jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (229 posts)

We Are Unique As A Species

  1. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    That is the crux of the problem. The opening to belief. Why are we unique? How did we come to be so? Why are we so very different? Why didn't the evolutionary process produce anything that comes close?

    I'm not really interested in hearing religious theories. I don't need anyone to speak for their deity. Your deity is welcome to speak for itself, if it chooses. We've all read the literature. What I would be interested in hearing are theories as to why, from those who don't believe there is something we haven't identified. A higher force? Poorly worded, but I'm at a loss for a better term. We don't appear to be the product of chance. Why, in your opinion, does humanity stand alone and isolated in this reality?

    1. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We are unique only in that we have more sophisticated tools and nothing more. If winning a lottery(wisconsin) three times in a row(winning it once Ian one in a million chance) is not chance then human evolution is also not chance.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course we are unique as a species, but so are all species. We use tools but we are not the only species that uses tools, we just do it best. Evolution has made us what we are for survival. Ever try to do the math on paper required to throw a rock or spear at a target? Human are able to do the math instantly in our brain. Trajectory, force and aim without a thought. Could our need to hunt with tools have developed a brain like ours?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ever watch a small child, say around 2, try the same thing? 

        It takes years and years of practice to do that.  We aren't calculating the math at all, just going on the experience of 1,000 other similar attempts.  Good memorization, not good analyzing or math skills.  Put a man on the moon or on mars and you'll find they can't hit the broadside of a barn with a rock, not until they've practiced it many times.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh perhaps your right. I guess we should be able to train any other mammal to throw a ball with accuracy? You only helped to make my point. I don't throw well, but if I change the trajectory I instantly change the required force needed to hit the target. Sure some can do it better than others and it requires practice, but that is further evidence of evolution. Can you think of another species that can do it?

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is a fish, I cannot remember the name, that can spit water from under water on its prey. Another 'unique' species, if you ask me.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The archer fish I believe.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, the archer fish.  And not only does it have to take the trajectory into account, but the refraction of the water surface; the target isn't where it looks like it is.

                There are some animals (a cobra?) that will spit at you, aiming (and hitting) the eyes.  Monkeys will throw nuts from high in the trees at you, and I don't think they're alone.  Part of the problem with throwing is the bone/muscle structure of the arm and shoulder; other animals don't have the proper arm movement possibilities to throw well.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And they don't have the proper bone structure because???????

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They walk on all fours.  Which does, indeed, tie into intelligence although other considerations are more important.  Free hands contributes to the development of intelligence, but only if having those free hands doesn't preclude a high survival rate from predators.

    3. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
      A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My "deity" says he doesn't speak to anyone who has their back turned.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I would think it would be impossible to turn your back on a deity. Aren't they supposed to be everywhere?

        1. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
          A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Figuratively.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What has led you to believe I have figuratively turned my back on a deity? The statement that I'm not interested in conversing with someone claiming to speak for their god?

            1. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
              A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You mentioned that their God should be able to speak for themselves. God is real and he can speak for himself. No problem.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ok. When he does he will have my full attention. But, those who want to play God don't interest me.

                1. A Driveby Quipper profile image61
                  A Driveby Quipperposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I feel the same way.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, it might be the only common ground we ever find. As of this moment we appear to be simpatico. That's nice.

    4. The0NatureBoy profile image66
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      All my beliefs integrates religion concepts and scientific findings, for me, they aren't to be taken separately but together so I will not quote nor give scriptures, just my reason why. 

      By integrating science and religion I find evolution is of the lifeforce and not the physical manifestation.  The metamorphosis suggests evolution of the physical isn't true while the religious concept of karma suggests the lifeforces evolves through every life type, attribute and gender of them.  With the religious concept of The Rapture and science's findings of NED {Near Death Experiences} and OBE {Outa Body Experiences} happens with man we feel ourselves superior to all other lifes. 

      My belief is The New Birth{/b] is the equivalent of the metamorphosis since religion say we become [b]new creations, that is, we will return to being Bigfoot like, I believe, domesticated sheep will, if left alone, return to being Bighorns.  What evolution of the body I've seen in man is we evolved from what is called Bigfoot in loosing our hair, size and what I call dominion abilities, like domesticated sheep, after being domesticated Bighorns they lost their horns and ability to defend themselves. 

