- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi guys!
Good post there JA. I have often thought similarly. Mankind is intelligent enough to fly to the moon and “cure” diseases. We are also intelligent to know that if we could fly to unmeasurable heights and dive to the bottom of the deepest ocean – without machines – none of us would be starving to death right now. But with all that intelligence, we cannot “will” ourselves to evolve into beings that can master land, air and water to become some “ultimate being” that could do almost anything. No, our intelligence is not enough to pull off something like that.
Thankfully though, we have the super-human “non-intelligence” of evolution that at least brought us this far.
Maybe this “non-intelligence” will take us the rest of the way some day. 
Really Stu, why on earth did those first “amoebas” or whatever “decide” to branch off into other species? They had trillions of gallons of ocean water to live in – did they overpopulate? And if so, why didn't they just die off, instead of “non-intelligently” evolving into other things?
And I've always wondered how certain plants and the insects that are needed for their reproduction just happened to evolve at the same time. Wouldn't the very first plants die off if there wasn't something to help pollenate them right away? Wouldn't those insects die off if the plants they feed on weren't there right away?
The notion of intelligent life just “happening” from “non-intelligence” takes much more blind faith to believe in than an all-intelligent Creator, Stu.
Anyway, I think this might be what was meant by “casting pearls before swine” JA. This topic is so far below a logical mind – and that is why I rarely comment to Stu, although I do find him very amusing and continue to pray for him.
peace and love,
mikeMike,
Stu is simply supplying amusement…frustrating, but good practice at posting against an non believer….yeah, i failed because i know Science and technology and am drawn to responding to Stu's rather childish notions that 'Science is his God'.
If Stu stood back for one moment he would see that Science is only one element in the managerie and potpourrae that makes up life.
Like Gene, Stu only picks selected and partial text from other's posts to respond to.
T8 has taken him to task but Stu has a marvellous defence mechanism. He calls it 'Platitude'.
And forever and a day, when he cannot respond he simply says, 'Platitude', as if anyone is meant to be wounded by empty vacuous nothingnesses.
Or, perhaps, impressed that Stu is 'Intelligent' enough to know such a word. He uses it so often it's a wonder he hasn't worn himself out writing it. Perhaps he has a rubber block and ink stamp!!
JustAskin
Quote WHY would latent energy become active without and external influence. It cannot be from inside by it's very nature of being latent.
So you have a universal theory of everything having a fixed nature? What about matter and energy?Quote WHY would that energy 'decide' to form itself into replicable patterns that clearly conform to 'RULES', rules that apply in all areas of detectable invasion, namely, the Universe?
Because gravity makes that “decision” for the matter / energy: it has no “choice”. Of course gravity was the “source” of the energy as well.Quote WHY does this, now, active energy acquire senses, desires, pleasures, love, anger, intelligence, fear, thought, truth, communication, more and even more…
Because natural selection has chanced upon beneficial adaptations, helpful in survival and reproduction in the particular environment.Quote WHY has the expansion, coalescing, formations, useability and recyclability of this energy remained in constructive harmony in all areas of it's engagement, and, in ONLY ONE place, namely the Earth, has flourished to levels of incredulous harmonious wonder?
Not sure what you mean by constructive harmony. Sounds a bit new age. How do you know this (whatever it is) has happened in only one place?Quote WHY, if 'Life' is 'random', has it not bloomed on any other planet, let alone any other area of the universe…within the expanded area of the activated previously latent and inert energy?
Life is not random. Far from it.Quote Life, is only as we know it (captain Sulu: Star Trek) because we are IN it.
Life in Bolivia is what a Bolivian knows.
Life in the Galapagos is what life a Galapagosian knows.
Life in the Philoppeans is life that a Philoppean knows.
Yet, in reality, they are the same life.
Life to a Rat is the only life that a Rat knows.
Life to a lion is the only life that a lion knows.
