Creation - Evolution

[Age]

Every action causes a reaction. Always has, and, always will.

Every re-action causes, or creates, another reaction, that is; Creation, Itself.

Every created thing, or reaction, evolves, interacting with other created, and evolving, things, causing continuous more actions, and re-actions, always, causing and/or creating Creation, Itself.

The continual action of matter always inter-acting with itself, and thus always creating or causing just one continual re-action, is evolution, itself, in an always-constant process of, and in, Creation, Itself.

Matter being able to move about freely, because of the distance or space between and around matter, is an eternal process where inter-action of matter with itself is one eternal reaction, which what allows the evolution of things to happen and occur.

This always happening action/reaction process is just how all things are creation, through evolution, and just what the 'Creation' word has been meaning and referring to, exactly.

It is, literally, the Universe Creating Itself, through an evolutionary process, always HERE-NOW.

[Peter Kropotkin]

nothing to see here.. just another incomprehensible thread by Age...

Kropotkin

[Age]

nothing to see here.. just another incomprehensible thread by Age...

Kropotkin

There is absolutely nothing at all complex nor hard to comprehend and understand here "peter kropotkin". So, if you cannot comprehend the simplicity here, then this just shows how blind and deaf some really were. And, that you, obviously, have absolutely no interest in comprehending anything here, shows just how much lack of interest in learning more this one had also, 'back then'.

[Atla]

Every action causes a reaction. Always has, and, always will.

Every re-action causes, or creates, another reaction, that is; Creation, Itself.

Every created thing, or reaction, evolves, interacting with other created, and evolving, things, causing continuous more actions, and re-actions, always, causing and/or creating Creation, Itself.

The continual action of matter always inter-acting with itself, and thus always creating or causing just one continual re-action, is evolution, itself, in an always-constant process of, and in, Creation, Itself.

Matter being able to move about freely, because of the distance or space between and around matter, is an eternal process where inter-action of matter with itself is one eternal reaction, which what allows the evolution of things to happen and occur.

This always happening action/reaction process is just how all things are creation, through evolution, and just what the 'Creation' word has been meaning and referring to, exactly.

It is, literally, the Universe Creating Itself, through an evolutionary process, always HERE-NOW.

Action and reaction is called causality Age. But it's not really called Creation, and the evolutionary process usually refers to life here on Earth. Most of causality happens outside evolution.

Unless you can prove that all matter in the universe has intent. Good luck.

[Age]

For those that cannot comprehend the irrefutable.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, is evolving.

The evolving-creation process is eternal.

[Age]

Every action causes a reaction. Always has, and, always will.

Every re-action causes, or creates, another reaction, that is; Creation, Itself.

Every created thing, or reaction, evolves, interacting with other created, and evolving, things, causing continuous more actions, and re-actions, always, causing and/or creating Creation, Itself.

The continual action of matter always inter-acting with itself, and thus always creating or causing just one continual re-action, is evolution, itself, in an always-constant process of, and in, Creation, Itself.

Matter being able to move about freely, because of the distance or space between and around matter, is an eternal process where inter-action of matter with itself is one eternal reaction, which what allows the evolution of things to happen and occur.

This always happening action/reaction process is just how all things are creation, through evolution, and just what the 'Creation' word has been meaning and referring to, exactly.

It is, literally, the Universe Creating Itself, through an evolutionary process, always HERE-NOW.

Action and reaction is called causality Age.

Okay, but it does not matter either way.

But it's not really called Creation,

Of course 'it' was not called Creation, previously.

and the evolutionary process usually refers to life here on Earth.

And, in the days when this is being written a lot of you only consider/ed some 'life forms' as being alive and living. you ones did and do have a limited view and perspective of things. Thus, why you only 'looked at' and 'saw' just 'some things' as being in the 'evolutionary process'.

Most of causality happens outside evolution.

But, all causality happens 'within evolution'. As every thing was 'created', and then 'evolves'.

Every thing happens within the evolving-creation of Life, itself.

Unless you can prove that all matter in the universe has intent. Good luck.

Well considering the irrefutable fact that if you want to claim that there is anything that 'has intent' and that 'it' is not made up of the 'exact same matter' as absolutely every other physical thing, then you will just have to accept and agree that 'matter', itself, 'has intent'.

Now, do you want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent'?

[Atla]

Unless you can prove that all matter in the universe has intent. Good luck.

Well considering the irrefutable fact that if you want to claim that there is anything that 'has intent' and that 'it' is not made up of the 'exact same matter' as absolutely every other physical thing, then you will just have to accept and agree that 'matter', itself, 'has intent'.

Now, do you want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent'?

Woah woah woah slow down there champ. Just because the matter in a human head for example can be said to constitute intent, doesn't mean that all matter constitutes/has intent.

[Age]

Unless you can prove that all matter in the universe has intent. Good luck.

