It states that consciousness creates the process and all of the resulting conditions for life and it is consciousness which determines the direction which life takes. And so any attempt to accept Seth's concept when one believes the opposite to be true boils down to fitting a square peg into a round hole. When confronted with an idea which is a polar opposite of accepted ideas then an immediate recognition of fitting a square peg into a round hole takes place. And the square peg is then automatically rejected. A critical evaluation of ideas does not take place as you suggest. So if you believe I'm generalising when I comment about certain posters then you mistake what is instead a recognition on my part of what a poster's beliefs are. Woof999's out of hand rejection, and ridicule, of Seth's validity is due in whole to his current beliefs. The out of hand rejection, with zero critical contemplation taking place, is the more obvious since he's completely ignorant of what and who Seth is. Riddle me this . . . how can one conclude on something when one has no knowledge on which to base any conclusion? And the fact that one refuses to critically examine an idea solely because it doesn't fit into their belief system is the epitome of a closed mind. One's beliefs act to slam shut, oftentimes with great vigor, any possibility of understanding.

Critical eyes? In truth? All information that comes to you or anyone else gets sifted first through one's personal belief system. Which explains why certain information gets rejected automatically and out of hand. If it doesn't fit into one's belief system it is quickly discarded uncritically. Or the reverse, where information is readily accepted because it does fit in with one's belief system. Often uncritically as well. Most people are not in the habit of examining information by first stepping outside of their belief systems. By suspending their beliefs during the time in which they examine a fresh idea. Again, the physical universe as idea construction. We create using ideas. Those ideas which we entertain on a regular basis become what is called a belief. Beliefs are powerful in that they then create experience. You will accept as real only that which believe and you literally live your beliefs. Regardless of whether one is aware of this process or not it is the process which all must and do follow in this reality. Hence you may create unconsciously by default, in which case you live life as a leaf blowing in the wind or you understand the process and use it to create with full conscious intent.

@Woof999 Anyone who has raised a child will attest to young children's aversion to new food. "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" "But you've haven't tried it, sweet pea." "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" "But you haven't tasted it. How do you know it's not good?" "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" In adulthood so many people treat new ideas just as young children do new foods. Fortunately children do end up trying new foods . . . and liking much of it once they've tasted it. Unfortunately, many adults never grow out of that childhood phase when it comes to new ideas. They're confronted with a new idea and their immediate response is, "I don't like it! It doesn't look good!" Is that who you are Woof999? Since I traveled internationally when I was young I was exposed to a lot of "foreign" food. Back in the States it's more common for someone to have never left it's borders than not. Once I worked with a Lebanese guy. His wife would pack his lunch daily. He preferred, though, to eat lunch out. So as not to bring his packed lunch home, or toss it wastefully in the rubbish bin, he would offer it to me. It was authentic homemade Lebanese food and it was delicious. Now and again I would offer some to my coworkers. None of them were interested in even trying any of it because it was "foreign" food. They were simply unable to get past their preconceived notions that it wouldn't taste good. Is this how you deal with new ideas, Woof999? When I was 6 or 7 years old I read a comic book about aliens who had come to Earth. These aliens had attained advanced knowledge and had come to offer it to the Earthlings. The Earthlings, driven by their fear of the unknown, surrounded the alien's spaceship with their weapons of war. The aliens stood at the ramp to their spacecraft when the order was given to blow them back to whence they came. Having superior knowledge and technology the aliens returned to their spacecraft, unharmed, and flew away. Are you like the Earthlings, Woof999? Young children are naturally inquisitive. There is little that they won't hear because they haven't yet been indoctrinated in the beliefs of their elders . . . parents and teachers and all whom they come in contact with. But conformity takes it's coarse over the years. They learn, as most do, to reject anything that doesn't fit their prejudiced thinking. Their inquisitiveness gets thoroughly squashed. And they live out their lives knowing only what they know. Or what they think know. Is this what happened to you, Woof999? The above are some of the common barriers people face when searching for answers. A closed mind is a terrible thing.

Do not make the mistake of writing a book review on a book you've never read. You're making that mistake now. You know nothing of Seth yet you've concluded he's a figment of Jane Robert's imagination. Are you in the habit of claiming to know something when in fact you do not? There's a term for that. I believe it's an imposter. Since credentials are important to you then I'll provide some of Seth's. His technical information is of such quality that he's been visited by a number of scientists. The Seth material is housed in the Yale University Archives, not by any means an obscure university. It's said that it is one of the most frequented archives at Yale. A figment of Jane's imagination, indeed. With statements like that you expose yourself and do not put yourself in a good light. On the other hand, what is offered by science and religion in terms of a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves is extremely lacking, contradictory and discombobulated to say the least. So much doesn't fit together, so much information opposes other information, and so much which doesn't work in a practical and functional manner. Before you laugh and disparage other's knowledge, only because your personal beliefs keep you blind to it and prevent your understanding, take a good, hard look at the whole of contemporary knowledge, much of what you've been taught to believe, and you'll find that most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Given that then you are in no position to laugh or ridicule, my friend.

