the 2nd Creation; Proves evolution

[Bishadi]

Most know the story of 'creation' from the story of Adam and Eve.

But reality will show that life began from the association of atoms and energy.

So if atom 1 associates with atom 2 and combine by the energy, then step One is made.

If the molecule then combines with another set of atoms (ie.. lipids) and the combined arrangement increases the 'term' of life for the the collective assembly, then notice the beginning or understanding of the 2nd creation.

For the religion folk; the Quran had mentioned the 2nd creation a long time ago.

It is when the integrity of the sciences catch up with honesty.

ie... life is all over the universe. Evolution is fact!

So it is not that Darwin did not share the observances correctly it is the math to perform the mechanics in today's models that is off the mark

The life of the mass is not the mass chain (dna) but the energy upon that mass.

The simple proof is notice any dead body; all the mass is there but where is the life.

Fun stuff eh?

 

[Harro]

Hi Bishadi, I sort of agree with you.

Unfortunately we are yet to find evidence of life, as we know it, other than from earth. But I do agree with the possibility of other life in the universe is there. At the moment we just don’t know.

It is true that life is made from atoms, the same stuff as what the universe is made of.

I don't really understand your statement about the incorrect maths and Darwin’s observations. I didn’t know there was any maths involved other than working out time lines.

DNA very much has a lot to do with life, DNA carries all the instructions for protein manufacture. Noted: not all life has DNA. A common topic that comes up is when does life start or when do you call life life. Is a virus alive?

Death occurs when the environment does not support the organism’s functions. For example too much change in temperature can change the chemical structures or lack of molecules or atoms to perform critical functions (eg. oxygen for aerobic organisms)

When an organism dies it's energy doesn’t just vanish. Organism energy is in the form of chemical energy. Lots of scavengers (living critters) use this valuable food source (dead critters).

Where is the life?
Life isn’t a thing/object; it’s a descriptive function.
It’s like saying where did the running go when I stopped?

Again the chemical energy is still there until it breaks down into the environment and/or gets consumed. Life is no longer when life-forms stop functioning. Where has the life gone? It’s past on in reproduction and/or passed on as food the rest returns to the earth, possibly recompiled by plants and ultimately back into the universe.

The mass/energy don’t just vanish it gets returned to the environment.

 

[Bishadi]

Hi Bishadi, I sort of agree with you.

be careful with that you may be labeled

Unfortunately we are yet to find evidence of life, as we know it, other than from earth.

The life of things is the energy upon the mass not the mass or structure. That concept may be tough in some circles to observe but it is literally kind of basic

It is true that life is made from atoms, the same stuff as what the universe is made of.

Such that life of the structure is the energy upon the structure. I can take a flame from one structure to another.

I don't really understand your statement about the incorrect maths and Darwin’s observations. I didn’t know there was any maths involved other than working out time lines.

an honest assessment.

What that shares is we have observational evidence as to evolution but no math to share how it works at the atomic level and to perform the rules of how mass and energy (atoms and energy) actually work, then the idea of evolution is moot; meaning then the math of how energy works will reveal evolution as natural verus by chance. (uncertain)

This provides a clear venue that the language of math will over run the beliefs combining the universal truth of how life exists.

DNA very much has a lot to do with life, DNA carries all the instructions for protein manufacture.

Good stuff. And what reads the DNA.... notice the structure is set at perpedicular planes.

i.e.... the chains simply returns an energy state such to add colors until the right shade is set upon the catalyst

Noted: not all life has DNA. A common topic that comes up is when does life start or when do you call life life. Is a virus alive?