      I believe it's the [Amoeba[/b] which divides itself to reproduce but they don't have genders which would make the Eve being removed from Adam only a metaphor since one gender produced the other in man's supposed division. 

      What I believe the rapture does is carry man who complete the physical laws of Karma and are to maintain our bodies as we evolve through other planes of existence to the next plane.  That's because man are the last link in the unrealized Karma evolutionary chain and, thus, we tend to feel we are life's superior beings.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can honestly say I either have no response to that or.......say what? Did I hear  you right? We are going to devolve into Big Foot?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is correct, man before the Adam concept were Bigfoot, all man except the few who were supposedly in the ark, {the law of the supposed god}, during the flood became what we see daily, the few in the ark are Bigfoot who some few of us see not and then.  Everyone who survives the setting of this civilization's termination will become Bigfoot once again.  And the beat goes on.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Are there any other options? Bigfoot, being a mythological creature leads me to think there might be. What about sprites? Will there be any? I think I'd like to be a sprite. I've already lived with big feet. I can tell you it isn't that great.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Some DNA scientist have some samples they seem to believe belonged to Bigfoot, a man like creature but larger and hairy who lived about 100,000 years ago.  Using bible symbolism I determined the {supposed Adam concept} took place about 81,000 years ago and the 7 days of creation are thousands of years making it about 91,000 so we are in the same ball park. 

              As for being spites, I'm not familiar enough with computers to talk about them.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My avatar is a sprite.

                Anyway, everything you posted is news to me. But I did read somewhere that when either Da Gama or Magellan sailed around the tip of South America they documented sightings of natives with exceptionally big feet in what is now Patagonia. Maybe they were related.

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
                  The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It appears that most of what I post is new to most people on these forums I post on but the open minded and objective just might reason some possible truth to what I say,

  2. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    How can you be so sure?  Cetaceans, for instance, could have an "equal" intelligence, just one pointed in such a radically different direction that we (with our own much vaunted intelligence) can't recognize it enough to even communicate.

    In addition, other species have begun to travel the same road, using tools and actual language.  We may be an eyeblink further down that road, but that's about all.  Some of the great apes come to mind as do some other primates.  So does the extinct Neanderthal - we don't really know why that species failed and although it could have been contact with home sapiens it could have been a dozen other things as well.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ok. This is the first point made worth responding to. I suppose, I never put it into that perspective. Possibly, other species are traveling a road that will lead them to where we have gotten to. But, why none before? Maybe others did and we simply haven't found evidence? Doesn't the fact that, from what we can tell, we are the only ones to reach this pinnacle imply that we might be the only ones who will? That we are uniquely unique?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't it rather arrogant to think this is the pinnacle?

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That seems a little...egotistical...I guess.  Being first doesn't make us special, it just makes us first.  Somebody has to be first, after all.  Somebody has to get the specific breaks, the mutations, the supportive climate changes, etc. that forces that "first" position.

        If we are the only ones to ever reach the pinnacle we have, it will be because we eliminate all competitors, and that's how evolution works.  Nothing unusual or notable about that.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree, but thanks for the input. I don't think it is egotistical to ponder why we are what we are. But then I don't believe that we are simply the first in a long line of species with exponentially  larger intellects. Any species that had dominated the landscape before our arrival did not achieve the advances, or do the damage that they had the intelligence to avert that we have.

          I don't think we are more important than any other species, but I think to deny that we are uniquely different implies a refusal to be willing to explore all the possible reasons that we are.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that "egotistical" fits what I mean to say, but it's what I've got.

            Every species is uniquely different - we are all unique in that respect.  It actually isn't particularly our intelligence that sets us apart, except that that intelligence is a large part of our adaptability.  We can adapt to nearly any environment, more so than any other creature. 

            In any case, it's a little like saying that the earth is special, or at a special distance from a specially sized sun in that it was able to give birth to us or to life.  Those things are all variable, however - if it were further away maybe we'd all be penguins - closer and maybe we'd be descended from the slime around yellowstone hot springs.  Different environments give rise to different life.

