Poll on the forum denizens views on evolution

[Flannel Jesus]

This might not be worth specifying, but please don't take the past tense nature of the questions to imply that that means evolution stopped. "Happened" is of course compatible with "and still happening".

So, why did you not just replace the last 'd' in 'happened' with an 's', and just replace the 'did' word with 'does'?

If you did, then you would have been more succinct, and thus easier to follow and understand.

Because that misses something else important - the historical position of evolution, specifically the idea that various species have a last common ancestor. "Does happen" could allow for someone to think all species were just invented by god 6000 years ago, but still think evolution happens within a species, and that's not actually what I wanted to capture.

[Age]

This might not be worth specifying, but please don't take the past tense nature of the questions to imply that that means evolution stopped. "Happened" is of course compatible with "and still happening".

So, why did you not just replace the last 'd' in 'happened' with an 's', and just replace the 'did' word with 'does'?

If you did, then you would have been more succinct, and thus easier to follow and understand.

Because that misses something else important - the historical position of evolution, specifically the idea that various species have a last common ancestor. "Does happen" could allow for someone to think all species were just invented by god 6000 years ago, but still think evolution happens within a species, and that's not actually what I wanted to capture.

But is there any one who would think such a thing?

If yes, then who, exactly?

[Flannel Jesus]

So, why did you not just replace the last 'd' in 'happened' with an 's', and just replace the 'did' word with 'does'?

If you did, then you would have been more succinct, and thus easier to follow and understand.

Because that misses something else important - the historical position of evolution, specifically the idea that various species have a last common ancestor. "Does happen" could allow for someone to think all species were just invented by god 6000 years ago, but still think evolution happens within a species, and that's not actually what I wanted to capture.

But is there any one who would think such a thing?

If yes, then who, exactly?

Christians, buddy. Have you heard of them?

[Age]

Because that misses something else important - the historical position of evolution, specifically the idea that various species have a last common ancestor. "Does happen" could allow for someone to think all species were just invented by god 6000 years ago, but still think evolution happens within a species, and that's not actually what I wanted to capture.

But is there any one who would think such a thing?

If yes, then who, exactly?

Christians, buddy. Have you heard of them?

So, writing, 'Evolution does not happen', would confuse some, whereas writing, 'Evolution did not happen', does not confuse any one, right?

[Maia]

I think that evolution definitely happened, and that it's a natural process, without any external guide. This doesn't just apply to the earth, but to the whole universe, too, if we use evolution in the broadest sense, as not just referring to life, but to the evolution of physical matter as well. This is not to say, however, that there's no place for the sacred, or the numinous, in this, and personally, at least, I regard the whole of nature itself, including evolution, as divine, though this doesn't imply that it has any conscious thought, or purpose. It doesn't even imply that it's benevolent, because clearly it can be very hostile, at times, but nevertheless, without it, none of us would be here. It is, in other words, the very origin of life, and the life-force, which we're all part of.

Why do you only think 'evolution' is happening?
Absolutely every thing is a natural process.
There could never be any thing external to the Natural Universe.

The whole Universe is in one always continual evolutionary-creation, constant-change.
The whole Universe, and absolutely every thing within, is alive, living, and thus 'life'.
The change of physical matter, itself, is how and why all things are 'life', living; being alive.

There is 'conscious thought', in Life, and thus in Nature, and therefore is natural. And, obviously 'some thought' is more aligned with the 'Divine', than it is with the 'devil'.
There is a purpose for every thing, including you things known as 'human beings'. That some human beings never find out what 'their purpose' is never means that there is not a purpose for you human beings.

Nature, Itself, so-called 'hostile', and as you so Rightly said, without Nature, Itself, you human beings would have never been 'created' and have come into 'Existence', Itself.

There was no origin/start to 'Life', Itself, like there was no origin/beginning to the Universe/Existence, Itself.

There is no actual 'life-force', but instead there is a 'life-energy', and this is just because 'Life', Itself, does not 'force' any thing. Absolutely every 'thing', all matter, is 'free' to 'move about', and does so because of and with an 'energy' within, or behind, it.
you human beings are just a part of this very normal, and Natural, process.

I think there is purpose, and that purpose is what we make for ourselves, but to say this is not to imply that this purpose is in any way unimportant. Also, when I said before that nature is not conscious, that's not strictly true, either, because we are conscious, and we are part of nature.

I don't know if there was ever a beginning to nature, to life, or if there will ever be an end to it. Theories seem to come and go, about that. My own feeling is that there probably isn't, and that everything goes in cycles, including the universe, but that's just my feeling. Pretty much everything else in nature goes in cycles, so why not nature itself?