Yet, as different as these two are they are the same life…living organism with senses of self regulation, self preservation, family, nuture, hunger, thirst and fear.
Similar environments can lead to similar adaptations. The most interesting examples are when different pathways are taken to get there. For example compare how sharks came to occupy their niche in the sea with how dolphins got there.Quote Life to a tree is the only life that a tree knows.
Life to a fungus is the only life a fungus knows.
Yet they are the same life. They produce seed and aim to reproduce themselves through such seeds and through those seeds carve out areas for selfpreservation.
If there is one quality that is definitely going to be passed on, it will be self-preservation. Without that a species would not live long enough to reproduce.Quote This 'life' is only as we see it on planet Earth because of the particular make up of a large number of complexed arrangements concerning planet Earth. Hmm.. Scientist continually say that 'life' is on Earth because of it's location releative to the Sun. Water, life is only sustainable because of water… Life is only sustainable because the planet rotates at the speed it does and that the right amount of primordial soup just happened to bubble and sqeak it's way into living entities. life is only sustainable because of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen and Oxygen, and…and……and all of this happened in a perfect balanced order…by complete coincidence. Yet, NONE, absolutely NONE of this has in any way occured on ANY other planet, near or far, at any detectable time period.
Life, does not have to be 'life, Jim', it can be 'life as we don't know it' yet life in some similarity, evolve on another planet…yet there have been NO SUCH findings anywhere. Yet planet Earth is teeming with life of every sort, WHY?
Scientists say that life cannot exist on a hot planet…ha ha hahh…that's because (oh such childishness among the 'Gods of this world') they measure life by that on Earth.
Yet, even as they say that silly thing, they discover fish living in virtual boiling pools and other life living at the bottom of the ocean in incredibly high temparature zones and at immensely high pressures. No no no…life, if it is 'random' would, could and can, develop in ANY atmostpheric condition and in ANY chemical make up…but man, the scientist, because he only sees life on Earth, measure and limits the possibility of life to that which he sees.
My favourite Douglas Adams quote is: “Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'It could easily be true that every planet like ours will get life like ours at some point. The recently publicised earth-like planet discovered 20 million light years away from us could at this very moment have beings on it with the same radio technology as us. The problem is that it will take 20 million years for our transmissions to reach them, and vice-versa. Beings on planets just 50 light years away could now be tuning into the first ever transmission of Coronation Street. Not sure if there are any suitable planets that close though.
On the other hand, Douglas Adams also said: “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
To me these statements beat any religious platitude for “spiritual” value. No religious scripture really confronts humanity with the facts of its existence. The best that can be said for it is it gives us a fantasy story to substitute for the reality we have not felt able to accept.
Quote Haha…Angels are 'life' forms, yet Scientists dismiss such 'life' because 'life' to a scientist requires that 'he' be the superior. Not to mention an ultimately superior bei
ng, a being that 'Religion' has already discovered(?) called 'God', or 'a God' or 'Gods'.
Yet were you to actually ask a scientist whether he would consider angels living, he would ask you whether they are cellular, and if they respire, reproduce, excrete, require nutrition, move, grow and show sensitivity. Do angels qualify as “life” on these terms?Quote The problem with the Scientist, is that he desires to control that 'God' like an archetypal child feeling he knows more than his father.
Maybe scientists who are religious do. The large percentage of non-believing scientists would think you mad to assert it of them.Quote WHY would any of these thing come about unless there was an external intelligence that was controlling, developing, directing, enveloping and infusing this energy into what we are and we see around us in such an incredibly complexed, yet immensely harmonious manner.
Why not?There is no answer to that question, and therein lies the answer to yours. There is no evidence for any such intelligence and no one has ever required that as part of any successful explanation of how the universe works. The main problem is that the religious never say what their Imaginary Friends actually did that require such intelligence. Don’t bother with the ID crowd: all they have done is give examples that show just how fantastically right Darwin really was. Don’t ask the deists too many questions about why there is anything at all: they never have a religious answer for you that explains anything.