            Likewise, having intelligence doesn't make us special, any more than the super immune system of crocodiles makes them special or better than humans somehow even though there is no other animal that can match it.  We are what we are, and we weren't here there could well be a smarter version - a version that we killed off in it's infancy before it had a chance to develop. 

            There is also a possibility that we will evolve into something even more intelligent.  Slim chance, in my mind, because we take too good of care of our "defectives" and encourage them to reproduce, but it could happen, whereupon we aren't special OR unique.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You don't consider the fact that we are posting back and forth on the internet a little different? I find that odd.

              However, you first say it isn't our intelligence and then (in the same sentence) say it is. But, again, you are offering an answer to the wrong question.

              Of course we could look incredibly different, were the environment we evolved in vastly dissimilar to this one. But, if we had evolved to manipulate our environment as we have done with this one; had we advanced to the point that we could literally destroy that vastly different world; had we the inventive capabilities that we possess...and been the only species to reach that height I would be asking the same questions.

              The crocodile example is another reason I don't think you follow my train of thought. Of course every living species has an advantage that allows them to survive. But, they don't have the ability to manipulate their environment. They have adapted to it. We adapt our environment. After which, we scratch our heads and ponder deeper thoughts. If there are any other animals that do this, I'm not aware of them.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We are not alone in adapting our environment to suite our needs. The beaver has adapted to change it's environment to suite his needs. What makes humans unique is the depth that which we can use tools and weapons and our ability to run long distances without overheating.

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why waste time, the only answer she accept is "I don't know".

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So far, what I'm getting is that you don't know. Thanks for playing.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Our ability to run long distances without overheating? Gees. Is that what gave Einstein his edge?

                  I'm not attempting to be difficult here, but do you guys understand the question? It doesn't seem like it.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There are still people who hunt by chasing prey over long distances in Africa. The prey eventually overheats and gives up. Humans have been doing this for a very long time. We sweat from our entire body which helps us cool off. No other animal can do this. You may want to do a little research before you mock me.

                    I understand the question perfectly, you may not be able to understand the answer.

                    I've never said I don't know. I've showed you how we are different and how we are not. You're looking for "I don't know"

  3. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    "We Are Unique As A Species"

    Intriguing title...

    Flat have not read the previous 60+ posts.

    A new beginning.

    I submit that we are not.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ok. Why not?

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My observation of other species. We are as common as dirt.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How so? This question wasn't intended to imply that we are special, if that is where you thought I was going. I personally believe every species is an integral part of the whole. None more important than the other.

          But, come on. Humanity writes books, builds machines, explores space. To name a few. No other species can do any of this. The only reason we can is that we and we alone have the intellect to do so. Why? Why are no other species capable of half as much? What happened along the evolutionary procession that made us the only ones to evolve to that?

          Anyway, we aren't as common as dirt. There is a lot more dirt in the world than there are people.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image92
            paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am warming up to you. More to follow.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    Play time...

    I have seen the same fear in a lizard as I have seen us.

    I am serious. Saw it. Poor stupid, dumb thing.

  5. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    I have seen the same emotions in other animals as well.

  6. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    We really are just the currently highest subset of animal.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    And you want play time...?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That was a lot of posts. I agree and have seen emotions and behavior patterns in animals that defy common perception. I could tell you stories about a horse you wouldn't believe. But, Skip was still a horse and as smart as he was his behavior didn't supply an answer to the question.

  8. paradigmsearch profile image92
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    Here it is...

    We are not the most superior intellect in the universe. For us to think otherwise is as when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

    Quite frankly, we are a piece of crap on the landscape of real.

    Would you like to hear more...?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The universe? I was limiting the scope of the conversation to the earth. It's difficult to include the universe. That would be like an angel fish born in a fishbowl insisting it was the most beautiful fish in the world. It only knows what's in the fishbowl.

      But, please share more. I'm curious why you think we are a piece of crap on the landscape. Nice thought though. Crap is ugly and smells like...itself. But, it serves an important function.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image92
        paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have changed my mind. We are not doodoo. big_smile

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What then?  Just a single "doo"?  You can be really hurtful, paradigm. big_smile

          1. paradigmsearch profile image92
            paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I just did an image search for doodoo. Yes, I did.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Now I'm really getting worried about you, paradigm. 




              pssst - so do we look like "doo" or "doodoo"?