[Age]

For those who are not yet aware:

When the 'Universe' is defined as, 'All-there-is; Everything; Totality, then the Universe is eternal, and infinite.
The Universe could not be in any other way.
Therefore, the Universe could not have begun, nor 'created', in the sense of all at once.
So, evolution has been going on, or in 'Creation' forever HERE-NOW.

And, as every thing, (besides matter, energy, and the Universe), is 'created', and is also in continual 'evolution', while it exists, this means that it is actually through and with 'evolution' all of these things were, and are, 'created'.

However, a lot of you people, here, still want to believe that there is 'creation', or, 'evolution', only, and so will not yet be able to comprehend and understand that Fact that 'I' just presented 'you' people, here.

[Age]

I think that evolution definitely happened, and that it's a natural process, without any external guide. This doesn't just apply to the earth, but to the whole universe, too, if we use evolution in the broadest sense, as not just referring to life, but to the evolution of physical matter as well. This is not to say, however, that there's no place for the sacred, or the numinous, in this, and personally, at least, I regard the whole of nature itself, including evolution, as divine, though this doesn't imply that it has any conscious thought, or purpose. It doesn't even imply that it's benevolent, because clearly it can be very hostile, at times, but nevertheless, without it, none of us would be here. It is, in other words, the very origin of life, and the life-force, which we're all part of.

Why do you only think 'evolution' is happening?
Absolutely every thing is a natural process.
There could never be any thing external to the Natural Universe.

The whole Universe is in one always continual evolutionary-creation, constant-change.
The whole Universe, and absolutely every thing within, is alive, living, and thus 'life'.
The change of physical matter, itself, is how and why all things are 'life', living; being alive.

There is 'conscious thought', in Life, and thus in Nature, and therefore is natural. And, obviously 'some thought' is more aligned with the 'Divine', than it is with the 'devil'.
There is a purpose for every thing, including you things known as 'human beings'. That some human beings never find out what 'their purpose' is never means that there is not a purpose for you human beings.

Nature, Itself, so-called 'hostile', and as you so Rightly said, without Nature, Itself, you human beings would have never been 'created' and have come into 'Existence', Itself.

There was no origin/start to 'Life', Itself, like there was no origin/beginning to the Universe/Existence, Itself.

There is no actual 'life-force', but instead there is a 'life-energy', and this is just because 'Life', Itself, does not 'force' any thing. Absolutely every 'thing', all matter, is 'free' to 'move about', and does so because of and with an 'energy' within, or behind, it.
you human beings are just a part of this very normal, and Natural, process.

I think there is purpose, and that purpose is what we make for ourselves,

Well could anything else 'make' 'purpose' for you human beings, besides "yourselves"?

Obviously, even though you human beings instinctively 'have purpose', whatever other 'purpose' 'you human beings make' is and was 'made' for, and by, "yourselves"

but to say this is not to imply that this purpose is in any way unimportant. Also, when I said before that nature is not conscious, that's not strictly true, either, because we are conscious, and we are part of nature.

Thank you for, firstly, realizing, and then for Correcting.

I don't know if there was ever a beginning to nature, to life, or if there will ever be an end to it.

There is no beginning, and, there was no end.

And, this is irrefutable.

Theories seem to come and go, about that.

Just so you are aware, 'I' do not do theories, nor debates.

My own feeling is that there probably isn't, and that everything goes in cycles, including the universe, but that's just my feeling. Pretty much everything else in nature goes in cycles, so why not nature itself?

What do you mean by 'in cycles'?

How could 'Nature', the 'Universe', Itself, go 'in cycles'?

[Maia]

Why do you only think 'evolution' is happening?
Absolutely every thing is a natural process.
There could never be any thing external to the Natural Universe.

The whole Universe is in one always continual evolutionary-creation, constant-change.
The whole Universe, and absolutely every thing within, is alive, living, and thus 'life'.
The change of physical matter, itself, is how and why all things are 'life', living; being alive.

There is 'conscious thought', in Life, and thus in Nature, and therefore is natural. And, obviously 'some thought' is more aligned with the 'Divine', than it is with the 'devil'.
There is a purpose for every thing, including you things known as 'human beings'. That some human beings never find out what 'their purpose' is never means that there is not a purpose for you human beings.

Nature, Itself, so-called 'hostile', and as you so Rightly said, without Nature, Itself, you human beings would have never been 'created' and have come into 'Existence', Itself.

There was no origin/start to 'Life', Itself, like there was no origin/beginning to the Universe/Existence, Itself.

There is no actual 'life-force', but instead there is a 'life-energy', and this is just because 'Life', Itself, does not 'force' any thing. Absolutely every 'thing', all matter, is 'free' to 'move about', and does so because of and with an 'energy' within, or behind, it.
you human beings are just a part of this very normal, and Natural, process.

I think there is purpose, and that purpose is what we make for ourselves,

Well could anything else 'make' 'purpose' for you human beings, besides "yourselves"?