The one fact about intelligence that is supported by evidence is that it can arise by slow, gradual steps over vast periods of time by the process of natural selection. If you want to assert that there was some intelligence that did not arise by that process then you will have to provide a mechanism for it, at least if you want to appear credible.
I rather think that on all these questions, no matter who asks them, science is making all the play here. People who quote scripture as a useful source of information I think very often forget how much of their own modern scientific understanding they are injecting into the story.
It’s a bit like stone soup; the Judeo-christian scripture is the stone.
Good talking with you.
Stuart
mikeboll64
Quote Good post there JA. I have often thought similarly. Mankind is intelligent enough to fly to the moon and “cure” diseases. We are also intelligent to know that if we could fly to unmeasurable heights and dive to the bottom of the deepest ocean – without machines – none of us would be starving to death right now. But with all that intelligence, we cannot “will” ourselves to evolve into beings that can master land, air and water to become some “ultimate being” that could do almost anything. No, our intelligence is not enough to pull off something like that.
That would not be evolution by natural selection. There would be intent behind it, so it would be artificial selection.Quote Thankfully though, we have the super-human “non-intelligence” of evolution that at least brought us this far. Maybe this “non-intelligence” will take us the rest of the way some day. Really Stu, why on earth did those first “amoebas” or whatever “decide” to branch off into other species? They had trillions of gallons of ocean water to live in – did they overpopulate? And if so, why didn't they just die off, instead of “non-intelligently” evolving into other things?
Not all ocean water is the same. Different environments favour different adaptations. A common event has been allopatric speciation, where a geographical feature separates a group of members of one species that then diverges by genetic drift until the two groups are no longer considered the same species, for example if they can no longer cross-breed. Look up “ring species” in Wikipedia for an interesting variation on this idea. There are still amoeba in the oceans, also.99.9% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Some intelligence your designer had! Of course there is no shame to be had, because there is no value judgement to be made about how it really happened. Extinction is just what happens when environments change too fast for mutation / selection to keep up. Of course we as humans can feel worried about the changes we are making that are accelerating rates of extinction, but meteorites that fill the atmosphere with sunlight-blocking dust don’t feel such qualms.
Quote And I've always wondered how certain plants and the insects that are needed for their reproduction just happened to evolve at the same time. Wouldn't the very first plants die off if there wasn't something to help pollenate them right away? Wouldn't those insects die off if the plants they feed on weren't there right away?
Flowering plants did not start off with the specificity of pollinator that some have today. Don’t forget that there are plenty of flowering plants that are adapted to airborne pollination, and many have several pollinators. In the same way that predators and their prey are in an evolutionary arms race, flowering plants and their pollinators have co-evolved too. It’s not really that surprising when you think about the fact that evolution is a slow gradual process of living things adapting to survive in their environments.Quote The notion of intelligent life just “happening” from “non-intelligence” takes much more blind faith to believe in than an all-intelligent Creator, Stu.
Are you telling me that from your perspective as an argument from your own personal incredulity, or are you telling me what I should find reasonable to believe?If it helps, I find it a lot easier to believe that all life arose by spontaneous gradual change over vast spans of time than to believe that a man was born without a biological father, walked unsupported on the surface of water and walked again after he had been executed by the Romans. I know which is more reasonable, which is supported by evidence and which is only asserted by people who claim their religious book to be infallible despite the evidence.
Quote Anyway, I think this might be what was meant by “casting pearls before swine” JA. This topic is so far below a logical mind – and that is why I rarely comment to Stu, although I do find him very amusing and continue to pray for him.
Do you WANT me to die from complications of cardiac surgery?Don’t think me ungrateful or anything but that is the only demonstrated effect that prayer has above placebo.
It would be particularly surprising, as I have not even had heart surgery.
Stuart
I enjoyed your response Stu. Witty as ever my good man.