Yes

Death occurs when the environment does not support the organism’s functions. For example too much change in temperature can change the chemical structures or lack of molecules or atoms to perform critical functions (eg. oxygen for aerobic organisms)

and why a fever increases the temp of the nuclear envelop, so the nucleus can produce the correct structures to fight off the ailment

When an organism dies it's energy doesn’t just vanish. Organism energy is in the form of chemical energy. Lots of scavengers (living critters) use this valuable food source (dead critters).

but the collective unit or entangled state of energy is no longer; the lights are out

Where is the life?

the light (energy) upon the mass

Life isn’t a thing/object; it’s a descriptive function.
It’s like saying where did the running go when I stopped?

that is function..... that is like suggesting all life must be active or that sleeping is functionally death. (in a sense consciously, they are; no more choice)

Where has the life gone?

That is the gazillion dollar question..... some suggest, 'to the spirit world', when in reality the definitions of life share the error which ruins the comprehension of understanding life itself.

Life is the energy upon the mass. ie..... the 'fire' of the forest.

 

[Carico]

So if atom 1 associates with atom 2 and combine by the energy, then step One is made.

Again, your whole premise is based on an "if" which is an imaginary scenario called a hypothetical. So according to your "reasoning", humans came from Martians based on the following statement; "If Martians invaded the world, then humans came from Martians." So "ifs" are not facts, they're fantasies.

But when the flesh and bones of man decay, they turn back into dust, proving that man is composed of dust. So I'll go with what happens in reality. You can engage in fantasy.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I love when they try to interpret holy scripts to validate and thus prove theistically, science. It's funny to watch: It like listening to a mentally retardant person try to reason how an actor from one movie could be such a different person in another movie, without understanding the simple concept that movies are not real and actors simply play roles not are them.

 

[Carico]

I love when they try to interpret holy scripts to validate and thus prove theistically, science. It's funny to watch: It like listening to a mentally retardant person try to reason how an actor from one movie could be such a different person in another movie, without understanding the simple concept that movies are not real and actors simply play roles not are them.

Sorry but that no more refutes my post than me claiming that evolutionists are retarded. It only proves that you can't refute my post or defend yours. So you need to grow up and find rational arguments to prove your points instead of "na-na-na-na-na" which proves nothing except one's maturity level. But since atheists have no rational defense for their beliefs, then I can understand why most of your posts are "n-na-na-na-na."

 

[Enmos]

Again, your whole premise is based on an "if" which is an imaginary scenario called a hypothetical. So according to your "reasoning", humans came from Martians based on the following statement; "If Martians invaded the world, then humans came from Martians." So "ifs" are not facts, they're fantasies.

But when the flesh and bones of man decay, they turn back into dust, proving that man is composed of dust. So I'll go with what happens in reality. You can engage in fantasy.

Define dust.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Sorry but that no more refutes my post than me claiming that evolutionists are retarded. It only proves that you can't refute my post or defend yours. So you need to grow up and find rational arguments to prove your points instead of "na-na-na-na-na" which proves nothing except one's maturity level.

I was not trying to making an argument All my maturity left me after years of forum debate came to the conclusion that some people can't be argued with rationally or at all.

But since atheists have no rational defense for their beliefs, then I can understand why most of your posts are "n-na-na-na-na."

This would be true... if I was an atheist.

 

[Bishadi]

Define dust.

Why didn't i think of that?


seems i was a monkey once.......... that evolved from dust



i tink dust is made of atoms too....


did martians evolve?


i wonder if their laws of physics are the same as our laws of physics


wonder what the chance of that is?

 

[Nin']

Where has life gone?

There is a cessation of brain function upon death. You simply stop living.

 

[Enmos]

Why didn't i think of that?


seems i was a monkey once.......... that evolved from dust



i tink dust is made of atoms too....


did martians evolve too?


i wonder if their laws of physics are the same as our laws of physics


wonder what the chance of that is?

What's this? What's this?
There's something very wrong
What's this?

 

[Harro]

Hi Bishadi,
I don’t know how to add individual quotes as you have used. Could you please explain to me how to do it please? For the mean time ill cut and paste.

“Be careful with that you may be labelled”

Why? I agree with evolution. I think I missed the point of your original post perhaps. Actually I agree with creation and evolution. Not biblical creation however, a creator is unknown to mankind. I label myself Naturalistic Pantheist.