On a lighthearted note, this would be a good starting point: Darwin Awards You've also asked for facts or evidence on the evolution of species. Look up "speciation". Perhaps start here: Speciation The opening paragraph from the linked article: How do new species form? Like most areas of Evolutionary Biology, research related to the formation of new species - 'speciation ' - is rich in historical and current debate. Here, we review both early and modern views on speciation, starting with Darwin and finishing with current genomics-era insights. Rich in debate . . . early and modern views . . . current insights. You said it was factual. All they're doing is describing what little of the process they're able to observe and theorise about what they're observing. I thought Darwin's handwritten notes, which predated his book by about 20 years, was a trifle humourous. Note at the very top of the paper: "I think" 555555555 He certainly did. Out of interest, what term do you use? I like Seth's term. All That Is. It's hard to read anything else into that label. Labels aren't important. Convenient, but not important. On many points yes. It came from my education. What are your beliefs based on? What you see all around and others don't because they don't want to? I'm just a layman and don't claim to be anything else. What are your credentials that would lead me or anyone else to lend more weight to your arguments above scientists who have studied the subjects for decades? As for education my view is that it can be a great asset. Especially for those who are naturally in the habit of questioning. The more they question the better. On the other hand, for those who do little questioning an education can become an indoctrination instead. My beliefs are based primarily on what makes sense and what works. Where it comes from is neither here nor there with me. It's the integrity and validity of any given knowledge that is important to me. We all have awareness. Though it's never identical. Everyone therefore sees something that another does not and vice versa. Beliefs are a filtering mechanism. They filter out what one does not want to see and leaves them only that which their beliefs allow them to see. I've never asked anyone for credentials. Credentials are meaningless to me. There are people who are worthy of their credentials and many who are not. Credentials are no guarantor of anything. Certainly not of one's character. Requiring degrees min the hope that a degree pans out to be meaningful has come into vogue starting in the 80's. Do you wear designer clothes to impress others? Many people use credentials to impress. I'm not impressed by them. Rather I would be the judge of whether someone is knowledgeable or not. As to scientists who spend their entire careers on particular subject matter it may very well be meaningless. Imagine spending an entire career studying the theory of evolution only to find in the end that it's based on false premises. An education, a degree, and an entire lifelong career may amount to nothing if what you've been taught and what you've studied is, in essence, so much junk. I'm sensing that you defer to another's authority rather than your own. There are certainly times when such deference is warranted. By and large we are our own authorities. Granted, those who covet authority would contemptuously disagree. As you describe yourself as a layman who doesn't claim to be anything else I would inform you that you are much more than you think you are. Though you do not realise it you have within you the knowledge of the whole. You have valuable talents and gifts uniquely your own. I would advise to never undervalue or underrate one's self. No one has the market of knowledge to themselves. Indeed, knowledge . . . true knowledge . . . is available to all of us.

.... and science has the self awareness to at least admit that. The "believers" just say - "you can't explain it, so it must be god", which is hardly convincing. I think you're mistaking me for a religious guy. I don't subscribe to religion of any kind. What I deal with is not at all religious. No dogma, no contradictions, no fairy tales.. If your lack of intelligence leads you to make decisions that shorten your lifespan then you're hardly likely to contribute to evolution. Again, intelligence and choice on the part of the individual, or life form, has no bearing whatsoever in the theory of evolution. Neither does longevity. The only purpose assigned to a life form is to recreate. If you can show where the theory deals with any of these three attributes then show it. Where does science say it is sure let alone cocksure? We've covered the fact that after 300+ years the only thing that science can agree on regarding consciousness is that it exists. Nowhere does the theory of evolution incorporate consciousness, which is what we are and we are life. By omitting it then it stands to reason that they're cocksure consciousness doesn't play a role or function. While science doesn't state it outright it is implied. That's just a logical and common sense conclusion. and what makes you so cocksure that Jane Roberts was right? The quote is not by Jane Roberts. It's a quote by Seth. They're not the same. The short of it is consciousness creates form. Not the other way around. I'll provide the reasons why in a series of posts. Bear with me. I am not anti-science at all. Yet I strongly criticise science when the criticism is earned. Science has some serious failings. Much of what it professes and believes is in fact highly damaging. Should I turn a blind eye to it's many shortcomings and simply worship science in eternal gratitude for what amazing accomplishments they've succeeded in bringing about for humanity? To fawn only while ignoring what can even be deemed a dark side of science would equate to being nothing more than a blind, worshiping acolyte who bows in amazement at science's every utterance. That's not who I am. So often people make the error of labeling another as anti simply because they criticise. That is fallacious logic. Best you avoid doing so.