I'll check in on you in another couple of months.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ Oct. 17 2010,10:12) But Stu, t8 and I keep saying to you, 'Stuart, the hat is not empty. You just can't see past the childish illusion'. Or read 2 thessalonians 2. (Courtesy of Gene)
It is true Stu.When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, it didn't just appear out of nothing. That is an illusion. You need to understand that.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,18:45) Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 17 2010,10:12) But Stu, t8 and I keep saying to you, 'Stuart, the hat is not empty. You just can't see past the childish illusion'. Or read 2 thessalonians 2. (Courtesy of Gene)
It is true Stu.When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, it didn't just appear out of nothing. That is an illusion. You need to understand that.
I think I do, you know.What about an Imaginary Rabbit breathing into dirt to make humans? Elsewhere the same book of rabbit tales tells us instead that life begets life, and right in the first line it says nothing whatever about how the universe came into being, and gets the order wrong with light appearing after the earth.
Of course while rabbits are made of matter, not all matter is found in rabbits.
Stuart
Yes Stu, when the universe just appeared, you can bet your last five bucks that it didn't come out of nothing. If that were possible then we could create all manner of things out of nothing. As it stands, everything we make is really a transformation of something or somethings that already exist and you can take that all the way back to a creator who initiated it all.
It might help if you talked with a magician who was willing to reveal that it is all tricks and illusion. You need to see that something from nothing is a silly belief to hold onto. When you can let go of that option by reason of it's foolish assumptions, then you have to overcome the “something eternal that is not living” theory.
If you see the fallacy in that too, which any sensible person can, then you have arrived at the only option and conclusion left.
God. The Almighty. The Eternal. The Source.
Good luck for your mission. Please report back when you are having problems overcoming these philosophies and I might give you a help in hand.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,20:21) Yes Stu, when the universe just appeared, you can bet your last five bucks that it didn't come out of nothing. If that were possible then we could create all manner of things out of nothing. As it stands, everything we make is really a transformation of something or somethings that already exist and you can take that all the way back to a creator who initiated it all. It might help if you talked with a magician who was willing to reveal that it is all tricks and illusion. You need to see that something from nothing is a silly belief to hold onto. When you can let go of that option by reason of it's foolish assumptions, then you have to overcome the “something eternal that is not living” theory.
If you see the fallacy in that too, which any sensible person can, then you have arrived at the only option and conclusion left.
God. The Almighty. The Eternal. The Source.
Good luck for your mission. Please report back when you are having problems overcoming these philosophies and I might give you a help in hand.
If we were to play the game of assuming the existence of your Imaginary Friend, then you could add the logical fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You assume that because you think your god existed “outside space-time” that therefore it created space-time. It could just as easily have existed and not been the “first cause”.Meantime, there is an evidence-based, falsifiable theory of how matter arose from the gravitational energy of the expansion of the universe, supported by the fact that particles continue to appear as the universe continues to expand.
Not sure what you have to offer to that conversation other than a load of fallacious assertions borne of Bronze Age mythology.
How does the bible say matter and antimatter separated asymmetrically? Why does it say that there was the earth before light when we know that light was there before the matter that made the stars that made the elements that made the earth?
Your bible is just wrong, there is no way around it. If the bible is unreliable then you do not know that Jesus said the way to your Imaginary Friend is through him, and therefore you could be barking up the wrong tree.
What was it they say about assumptions again?
Stuart
OK, Stu, I can see you are having problems again.
I will try and come up with a strategy that might help.
Would simpler terms be easier to comprehend? How can I help you see that nothing is not an option as being the initiator of all things.
Most people if they are honest get that, but I am not sure what the block is.
Do you have problems understanding for example that rabbits pulled out of hats didn't come from nothing?I'm watching a tv programme called, 'The wonders of the Solar System' hosted by professor Brian Cox.
In his series of programmes he attempts to explain how the universe works and how life started, evolves and exists.