  9. greencha profile image65
    greenchaposted 3 years ago

    It depends what is meant when we use the word unique. Just because we can manipulate nature
    try to get what WE want,create clever hightech devices .doesn't necessarily meann we are 'unique' in a good way. We can all strive to be ultimately truly unique in a (good way),but I think we a long way to go yet,especially  when we can see the mess we are making on the planet.
       My parrot is unique,when she says ''good morning'' to me first thing everyday, and  ''see ya later'' when she sees me put my coat on. And sings 'Somewhere over the Rainbow to me''.  I think some animals may not view us as 'unique'. yours ununiquely

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct, I think. Unique doesn't necessarily equate to better. And we have done a fine job of proving that as we muck up this world.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Muck it up?  How can you say that?

        Mankind has successfully populated every ecosystem on the planet; something no other species has ever done.  We have more individuals than any species of equivalent size.  We have eliminated more competition for space and/or food than any other species.

        We have changed the world environment, but that was necessary if we are to spread and reproduce as we have done.  We could not begin to feed ourselves without CO2 production, without rain forest destruction, without paving over half the landscape.  At least not with the technology we had when we do those things; the future will bring better methods.

        Evolutionary-wise we are absolutely the most successful species to ever hit the earth with the single exception of longevity and time may prove that one out, too (I doubt it, but it might!).  We are obviously "better" than any other species in the only thing that counts; reproduction and spread of that species.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In addition to your point I have always found it curious how evolutionists can on one hand say we are just part of nature, nothing special, and in the next breath condemn what we do to nature.  If evolution were true, we could do no wrong because anything we do is just the course of nature.  Even if it brings about our extinction or that of others, it is survival of the fittest giving rise to the next prevailing life form.  Right?  If we aren't special, why hold us to a higher standard?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's about the size of it.  We aren't any different than any other animal and will act as evolution has provided for.

            We can hope that we are intelligent and empathic enough not to destroy the world that we use for survival, but that has yet to be proven.  Evidence is against it so far.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I heard on NPR the other day that the air quality in Beijing was so poor that the pollution was 25 times higher than what we consider to be safe.

          I'm not attempting to belittle the powers of man. But, we have mucked up the environment. You say we had to, to spread and reproduce. Really? We rape resources to ensure we all have access to the latest trinkets here in the first world. And we export this insanity hand over fist. We set a standard every developing nation aspires to. I'm afraid that with all of our ingenuity and creativity we won't have the time to find the ways to fix the problems we are all creating with our universal desire to consume as much as we can.

          1. greencha profile image65
            greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            HERE, HERE -Its wrong to assume we have the God given right to destroy
            anything we want. Yes we have free will, but  what we do with that determines how unique we really are not.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So?  Who or what will stop us?  We must have that right (God given or not) or something/someone else would surely have stepped in by now.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We cannot live in mud huts and plow the ground with wooden plows pulled by oxen while feeding the world's population.

            Sure, we have a few trinkets but those trinkets aren't what is destroying the world.

            1. greencha profile image65
              greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              To live in a world of peace,fairness, equality and respect for each other, doesn't mean we have to  to go back to such basics wilderness.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Pure guess on my part, but I would strongly suspect that at least half the world population lives in the equivalent of a mud hut or less.  Half the population lives on the edge of starvation every day. 

                Would "fairness and equality" then require that we move into tiny wood shacks so that we can build the equal of them for all the third world?  Shall we give up our fine paved roads so that we can, in all fairness, provide at least dirt roads for the entire world?  Give up our cars so that everyone in the world can have a horse?

                We could probably feed the entire world, by cutting our own intake by 50% (which might actually be good for us even if we're a little hungry) and killing all the dictators in the world.  Of course, that will require the good roads, the giant boats and all the rest that we would have already given up to "equalize" things.

                You can't bring up the third world to our standard of living, not in 10 years and not in 50.  At this point in humanities development "fairness" isn't in the cards, not with the population levels already in existence.  Cut the world's population by 50% and it might be possible from a technical standpoint if not from a practical one.