See the answer to question 6. Are you perhaps a young earth creationist whereby your timeline wavers from mine by many orders? Again, no specificity. 14 billion years, give or take, depending on who you talk to. Physicists at least understand the simultaneous nature of time. Everything is happening at once. Certainly not according to our neurological experience. If time is simultaneous and everything is happening at once then there are no beginnings or endings. Granted, that's a tough concept to wrap one's head around when the only thing we're aware of is an existence in consecutive time . . . moment by moment by moment. An understanding of that requires more than the use of one's intellect.

A rough timeline? Somewhat over 14 billion years, less a few hundred million years when things were still a little warm and sticky. You get zero debating points for giving a worthless answer. Specificity. Do you have any? When the original life form made it's first jump what was it to? And what was it's next jump? And so on. If you can't get that specific then how about a jump from one species to the creation of an entirely new species? Since there's no fossil records to show this definitive transmutation could you at least illustrate the metamorphosis? Links to someone who has, perhaps? Or links to the scientific data that claims this? If the theory of evolution is proven then it shouldn't be hard to produce this type of material.

Probably more so than anyone can quantify or list the properties of their god. Again, why are you using the term force? Probably? What a minute . . . First you claim it's existence is "factual." Which, if true, you should be able to answer some of my questions in detail. Then you qualify any answers as being probable. How well do you understand this subject matter? Seems to me you're just repeating what you've been told by someone.

The existence of natural selection can be shown to be factual regardless of the existence of your god. Show it, then. Put up your "facts" which prove it's existence. Since you're so adamant that natural selection exists then it can't be that difficult for you to produce the concrete evidence. BTW, I'm not religious. I do believe in a source but I don't use the term "God." For one, the label has too many preconceived notions attached to it and for another my concept is not at all as Christians personify the idea of God.

I think your definition of a force is different than mine, but natural selection is very well defined. Even if you don't agree with it, I'm be pretty sure you know how it is defined. According to science: Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. Natural selection acts on the phenotype. When anything acts on something else then force is implied. Therefore natural selection is a force as defined above. In physics, a force is an influence that can change the motion of an object. Do you have a different definition of force? Natural selection is also defined as the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment. Therefore, no free will, no choice, and the organism plays no part whatsoever in it's own direction or fulfillment.

Quantum theory might be leading us down the path to believe that there is no such thing as free will. The jury's out on that one at the moment. I've gotten wind of this "new" and utterly ridiculous scientific theory. It's based on pure naturalism; the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. And that obviously does not include us at all. This theory may as well state that subjective reality has been declared dead. We've been parsed down to being nothing more than biological, mechanised robots. If you're willing to believe this idea, despite all of your lived evidence to the contrary, then I'm convinced that you've given your mind over, along with your common sense, completely to science. Once that happens then there's no thought whatsoever required on your part to think about anything. As long as science proclaims a "truth," no matter how ludicrous, you seem to willingly and blindly follow. If you decide of your own free will to walk across the room, and you do so, then it wasn't your free will which made that choice and caused you to take that action? And what of your desire and intention to do so? Are you going to say desire and intention doesn't exist either? It just doesn't get more ludicrous, more absurd than a belief that free will is nonexistent. The only scientific theory which comes close to reaching that level of inanity is the idea that biology does not determine gender. Pretty soon you'll be denying your own existence. Science is making the disastrous mistake of putting the cart before the horse. Science observes the effects of consciousness on the body and then turns it all upside down by mistaking the effects as the cause which then effects consciousness. An example of this in-reverse thinking can be seen in science's belief that the chemicals in the brain cause human emotion. Instead, emotions affect the chemicals in the brain. Science has it completely backwards. Without free will making choices would be an impossibility. In any case, I conclude that free will does not enter into science's theory of evolution equation. And you're good with that.