“The life of things is the energy upon the mass not the mass or structure. That concept may be tough in some circles to observe but it is literally kind of basic.”

Please explain to me the literally (kind of) basic observation, that life is energy? I don’t understand.
My understanding of biology is that Life gets its energy from chemical energy. Typically but not always this energy is derived from photosynthesis. Plants convert solar energy to chemical energy (cabohydrates). The simplified model is Carbon Dioxide + Water + Light --> Glucose + oxygen + water. Glucose(C6H12O6) is a higher energy molecule than the initial carbon dioxide and water molecules it is made from the added energy obtained from sunlight.

“Such that life of the structure is the energy upon the structure. I can take a flame from one structure to another.”

Life will die when it has no food (higher energy molecules). A flame only exists with Matter. Fire = Fuel + Oxygen +Heat.

“An honest assessment.
What that shares is we have observational evidence as to evolution but no math to share how it works at the atomic level and to perform the rules of how mass and energy (atoms and energy) actually work, then the idea of evolution is moot; meaning then the math of how energy works will reveal evolution as natural verus by chance. (uncertain)
This provides a clear venue that the language of math will over run the beliefs combining the universal truth of how life exists.”

You’ll have to ask a Biochemist/physicist for mathematical detailsJ I already outlined the most typical basic process of chemical energy (carbohydrate) from the sun’s energy (light). You should also look into how amino acids structure its quite interesting.

“Good stuff. And what reads the DNA.... notice the structure is set at particular planes.
I.e.. the chains simply returns an energy state such to add colours until the right shade is set upon the catalyst”

I think RNA polymerase reads the DNA. RNAP is an enzyme. An Enzyme is a molecule that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. Typically the enzyme is a protein and the catalyst type process is where the initial chemical is not consumed in the reaction.

“Yes”

A typical virus is RNA with a protective protein coat. Personally I would consider them dead organic structures or suspended animation molecules waiting for a host cells. They don’t have any cellular functions, don’t reproduce, don’t self repair and have no metabolism. However once the Virus infects a living cell only then it can reproduce and produce a substance.

“Why a fever increases the temp of the nuclear envelop, so the nucleus can produce the correct structures to fight off the ailment.”

Higher temperatures increase the rate of chemical reactions that could help speed up cell recovery from infections and speed up the body’s own immune response. It may possibly also kill a strict temperature preferential invader of the organism. In humans a sustained temperature shift of up to 5deg Celsius would be fatal. Why? Because the molecules important to sustain life start break down or stop functioning.

“The collective unit or entangled state of energy is no longer; the lights are out”

I don’t understand your point of view here. Are you speaking metaphorically? Then I would say yes, when a cell dies the lights are defiantly out. When too many cells die or no longer function properly in an organ so the organ no longer performs its important function, then yes collectively, the organism dies. Again the energy hasn’t vanished only the organic molecules stop functioning. That energy is either eaten as food or returns to the environment.

“The light (energy) upon the mass”

Light energy is stored as chemical energy.

“That is function... That is like suggesting all life must be active or that sleeping is functionally death. (In a sense consciously, they are; no more choice)”

Please rephrase I don’t compute what you’re trying to say here but I’ll articulate an answer as best I can. Sleeping is not death and I never said it was, neither do I suggest death is suspended animation. For example a seed from a plant is not dead but its not functioning either. It will function when the environmental conditions are right for gemination. How ever if the molecules in the seed changed in a way that would not support its life when the conditions where met I would say it was died.

“That is the gazillion dollar question... Some suggest, 'to the spirit world', when in reality the definitions of life share the error which ruins the comprehension of understanding life itself."

Life is the energy upon the mass. i.e.. The 'fire' of the forest.

The chemical energy returns to the environment. Consciousness is matter conceptualising matter and energy. Life evolved this function to interact with the environment, which would typically improve its chances of survival. Mankind got so good at it; as to be able to change its environment to better suit survival we also now have the power to destroy it. An early adaptation would have been the ability to move towards the light for warmth and energy. At some point smell/detect tasty molecules to consume.