He says that 'Life is only the reaction between chemical elements'!
Can you believe that?
So, add some oil to water … And you have 'life'.
Add Hydrochloric acid to sulfur…and you have 'life'…
In fact, by his definition, every reaction between ANY two or more chemical elements and you have 'life'…really?Prof Cox goes down two kilometers into the ocean to investigate a vent that is spuying out molten rock that heats the water to 300 Celcius.
Yet, he himself says 'I wouldn't expect to find life here, yet here it is'Why? Because 'life' to a scientist is only 'life' if it is like what he knows like what exists in the earth and in the same atmospheric pressures, and in water… The scientists cannot imagine life in any place unless it is like on earth.
So, why can't life exist on Venus, on Mars, on Jupiter? And in any case, for Stuart, there is one place where there certainly is life, and that is on Uranus. But no one wants to look there.
Stu, we are all ears. How do you get something from nothing. How does nothing acting on nothing produce something.
Please enlighten us.Shall I hold my breath?
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2010,15:01) Stu, we are all ears. How do you get something from nothing. How does nothing acting on nothing produce something.
Please enlighten us.Shall I hold my breath?
You are not all ears, or you would have heard the last three times I explained it to you.What is the listening equivalent of turning over the broken LP? I think you should try doing that.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 20 2010,08:25) OK, Stu, I can see you are having problems again. I will try and come up with a strategy that might help.
Would simpler terms be easier to comprehend? How can I help you see that nothing is not an option as being the initiator of all things.
Most people if they are honest get that, but I am not sure what the block is.
Do you have problems understanding for example that rabbits pulled out of hats didn't come from nothing?
Was that your set of alternative explanations to the ones I have given?I've not got much serious competition when it comes to actually explaining our origins then, have I.
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 20 2010,09:50) I'm watching a tv programme called, 'The wonders of the Solar System' hosted by professor Brian Cox. In his series of programmes he attempts to explain how the universe works and how life started, evolves and exists.
He says that 'Life is only the reaction between chemical elements'!
Can you believe that?
So, add some oil to water … And you have 'life'.
Add Hydrochloric acid to sulfur…and you have 'life'…
In fact, by his definition, every reaction between ANY two or more chemical elements and you have 'life'…really?Prof Cox goes down two kilometers into the ocean to investigate a vent that is spuying out molten rock that heats the water to 300 Celcius.
Yet, he himself says 'I wouldn't expect to find life here, yet here it is'Why? Because 'life' to a scientist is only 'life' if it is like what he knows like what exists in the earth and in the same atmospheric pressures, and in water… The scientists cannot imagine life in any place unless it is like on earth.
So, why can't life exist on Venus, on Mars, on Jupiter? And in any case, for Stuart, there is one place where there certainly is life, and that is on Uranus. But no one wants to look there.
“Surprising” is an expression of personal reaction to a new situation. For many scientists this is the starting point for new investigation and discovery. I assume you do not mean to deny scientists the joy of discovering something for the first time, they do not already know everything before experiencing anything!I am not a biologist but nevertheless I found it surprising just how real Darwin's theory is when I looked at the examples of “irreducible complexity” that were critiqued about the time of the Dover trial. There should be nothing surprising about the fact that every adaptation, no matter how apparently complex, has simpler precursors that often were doing a slightly different job in an ancestor species. Part of the bacterial flagellum motor was a protein excretion system in an ancestor of the bacterium, and so forth.
And yet I was amazed at how Darwin really pervades biology. I think I am allowed to be amazed at things that may be obviously true with hindsight, but had not occurred to me previously.
On the question of life as chemistry, it is unquestionably true that our bodies are electrochemical machines. You would assert that there is more to it than just chemistry. We have not found anything that cannot be attributed to chemistry. Just about all the cures we have for disease are chemical in nature, if you are happy to accept that radiation affects matter. On the other hand faith healing patently doesn't work. So what else constitutes life but chemistry and electricity?