Obviously, even though you human beings instinctively 'have purpose', whatever other 'purpose' 'you human beings make' is and was 'made' for, and by, "yourselves"

but to say this is not to imply that this purpose is in any way unimportant. Also, when I said before that nature is not conscious, that's not strictly true, either, because we are conscious, and we are part of nature.

Thank you for, firstly, realizing, and then for Correcting.

I don't know if there was ever a beginning to nature, to life, or if there will ever be an end to it.

There is no beginning, and, there was no end.

And, this is irrefutable.

Theories seem to come and go, about that.

Just so you are aware, 'I' do not do theories, nor debates.

My own feeling is that there probably isn't, and that everything goes in cycles, including the universe, but that's just my feeling. Pretty much everything else in nature goes in cycles, so why not nature itself?

What do you mean by 'in cycles'?

How could 'Nature', the 'Universe', Itself, go 'in cycles'?

There could be a big bang, followed by expansion, then contraction, and a big crunch, followed by another big bang, and so on, in an endless cycle. I'm no physicist, though, but that sounds perfectly reasonable, to me, and far more sensible than the idea that everything came out of nothing.

[Age]

I think there is purpose, and that purpose is what we make for ourselves,

Well could anything else 'make' 'purpose' for you human beings, besides "yourselves"?

Obviously, even though you human beings instinctively 'have purpose', whatever other 'purpose' 'you human beings make' is and was 'made' for, and by, "yourselves"

but to say this is not to imply that this purpose is in any way unimportant. Also, when I said before that nature is not conscious, that's not strictly true, either, because we are conscious, and we are part of nature.

Thank you for, firstly, realizing, and then for Correcting.

I don't know if there was ever a beginning to nature, to life, or if there will ever be an end to it.

There is no beginning, and, there was no end.

And, this is irrefutable.

Theories seem to come and go, about that.

Just so you are aware, 'I' do not do theories, nor debates.

My own feeling is that there probably isn't, and that everything goes in cycles, including the universe, but that's just my feeling. Pretty much everything else in nature goes in cycles, so why not nature itself?

What do you mean by 'in cycles'?

How could 'Nature', the 'Universe', Itself, go 'in cycles'?

There could be a big bang, followed by expansion, then contraction, and a big crunch, followed by another big bang, and so on, in an endless cycle.

Yes, True.

So, is this what you mean by 'in cycles', in regards to 'Nature/Universe', Itself?

I'm no physicist, though, but that sounds perfectly reasonable, to me, and far more sensible than the idea that everything came out of nothing.

Considering that one is not just both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually possible, while the other is both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually impossible, then why one sounds 'perfectly reasonable and far more sensible', to you, than the other does, is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense.

One could actually be true, because it is actually possible, while the other could never be true, because it could never ever be a theoretical possibility, let alone an actual possibility.

[Maia]

Well could anything else 'make' 'purpose' for you human beings, besides "yourselves"?

Obviously, even though you human beings instinctively 'have purpose', whatever other 'purpose' 'you human beings make' is and was 'made' for, and by, "yourselves"


Thank you for, firstly, realizing, and then for Correcting.


There is no beginning, and, there was no end.

And, this is irrefutable.


Just so you are aware, 'I' do not do theories, nor debates.


What do you mean by 'in cycles'?

How could 'Nature', the 'Universe', Itself, go 'in cycles'?

There could be a big bang, followed by expansion, then contraction, and a big crunch, followed by another big bang, and so on, in an endless cycle.

Yes, True.

So, is this what you mean by 'in cycles', in regards to 'Nature/Universe', Itself?

I'm no physicist, though, but that sounds perfectly reasonable, to me, and far more sensible than the idea that everything came out of nothing.

Considering that one is not just both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually possible, while the other is both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually impossible, then why one sounds 'perfectly reasonable and far more sensible', to you, than the other does, is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense.

One could actually be true, because it is actually possible, while the other could never be true, because it could never ever be a theoretical possibility, let alone an actual possibility.

Yes, and those cycles could be part of an even larger cycle, of some sort, though I wouldn't like to speculate on the nature of that cycle. Indeed, there could be an infinite number of ever bigger cycles, but again, who knows?

[Age]

There could be a big bang, followed by expansion, then contraction, and a big crunch, followed by another big bang, and so on, in an endless cycle.

Yes, True.

So, is this what you mean by 'in cycles', in regards to 'Nature/Universe', Itself?

I'm no physicist, though, but that sounds perfectly reasonable, to me, and far more sensible than the idea that everything came out of nothing.

Considering that one is not just both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually possible, while the other is both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually impossible, then why one sounds 'perfectly reasonable and far more sensible', to you, than the other does, is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense.

