Theory of Crevolution

[Blitzers]

The Theory of Crevolution"

If nothingness did exist, wouldn't the mere fact that it is identifiable mean it was no longer nothing, but something? It would have to have a distinguishable trait that man could see, hear, smell, feel, or even taste. So if nothingness is impossible, then a constant existence of something must have always existed. Thus being the "Source" of all that is Life and Unlife. This Constant existence must have had every feature "Man" & "Nature" possess at the maximum capacity if we believe man evolved from "Nature." If man evolved from Nature and Nature materialized from the Constant then all of Man's activity both Good & Evil is to be considered the intent by Nature and the Constant.

[Aesop]

I don't know about that little bit of mental masturbation but evolution could still be the product of intelligent design yes.

[Aesop]

It is* is what I should have said.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Aesop [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is* is what I should have said.

Or better said, at least by me now [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] which evolution?
micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.
One is proven, the other a theory or a guess.
One we have seen in action often, the other we have never seen in action.
Yet many call them one in the same, mistakenly so, even use one to account for the other, but they are not the same.
Yes, one could be by design, but does the other even exist?
How can something then that doesn't exist, and may have never existed nor will, be by design?
Sometimes nothing really is nothing.

As for "Crevolution" *shrugs* made up word.

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or better said, at least by me now [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] which evolution?
micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.
One is proven, the other a theory or a guess.

No. Theories are not guesses. Macroevolution is proven.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Macroevolution is proven.

I'm not counted among the faithful, it takes a great deal of religious type faith on the alter of science-ish to believe in macro-evolution. Then it's treated about as holy and exalted as the man made global warming farce. Micro-evolution although is wholly proven, it is a scientific fact of real and actual science, and sadly erroneously confused with macro-evolution by many laymen.

But as proof stands for macro-evolution, it's at a point where even Alien planet seeding or de-evolution has more credibility. Even theories of this being one big digitally simulated existence in a computer has more credibility. It's just a guess, and a poor one at that ...and sometimes even falsified, much like global warming as well.

What you believe, I don't care, it's your freedom and I support that as long as it doesn't harm others. But mankind needs to start practicing a little more honesty within the realm of science, especially as mankind is usually wrong. The new communal group-think consensus taught in schrools is real cute and all, but it doesn't add to science in any way either.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Theory of Crevolution"

If nothingness did exist,




wouldn't the mere fact that it is identifiable mean it was no longer nothing, but something?




It would have to have a distinguishable trait that man could see, hear, smell, feel, or even taste. So if nothingness is impossible, then a constant existence of something must have always existed.






Thus being the "Source" of all that is Life and Unlife.





This Constant existence must have had every feature "Man" & "Nature" possess at the maximum capacity if we believe man evolved from "Nature."




If man evolved from Nature and Nature materialized from the Constant then all of Man's activity both Good & Evil







is to be considered the intent by Nature and the Constant.

Build for us a bridge or three, or four or more if need be, wrought of cold, hard, immalleable reason, that we might cross these canyons without descent to the madness and at once join with you on that lonely plain of enlightenment from which you nobly beckon our deranged minds.

[Blitzers]

If man and science is incapable in upholding the scientific standard of requiring evidence and or proof that nothingness exists, then the default position of a Constant must be true. The evidence needed to prove the existence of nothingness would disprove it. Would it not?

[maskedmelon]

I ask for a bridge and you show me the stairs.

Very well, I shall join you below, though I am now mostly awake and have just eaten, so my descent may be slower than you or I should like. Let us continue this discussion as I work my way down.

First, why is nothingness so important to you? Can God create nothing? If so and creations must exhibit all aspects of their creator, then nothing is everything. By the same reasoning, that creations must exhibit all aspects of their creator, man is omnipotent, therefore man is god and created himself. It all seems to boil down to the undeniable truth that everything including nothing is everything and therefore nothing.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If man and science is incapable in upholding the scientific standard of requiring evidence and or proof that nothingness exists, then the default position of a Constant must be true. The evidence needed to prove the existence of nothingness would disprove it. Would it not?

This is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever read.