I’m not a believer in ‘spirit world’ in another dimension. However knowledge can be passed on from an organism to another via communication. Life passes on learnt knowledge via reproduction. I think technology evolves too. I think Energy and Matter evolves as well, energy is information and matter is stored information, they seem to always be jostling about telling each other what to do, for example energy strikes matter and tells it to move. Eventually that information could form entire galaxies. Any way who would believe a Naturalistic Pantheist?

 

[Bishadi]

Hi Bishadi,
I don’t know how to add individual quotes as you have used.
Could you please explain to me how to do it please? For the mean time ill cut and paste.

brackets ... remove the dots [.quote.] and then [./quote.]

Why? I agree with evolution. I think I missed the point of your original post perhaps. Actually I agree with creation and evolution. Not biblical creation however, a creator is unknown to mankind. I label myself Naturalistic Pantheist.

me just a dude that likes to think and yes; evolution is a real progress... not only of knowledge but life itself

“The life of things is the energy upon the mass not the mass or structure. That concept may be tough in some circles to observe but it is literally kind of basic.”

Please explain to me the literally (kind of) basic observation, that life is energy? I don’t understand.
My understanding of biology is that Life gets its energy from chemical energy. Typically but not always this energy is derived from photosynthesis. Plants convert solar energy to chemical energy (cabohydrates). The simplified model is Carbon Dioxide + Water + Light --> Glucose + oxygen + water. Glucose(C6H12O6) is a higher energy molecule than the initial carbon dioxide and water molecules it is made from the added energy obtained from sunlight.

you are correct to a point but without all the words, life is the energy of the mass.... so yes, the additional input come from the environment... such that a single man on the moon is in a tough environment

He can't eat or reproduce either until he is in a good environment

“Such that life of the structure is the energy upon the structure. I can take a flame from one structure to another.”

Life will die when it has no food (higher energy molecules). A flame only exists with Matter. Fire = Fuel + Oxygen +Heat.

Just as no atoms can combine without energy (light/flame) in every case, not some of them.

That is one of the concepts many have a hard time with so succinctly; light is the energy between all mass.

You’ll have to ask a Biochemist/physicist for mathematical detailsJ I already outlined the most typical basic process of chemical energy (carbohydrate) from the sun’s energy (light). You should also look into how amino acids structure its quite interesting.

Me be that goof ball who does that very research... and for almost 3 decades

what you are reading is from the source

and what will change this whole taco stand; understanding light as the energy between all mass

“Why a fever increases the temp of the nuclear envelop, so the nucleus can produce the correct structures to fight off the ailment.”

Higher temperatures increase the rate of chemical reactions that could help speed up cell recovery from infections and speed up the body’s own immune response.

incorrect......

“The collective unit or entangled state of energy is no longer; the lights are out”

I don’t understand your point of view here. Are you speaking metaphorically? Then I would say yes, when a cell dies the lights are defiantly out. When too many cells die or no longer function properly in an organ so the organ no longer performs its important function, then yes collectively, the organism dies. Again the energy hasn’t vanished only the organic molecules stop functioning. That energy is either eaten as food or returns to the environment.

So if a person is lying dead... the energy is still upon the mass (cells) but the collective or per se soul, or the 'lights' of the mind are out.

The energy of the whole organism is entangled to what we consider the life of the collective mass. ie.... you point of an 'i'

“The light (energy) upon the mass”

Light energy is stored as chemical energy.

Chmical energy is simply a structure with light upon it. When a reaction occurs, the mass is not the gain but the energy released is; we poop out the left overs

“That is function... That is like suggesting all life must be active or that sleeping is functionally death. (In a sense consciously, they are; no more choice)”

Please rephrase I don’t compute what you’re trying to say here but I’ll articulate an answer as best I can. Sleeping is not death

The perspective from the point of an i, is not awake. That is the same thing with death.