One could actually be true, because it is actually possible, while the other could never be true, because it could never ever be a theoretical possibility, let alone an actual possibility.

Yes, and those cycles could be part of an even larger cycle, of some sort, though I wouldn't like to speculate on the nature of that cycle. Indeed, there could be an infinite number of ever bigger cycles, but again, who knows?

I am not sure, if all the 'matter' in the whole infinite Universe contracted into one singular, infinitely compressed particle, or piece, of 'matter', so that there was just only infinite 'space' all around 'that singularity', and then 'that singularity' expanded with a so-called 'bang', again, then how there could, logically nor empirically, even be any one other, or any bigger, cycle then 'that one'.

Again, 'I' do not do theories, speculations, assumptions, or any other sort of 'guesses', here. 'I' 'look at' what actually is, only.

And, 'what is' is that the One and only Universe, Itself, is infinite, and eternal.

[Maia]

Yes, True.

So, is this what you mean by 'in cycles', in regards to 'Nature/Universe', Itself?



Considering that one is not just both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually possible, while the other is both logically/theoretically and empirically/actually impossible, then why one sounds 'perfectly reasonable and far more sensible', to you, than the other does, is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense.

One could actually be true, because it is actually possible, while the other could never be true, because it could never ever be a theoretical possibility, let alone an actual possibility.

Yes, and those cycles could be part of an even larger cycle, of some sort, though I wouldn't like to speculate on the nature of that cycle. Indeed, there could be an infinite number of ever bigger cycles, but again, who knows?

I am not sure, if all the 'matter' in the whole infinite Universe contracted into one singular, infinitely compressed particle, or piece, of 'matter', so that there was just only infinite 'space' all around 'that singularity', and then 'that singularity' expanded with a so-called 'bang', again, then how there could, logically nor empirically, even be any one other, or any bigger, cycle then 'that one'.

Again, 'I' do not do theories, speculations, assumptions, or any other sort of 'guesses', here. 'I' 'look at' what actually is, only.

And, 'what is' is that the One and only Universe, Itself, is infinite, and eternal.

Perhaps there wasn't a big bang, as such, or an infinitely compressed particle, just a very small one, compared to the size of the universe now. This is very much, though, beyond my area of expertise. The cycles of nature that concern us are on a much smaller scale.

[Phil8659]

Perhaps there wasn't a big bang, as such, or an infinitely compressed particle, just a very small one, compared to the size of the universe now. This is very much, though, beyond my area of expertise. The cycles of nature that concern us are on a much smaller scale.

Do you distinguish nature as being further divided into the perceptible and the intelligible, such as the difference between body and mind in regard to particulars?

[Age]

Yes, and those cycles could be part of an even larger cycle, of some sort, though I wouldn't like to speculate on the nature of that cycle. Indeed, there could be an infinite number of ever bigger cycles, but again, who knows?

I am not sure, if all the 'matter' in the whole infinite Universe contracted into one singular, infinitely compressed particle, or piece, of 'matter', so that there was just only infinite 'space' all around 'that singularity', and then 'that singularity' expanded with a so-called 'bang', again, then how there could, logically nor empirically, even be any one other, or any bigger, cycle then 'that one'.

Again, 'I' do not do theories, speculations, assumptions, or any other sort of 'guesses', here. 'I' 'look at' what actually is, only.

And, 'what is' is that the One and only Universe, Itself, is infinite, and eternal.

Perhaps there wasn't a big bang, as such,

That there are 'bangs' occurring, is irrefutable. Now, what the words 'big bang' mean and refer to, exactly, would have to be first discussed, and agreed upon, before I could even begin to let you know if there was a so-called 'big bang', or not.

or an infinitely compressed particle, just a very small one,

Just a very small one' is what 'an infinitely compressed particle' means, and refers to, exactly.

compared to the size of the universe now.

Obviously what the 'Universe' actually is, exactly, is still being missed, misunderstood, and misinterpreted, here.

See, when the word 'Universe' means or is referring to, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, then the Universe remains the exact same size ALWAYS.

The Universe, Itself, can never ever change in size.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like the actual irrefutable proof for this claim, then by all means let 'us' have a discussion.

This is very much, though, beyond my area of expertise.

Is there some thing, here, that you are interested in and would like to 'know', for sure?

The cycles of nature that concern us are on a much smaller scale.

If, as you were talking about, Nature/Universe, Itself, being 'in cycles', then 'that' concerns you human beings just as much as any other 'cycle', if only if 'that cycle' was not 'cycling', then you human beings would not have come to be 'created', through 'evolution', itself.

[Age]

Do you distinguish nature as being further divided into the perceptible and the intelligible, such as the difference between body and mind in regard to particulars?

Out of curiosity what do you mean by 'perceptible' and 'intelligible', exactly, and will you provide examples?

If no, then why not?