The only religious answers to this I have heard thusfar are exercises in naming things. “Spirit”, “soul”, “god within you”, etc are all just terms for things that appear to have no actual effect over and above the chemicals. There certainly never is an explanation or even detailed description of any of them.
Regarding other planets in our solar system, sure why not? The surface of Venus is around 460 celcius which I think might be stretching the thermophile bacteria we have on earth just a little too far though.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,16:49) You are not all ears, or you would have heard the last three times I explained it to you. What is the listening equivalent of turning over the broken LP? I think you should try doing that.
I have yet to read your explanation on how this happens or a decision that it is not possible.Just reply to this post with an explanation.
And try to stick to the question. No dodging the question please.
Stu,
When the avatar man gains knowledge of his electronic environment, he too will deny that he was created by a 'higher lifeform' and that his avatar world evolved out of nothing.
The bits and bytes that are the basic elements of his world spontaneously came out of nothing. The DNA of his 'body', the binary data string that he discovers as part of all avatars in his world is an accidental development, such a beautiful store of information detailing exactly, with subtle variations, how each avatar body is to grow, where everything goes, when and why.
Avatar man discovers that 'electricity' is the food is his life and that 'bad memory cells' can be 'healed' by an invisible external force. He cannot 'see' outside of his 'dimension', cannot contemplate that there could every be anything 'greater' than himself.His universe is electronic, he can fly within it, walk through walls, lift heavy weightlike avatar object, replenish his energy, increase his skill level, enhance his profile by carrying out assigned tasks that 'come to him' each morning…from where he knows not. Occasionally, he hears, perceives as if an avatar voice is telling him something, he's moved by that unseen force.
Then he dies, and his avatar memory is extracted and stored externally on a data stick..his avatar body bytes is returned to the pool of memory cells, the 'near and far heap', recycled by the 'Garbage Collector'(old programmers in Simula, Lisp, Algol, 'C', 'BCPL', Macro code, etc., will remember such things with fondness, or frustration)
Oh, avatar man is restored at a later time in a new avatar body…but he still say, 'Man, no such thing. I created myself!'Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2010,09:54) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 20 2010,16:49) You are not all ears, or you would have heard the last three times I explained it to you. What is the listening equivalent of turning over the broken LP? I think you should try doing that.
I have yet to read your explanation on how this happens or a decision that it is not possible.Just reply to this post with an explanation.
And try to stick to the question. No dodging the question please.
What, explain again?OK. What exactly is the question? Can you ask it without mocking the answer in anticipation?
By the way, what decision?
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 21 2010,11:32) Stu, When the avatar man gains knowledge of his electronic environment, he too will deny that he was created by a 'higher lifeform' and that his avatar world evolved out of nothing.
The bits and bytes that are the basic elements of his world spontaneously came out of nothing. The DNA of his 'body', the binary data string that he discovers as part of all avatars in his world is an accidental development, such a beautiful store of information detailing exactly, with subtle variations, how each avatar body is to grow, where everything goes, when and why.
Avatar man discovers that 'electricity' is the food is his life and that 'bad memory cells' can be 'healed' by an invisible external force. He cannot 'see' outside of his 'dimension', cannot contemplate that there could every be anything 'greater' than himself.His universe is electronic, he can fly within it, walk through walls, lift heavy weightlike avatar object, replenish his energy, increase his skill level, enhance his profile by carrying out assigned tasks that 'come to him' each morning…from where he knows not. Occasionally, he hears, perceives as if an avatar voice is telling him something, he's moved by that unseen force.
Then he dies, and his avatar memory is extracted and stored externally on a data stick..his avatar body bytes is returned to the pool of memory cells, the 'near and far heap', recycled by the 'Garbage Collector'(old programmers in Simula, Lisp, Algol, 'C', 'BCPL', Macro code, etc., will remember such things with fondness, or frustration)
Oh, avatar man is restored at a later time in a new avatar body…but he still say, 'Man, no such thing. I created myself!'