Life is the energy upon the mass. i.e.. The 'fire' of the forest.

The chemical energy returns to the environment. Consciousness is matter conceptualising matter and energy.

ah... good.... so what is it that is allowing matter to conceptualize?


See the point?

I’m not a believer in ‘spirit world’ in another dimension. However knowledge can be passed on from an organism to another via communication. Life passes on learnt knowledge via reproduction. I think technology evolves too. I think Energy and Matter evolves as well, energy is information and matter is stored information, they seem to always be jostling about telling each other what to do, for example energy strikes matter and tells it to move. Eventually that information could form entire galaxies. Any way who would believe a Naturalistic Pantheist?

Just remember, no mass does anything unless energy upon that mass tells it too (simply put)

ie.... no 2 atoms EVER combine unless energy is orchastrating it. For example; gravity is simply entangled energy between mass so they will always have a potential between them. But the cause is THE ENERGY.

 

[ElectricFetus]

1. There is no use arguing this.
2. This is more philosophy than biology at this point.

 

[Bishadi]

1. There is no use arguing this.

is that what articulation is to you? Arguing!

2. This is more philosophy than biology at this point.

the whole premise is to share that 'evolution' is a quality concept of representing how life evolved and if the math was correct in todays physics then the comprehension of how evolution works would not be based on 'chance'.......

 

[ElectricFetus]

is that what articulation is to you? Arguing!
the whole premise is to share that 'evolution' is a quality concept of representing how life evolved and if the math was correct in todays physics then the comprehension of how evolution works would not be based on 'chance'.......

Riiiigggghhhtt, like I said this is a question of philosophy, or worse theology, but at the very least this is all a test in vague language aptitude and assuming multiple premises without stating evidence.

At least the youngster knows how to 'communicate' even if he does not have the amount of knowledge many others may have

he can at least articulate without considering everything an argument

i argue that your integrity and capability must be a joke

are you from lambridge too?

yaawn, ad hominem.

 

[Harro]

ah... good.... so what is it that is allowing matter to conceptualize?
QUOTE]

I thought I explained this.
The first cell to respond to light could have an ecological advantage and out compete other cells. For example if the organism that required light for its energy source would beable to move toward the light. This would be the first eye, a basic chemical responce to photons.

Another adaptation would have been the ability to respond to trace molecules and move towards it to consume it. Out competing organisms that could not. This would be the first smell/taste, a basic chemical responce to molecules.

Another adaptarion would have been the ability to respond to variation of temperatures. This would be the first touch, a basic chemical responce to temperature.

 

[Harro]

1. There is no use arguing this.
2. This is more philosophy than biology at this point.

yep this thread has gone more toward philosophy. Lets stick with biology.

 

[Bishadi]

ah... good.... so what is it that is allowing matter to conceptualize?
QUOTE]

I thought I explained this.

you missed the point

You said 'consciousness is matter conceptualizing matter'

i asked what is it 'upon matter' allowing 'it' to conceptualize?

What is that thing you are saying is being conscious.

That is the question. I say energy (light)... i.e.. em entangled mass

Another adaptation would have been the ability to respond to trace molecules and move towards it to consume it.

so a kid 'sees' a candy bar... what energy entangled the 2?

Out competing organisms that could not. This would be the first smell/taste, a basic chemical responce to molecules.

the mass or atoms, don't do a damn thing... it is the _______ upon the molecule that is the importance

Another adaptarion would have been the ability to respond to variation of temperatures.

and what is heat? what is it upon a rock that makes it hot?

 

[Bishadi]

yep this thread has gone more toward philosophy. Lets stick with biology.

i rather think basic common sense coupled with honesty is the first premise

call it magical stuff if you like

but the point is........ mass is simply shit without light.......... in every case and folk can't quite grasp that reality

weak, strong, gravity; all are simply portion of em

so every single action in existence takes energy and that energy in every single form is a portion of em

nothing philosophical about it


simply stating facts