I would suggest that self awareness, coupled with intelligence would allow you to make better choices. Better choices = more chance of reproducing and more chance of longevity. From Wiki: Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence. Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial, being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives." Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists. That last statement says a lot about what science understands of consciousness. And it's not a whole lot. Consciousness is much more than self awareness. It is what we are and all which that entails. Consciousness is life itself. Given that definition rather than yours, which appears to be the simplest form - sentience or awareness, then what's our role in evolution? Or to rephrase, do we play any role? Or does natural selection dictate strictly on it's own what direction is taken for us? We have no say in the matter of our own evolutionary condition or experience? What does choice or intelligence have to do with the theory of evolution? Evolution is defined as the inheritance of characteristics which over generations produce genetic variations. Natural selection and genetic drift then act on this variation. Personal choice and intelligence has squat to do with evolution according to the theory. Which is pretty much what my question was getting at. So your answer is nada. No role whatsoever. And you believe this to be plausible? In no way does that conclusion disturb your common sense? The bottom line is that if science has no clue as to what consciousness is, what we are, or what life is, then how can science be so cocksure that consciousness plays no role? Or are they making a grave, and erroneous, assumption due to their lack of knowledge and understanding? You might want to think about the following and the implications that statement has on the theory of evolution. "Chemicals themselves will not give rise to consciousness or life. Your scientists will have to face the fact that consciousness comes first and evolves its own form." —The Seth Material, Chapter Ten

The irony. The unprovable belief in the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact.

<snip> There is? Where? <snip> I'll be presenting it soon. I'll be more than happy to notify you when I do. In the meanwhile, while I'm working on putting that together you can work on the following: 1) Where does consciousness fit into the theory of evolution? What role does consciousness play? 2) Where does the free will of consciousness fit into the theory? 3) What is Natural Selection? Define it in a functional way, a working model which shows the relationship with consciousness and it's own force? 4) If the existence of God cannot be proven has the existence of Natural Selection been proven? 5) If Natural Selection exists as a determinative force then explain what created this force and where it exists? Can it be quantified in any way? Can you list it's properties? 6) Provide a timeline of evolution from the origin of life to each and every new life form. A rough timeline will suffice. 7) Given the trillions of life forms in existence today how long would it take to produce all of these lifeforms? Like xylophone you can take your ball and bat and go home anytime you like if you feel these questions are too difficult, or impossible, to answer. Or you can exit using the same reasoning that you've better things to do with your time than to waste it talking to a bunch of idiots. Idiots only because they don't agree with you. Keep in mind, too, that there is no universal consensus on the theory of evolution. There are those scientists who have evidence that it does not exist. Bonus question: Are the scientist who have evidence to the contrary pseudo scientists? Keep in mind as well the reason why you agree with those scientists who do believe in evolution. More bonus questions: Is it only because that is what you want to believe? Even if it were to be false? Do you care about only what's true? Would you change your mind if evolution is not the truth?

Where's the link to the article? There's information available which you haven't heard that totally destroys both the theory of evolution, which is supported in part by another theory, natural selection, and that theory as well. The fact that the theory completely ignores the role of consciousness, or life itself, is to completely ignore a valid point. The theories ignore so much else, which information is also not known to you. You make the fatal assumption that all of the information related to both theories is in. Not so, my friend. But since you are immovable in your "beliefs" I do agree that your best bet is to take your ball and go home since concluding that responding to any opposition to your "belief" by "nonsensical" people is waste of your precious time. If you don't receive the immediate and universal agreement to your "beliefs" that you demand you throw in the towel. At 75 that attitude doesn't evidence maturity.

Because, Hummin, it's not a fully working theory. When asked to show how it works in great detail there exist multiple failures in the explanation as given. We're talking about life, Hummin. Where does the individual consciousness fit into evolution? Nowhere. How can that be? What's implied in the theory is that that living consciousness which it purports to explain as to it's development plays zero role in it's own development. Rather, the theory claims instead some ambiguous force called Natural Selection, which is a theory itself, which in God-like fashion determines the process. The theory doesn't at all define Natural Selection except in vague terms. Certainly not in definitive terms. No information about it's properties or where it exists. Or in what format or medium. I have a completely open mind about the theory of evolution, Hummin, I ask questions. And if I get zero answers to my questions, and if those questions can't be answered then it can't be shown to work in greater detail and thus it must be a failed theory. It's called deductive reasoning, Hummin. You, on the other hand, do not have an open mind about evolution. Why do I say this? Because you willingly ignore the questions that I and others ask about it. You willing accept the holes, the gaps, the missing information, the excluded information. And pretend these failures are of no real import. That is the definition of being close minded. To see only that which you want to see and ignore and/or dismiss all objections. How does consciousness, life itself, fit into the equation, Hummin? What is it's role? I know you can't answer these questions. Again, as I stated above, stick with the hard sciences. For once subjective reality enters into the equation you truly are in no mans land. Science has zero clue as to what consciousness even is. The theory must include consciousness. Period.