                1. greencha profile image65
                  greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes ,if just half the aid the first and second world send to these so called third world countries got through to the people that need it,instead of their so called Governments/leaders misusing it for their qwn ends,,we possibly could be half way there in relieving the populas's plight. Improving their accomadations,to live in somewhat.,But it doesn't mean they want to create  and live in concrete polluted jungles like most of us have to . Yes they can learn from us,and indeed we could/and are learning much from those peoples.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't want to live in a mud hut with oxen. But I consider you to be an intelligent guy. So I'm surprised by your comments, to an extent.

              There is much that could be done to conserve resources without giving up our lifestyles completely.   But, a society built on consumerism is designed to waste resources.

              Look at our homes and appliances. Designed to consume electricity unnecessarily. Appliances designed specifically to ensure they will be replaced sooner, rather than later.

              Look at cell phones. We buy into the belief that every new phone has to be had. Plans set up designed to ensure we buy them. I tried to keep my last one, but they are apparently only good for a little over a year.

              Those are just a few examples, but everything within our society is designed for us to constantly consume more and more. If we stop, our economy collapses around us. Worldwide.

              I'm sorry, but none of this is sustainable. We have to take the first steps to change the way we view the world and our environment. We owe that to the developing nations. We owe it to the earth. We don't have the right to ignore the problems our way of life has created.

              Which brings us back to one of the reasons why our species is unique. We have the ability to change our behavior patterns because we have the ability to think about how they affect the whole. We are special because we can understand that in the grand scheme of things we aren't special. We aren't animals whose primary thoughts are of themselves and their own needs and desires.

              1. greencha profile image65
                greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here.here. to most if what you just scripted,Emile

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To some degree you are right.  We could design and build better appliances, for instance, although we would quickly run into diminishing returns; our appliances aren't as poor as you indicate.  Same thing for energy use of those appliances; we can do better, but not a whole lot with current technology and cost (both money and resource) limitations.

                But I really don't think that is the biggest problem with resources.  We use some for trinkets, yes, but we use far more to support ourselves.  We use a steel plow and an oil burning tractor to make grain, but without both we won't eat.  We burn oil in trucks, but without them we won't eat.  We burn coal to provide electricity to heat our homes, but without it we'll freeze (we aren't in the tropics, after all).  We put down tar for roads, but without them we won't eat again.

                That kind of list goes on forever; it requires resources and energy to live as densely packed as we do, and in the latitudes we do.  I just don't think that the list of toys (at least the toys I own) contribute that much damage when compared to what I need.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I do realize that resources and energy are necessary to survive. And I don't mean to sound like my grandparents, but they really don't make things the way they used to. I don't believe it to be poor craftsmanship as much as planned obsolescence. To help drive the economy. As developing nations come into their own there will be that many more people striving to live as we do. I'm afraid there will be disappointments all around down the road. The earth can't sustain this.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know, Emile.  I used to figure a car at 100,000 miles was worn out and dead and that just isn't true anymore.  My 'fridge is 15 years old, the fans in my furnace have turned for 10 years.  All of my appliances except the microwave are at least 10 years old.  Considering that most of them have some kind of moving motor I don't see that as bad.

                    My new roof is guaranteed for 30 years; 20 used to be the maximum.  The latest set of tires is warranted for 90,000 miles; 25,000 used to be a long time.  Electronics don't last so well, but part of the reason is that they are becoming so miniaturized that it just isn't possible to produce them in such a manner that they can be fixed.  It's like fixing a burned out CPU; it just isn't possible, so the whole thing is replaced instead. 

                    Part of it is also cost; your grandparents paid far more (in terms of hours worked to pay for it) for their fridge than you would for one of the same size and capabilities.  When it takes 6 months work to buy a refrigerator it had better last!  We have consistently increased the capabilities of our "machines" while reducing costs; it might be too much to ask that they also last twice as long.

  10. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    I don't know if anyone will manage to read this, but here's my opinion ...

    It's basically the most general theory combining all beliefs.