Will I need to have seen a particular movie to understand this?Whichever it was, I haven't seen it.
Stuart
Stu,
You mean that you see the analogy and cannot refute it.
Needless to say, selfdenial is the order of the day and you will find some evasive diatribe to post back to muddy the waters and melt away the revelation of your indisputable insight.
By the way, i notice that you never respond in any meaningful way to 'the big question': Why.
The programmer who wrote the avatar program can 'create artificial life' inside the computer by allowing adaptive coding in the way that real life adapts to changing environmental, social, psychological, etc., situations to retain a potential 'growth' of positive development.
See, i don't debunk Science in that way. How many times do i say, 'Science is not wrong'?What is missing from Science, and concerning Avatar man, is this: Why, why was he created, for what purpose was he made, for what reason does he have 'reasoning ability', survival instincts, adaptive development, …?
Stu, it is clear and obvious… It is for the Glory of the programmer, the one who created him and the envirinment he 'lives and exists in'.
Stu, have you ever 'created' anything?
Did the thing you 'created' turn round and deny that you 'created' it?How did you feel, how would you feel? Glad, Sad, Mad?
Stu, when you plant a garden, you create 'an environment'. In that environment you expect to sustain 'life' through the floral and fauna that occupy that garden.
What happens if plants go bad? You rip them out and plant others. Tge floral adapt in position through seeding, you change 'clops', bunches, arrangements that work together in colour, complementary style, provide shelter, shade, exchange of nutrient intake and output, everything recycling to maintain all output as new input.
The fauna. When something goes wrong with one, your 'spirit' goes out to it to nurture it back to help, vetenary husbandry, love and concern.
Everything in harmony…yet for what reason, why? Why the whole effort?The reason, the why? For your glory, stu. Your pleasure, your delight. The flora and fauna contains YOUR Spirit, Stu. When someone sees your harmonious, completely self sustaining beautifully craftwithin, they will glorify you, Stuart.
Now, appoint a gardener to 'develop' the garden, enhance it, weed it, adapt it for you. Call him, 'the Gardening Man', or just 'Man', 'the Man', 'Man'.
Man, is one like the fauna but not so. Man is a special creation that will be both like you, stuart, but also like the fauna, so they meld into the environment, be a part of it, Live in it, affect it, change it, and so on, be the husbandary of the fauna, call upin you, your spirit (your knowledge, your skills, your love, your strength, power, energy, righteousness, patience, creativity and truth of the ideal).
The man will be able to take from the garden what he needs to sustain himself in the garden but he will be mindful to balance this with his task of maintaing the flora and fauna. He can 'eat' the fruit of the fruiting plants, the tubars of the ground plants, the flesh of certain fauna if enough flora is not available at certain times of the recycling process (Seasons).
Then the man, because you, stu, are absent from his knowledge, because he says, 'i am in charge' and denies he who put him in charge, that's you stuart, the man starts to believe he is autonomous.
So, you set him a challenge…
Can he sustain himself and the garden and all within,…without you guidance, without your 'spirit', stu.And you look on as he struggles, you pitch in from time to time to keep the man from destroying everything but abstain from stopping him damaging the garden.
At the end of the challenge, you know you can recreate the garden, despite what the man has done, his failure.
Never again can the man raise a challenge against you, stuart, and deny the need for your 'spirit' and guidance in the 'New Garden' that will evolve under the development of the 'new man', the changed man, the spirit yielding man.So stu, i answered the question for you, the WHY.
It is for the pleasure of HIM who created it all, created us all. For his glory, pleasure, honor, praise…and we who receive his 'spirit', will Worship him, that is 'Serve him directly, subject our life by the spirit, to him, accept his, and only his guidance, listen to his 'voice', one voice, one guide, one commander, one God'
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