    So we have planets, stars, etc. Everything lies on the space time continuum (yes, Einstein's general theory of relativity has been proven by nasa last year, check it out on youtube )

    That's great ... so now all that's left to do for us is to prove the String theory ( basically that in the heart of what we call matter, there are little vibrating strings ) ...

    And let me just mention that scientist have proven that a brain wave travels great distances after it leaves the human brain ( yeah, just science )

    And do you know how everything connects ... Well, you have vibrating little strings that are all around you and your brain waves, that travel great distances ... If we look at the world that way, everything can be explained .. even the so-controversial Law of attraction ... There's a belief that we all have a connected mind and while it sounds surreal it basically is true ...

    I really can't explain it in a few sentences, but everything's just waves and vibration ... we are what we want to be and the world is what we want it to be ... basic truth ... Parallel universes also exist and we move forward constantly to the reality that we choose to believe in ...

    In a matter of 300-400 years humanity will have changed a lot, basically what we now choose to see as superficial, won't be ... you know .. the indigo children, the psychics ... yeah smile

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting, Ivan, quite similar to my views of existence.

      1. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
        Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks ... My reply is a bit messy, but I am glad you got my point smile

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No problem, it's like I said on another forum, we don't always word things alike but the bottom line has the same meaning.

    2. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Einstein's general theory of relativity         don't this mean everything is connected.

      My thoughts have been the same as these except I've never expressed it so well even to my self.

      1. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
        Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I love science, unsolved mysteries and the "why we are here" question and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it ... I still believe my explanation is confusing and messy, but I'm glad you understood me and that we share the same opinion ...

        BTW .. If you are interested in science - everything's possible .. check out NASA youtube channel for hidden magnetic portals in space .. (generally wormholes ... yeah ) ...

        We are too intelligent to believe in the bible, but that doesn't mean that miracles aren't possible. Generally if you believe in yourself, you will succeed ... Positive attitude and strong craving can actually help us live the life we want to live, we've dreamed of ...

  11. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    The Bible is a fraud ... All the stories from the Old Testament are plagiarized from the Mayan, Sumerians and the religions of other old cultures.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image66
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't quite agree, they may be similar but isn't necessarily plagiarized from some other source. 

      It's like saying Goldie Locks And The there Bears is the plagiarized version of The Three Little Pigs, their meanings are the same but their symbols are different and we don't know it they both came from the same organ.  So it is with the Bible, their organs may or may not be the same but their bottom lines are the same, showing us how to comprehend life on earth.

  12. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    BTW ... Out of Body experiences (I've had quite a few myself .. I love astral projection) can also be explained by science ...

    You know .. our brains are very powerful ... If we don't think about it, like our soul leaving our body, OBE's become much simpler ...

    As I stated, everything is just strings vibrating at a different frequency ... and everyone's brainwaves travel great distances ... and there you go ( again ) ... OBE's are just our body (brain basically) receiving and transcribing frequencies and other ppl's brainwaves ...

  13. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    That's not quite right, my friend ... there are seven summerian tablets ( currently in the British History Museum ) that tell exactly the same stories that we can see in the bible ( I believe the old testament ) ...

    For example The Ark of Noah ... It is copied exactly as it is on the tablet ...

    The seven days and six nights of creation ... Mayan religion ... (check the Mayan's holy book - the Pol Pol Vuh) ...

  14. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    I understand The0NatureBoy and what he means ... basically "lifefore" is the energy of the body ... as I said everything is scientifically explainable it is just the matter of how we like to perceive this .. knowledge ..

    As I explained everything is waves and vibration ... everything is connected through waves ... What NatureBoy says is that in the future our brains will be capable enough to understand what the other person means without using words ...

    You know .. it's just like when you meet someone and you know you'll click ... or someone is near you and you get the shivers .. Aura, Chackras and everything ... It's just our brain waves, body waves and our body vibrating ... big_smile ... As simple as that ...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As simple as that huh? lol

      Thanks for the explanation - it is nonsense. Or can you see the future also?

  15. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    ... It is not nonsense ...

    Read more! You know ... when you read books, other than the bible NON-FICTION books ... you start to understand the universe a little bit more ...

    If you want I can go into details ...

    You see ... The string theory basically is an addition to the theory of relativity ... In his dying hours Einstein was trying to prove that there is a general theory that can explain both the quantum world and the real world, because as you (don't) know in the quantum world there are N+ physic laws that don't apply here ...

    So yeah .. the string theory is almost proven by scientist and is currently the number 1 theory in how the world works ... it basically says that fundamental particles have little vibrating at different frequencies strings that makes them what they are ...

    Basically, in every particle there are 6 additional dimensions that are wrapped around in themselves ( yeah, it is actually non-fiction ) ... and here we have only the 4 that we know as width, height, depth and time ...

    The reason the 6 additional dimensions are trapped is because of the process of creation ( the big bang ) ... and basically in another parralel univerese there could be 4, 5 or 6 dimension ... or an additional time dimension ...

    Moreover, scientist have proven that the brainwaves leave our physical body and travel great distances. They use this knowledge for example to build devices that can tell how many ppl are there in a closed room and where exactly in the room they are .. through a wall .. (yeah this is already possible) ...

    Or for example the device that lets us control the computer with our mind ... ( currently we are far behind .. the only developed device is a on-screen keyboard and when you concentrate on a letter, the letter is typed on the screen ... ) ....

    MOREOVER, when the world was in war, (1939-1944 or sth like that I've forgotten almost everything from my History class) ... Russians made experiments on ppl regarding psychic and sleep abilities ...
    They've made a lot of research on sleep deprivation and obe ... Nowadays there is even a research clinic on sleep and astral projection in sleep and yeah ... it is proven to be real .. and it is possible ... I didn't believe as much, until I started experience it myself ... there are a few exercises you could try in order to achieve it, but it took me like 6 months ... it is basically a waste of time, because the experience is not that cool ... i mean you can't go to your friends house and see what he's doing ... you basically see yourself sleep and fly around ... it's even kind-a scary ... but check it out OBE is proven during sleep ...

    So yeah, if you think I am a nonsense talker, think again ... I believe I know a lot more than you do, and you know what .. I'm just 19 years old ... yeah ...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your advice. What books do I have on the third bookshelf down on the left? Project yourself over and tell me.

      Please stop lying at me - no such things have been proven. String theory and astral projection are the same thing huh? lol lol

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Scientist have proven that brainwaves leave our physical body and travel great distances? Please direct me to the evidence.

  16. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    It's not the same thing, I am telling that if you think about it astral projection can be explained through science, without the additional lifeforce, chackra-aura stuff ...

    For Mark - Watch this thing ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMPJ6ah3xM ... and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASf55cov5F8 ... and I can't find the video but here you go ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing ... (1.2 is about the research which were made during the war) ...

    And Rad Man, just wait a bit and I will get you the article on brain waves ... ( I am sorry I am slow in finding the links, but my knowledge generally comes from a lot of science magazines and watching discovery/bbc/cnn .. stuff like that, since I was a little boy ... and ofc .. reading books ) ...

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wikipedia on Remote viewing,

      The scientific community rejects remote viewing due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. It is also considered a pseudoscience.

      Astral projection? Anyone can claim they had an OBE, but when it's studied it falls short. Don't believe everything you read. All memory, thought and consciousness comes from and are products of the brain. When the brain shuts down all such products stop. Making an out of body experience impossible.

  17. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    So Rad Man ... I've lost interest in finding just the right thing, but here ... you'll get it ...
    https://www.google.com/search?q=squid+% … c+field%22

    Click through 2-3 articles to understand what research is exactly done ... and ... check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_oscillation ...

    and here's sth interesting ... http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/01/ … t-we-hear/ ...

    and simpler version ... http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01 … -mind?lite ...

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      All those links were about mapping or monitoring the brain. Nothing there shows or explains brainwaves leave our physical body and travel great distances?

  18. Ivan Ivanov profile image81
    Ivan Ivanovposted 3 years ago

    My idea is that your energy doesn't leave the body, but your brain simply perceives the world around it ...

    Note that there were funded research on remote viewing and most of the remote viewing research are shut down, before any actual results are shown to the public ...

    But whatever ... I like that you have a strong opinion ...

    Have a great night m8 and thanks for the creative mind struggle smile ... It really was quite fun ...

 
working