Well considering the irrefutable fact that if you want to claim that there is anything that 'has intent' and that 'it' is not made up of the 'exact same matter' as absolutely every other physical thing, then you will just have to accept and agree that 'matter', itself, 'has intent'.

Now, do you want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent'?

Woah woah woah slow down there champ. Just because the matter in a human head for example can be said to constitute intent, doesn't mean that all matter constitutes/has intent.

Why tell me to 'slow down', what were you presuming, exactly, when you made that remark?

After you answer and clarify that question, then you might like to explain why you seem to have missed, once again, what I was saying and explaining above?

And then also explain how, exactly, could 'the matter' within a human head be, supposedly, different from all of 'the (other) matter' within the Universe?

Also, why did you not clarify if you do want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent' or not?

If you want to claim that there are some things that 'have intent', then I will know how to question and/or challenge you better. And, if you want to claim that there are no things that 'have intent', then I will also know how to question and/or challenge you better. But, if you are not OPEN and Honest here, then you are only slowing things down here.

Just because something 'is said' to be true does not make it true. So, just because 'the matter' in a human head, for example, 'can be said' to constitute intent' does not mean it is, nor make it so. So, to you, does 'the matter' within a human head, for example, 'have intent' or not?

Once you answer and clarify this, then 'we' can move on to how absolutely every physical thing/object in the Universe is made up of the exact same matter, which by the way was another thing, in the days when this was being written, which seemed to not yet be fully comprehended and understood.

[Atla]

Well considering the irrefutable fact that if you want to claim that there is anything that 'has intent' and that 'it' is not made up of the 'exact same matter' as absolutely every other physical thing, then you will just have to accept and agree that 'matter', itself, 'has intent'.

Now, do you want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent'?

Woah woah woah slow down there champ. Just because the matter in a human head for example can be said to constitute intent, doesn't mean that all matter constitutes/has intent.

Why tell me to 'slow down', what were you presuming, exactly, when you made that remark?

After you answer and clarify that question, then you might like to explain why you seem to have missed, once again, what I was saying and explaining above?

And then also explain how, exactly, could 'the matter' within a human head be, supposedly, different from all of 'the (other) matter' within the Universe?

Also, why did you not clarify if you do want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent' or not?

If you want to claim that there are some things that 'have intent', then I will know how to question and/or challenge you better. And, if you want to claim that there are no things that 'have intent', then I will also know how to question and/or challenge you better. But, if you are not OPEN and Honest here, then you are only slowing things down here.

Just because something 'is said' to be true does not make it true. So, just because 'the matter' in a human head, for example, 'can be said' to constitute intent' does not mean it is, nor make it so. So, to you, does 'the matter' within a human head, for example, 'have intent' or not?

Once you answer and clarify this, then 'we' can move on to how absolutely every physical thing/object in the Universe is made up of the exact same matter, which by the way was another thing, in the days when this was being written, which seemed to not yet be fully comprehended and understood.

Some matter in the human head is what we call intent. Unless you can prove otherwise.

So far, what you are saying is like this: there is a Milky Way bar over there, and the universe is made of the same matter in every sense of same-ness, therefore the entire universe is a Milky Way bar. And this is "irrefutably true".

Now let's see how far you will get with your mind-matter duality belief against a nondualist.

[Age]

For every action there is a reaction. This action/reaction process, or causality if one prefers, has to be forever, always. The reactionary process of causality will not begin and did not end. Or, in other terms, evolution, itself, did not begin and will not end. This is also proved True, and thus settled, as energy also did not begin nor will end, and energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Energy changes 'from one form' of energy into another form of energy. Just like matter moves about changing 'from one form/object' into another form/object of matter.

The changing 'of form' is also what the word 'evolution' refers to. The Universe is constantly-changing, or evolving, constantly, 'from one way/shape/form' into another way/shape/form of Itself.

The Universe, Itself, is alive, living, and evolving. Just like the earth, itself, also is alive, living, and evolving. The Universe is a Life form, Itself. Some things are just evolving in 'scales' that some human beings do not recognize and notice, all of the time.

All matter, at its fundamental level, is the exact same.

Now, if anyone wants to claim that 'matter' 'has intent', or does 'not have intent', then why do 'you' claim this?

[Age]

Woah woah woah slow down there champ. Just because the matter in a human head for example can be said to constitute intent, doesn't mean that all matter constitutes/has intent.

Why tell me to 'slow down', what were you presuming, exactly, when you made that remark?

After you answer and clarify that question, then you might like to explain why you seem to have missed, once again, what I was saying and explaining above?

And then also explain how, exactly, could 'the matter' within a human head be, supposedly, different from all of 'the (other) matter' within the Universe?

Also, why did you not clarify if you do want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent' or not?

If you want to claim that there are some things that 'have intent', then I will know how to question and/or challenge you better. And, if you want to claim that there are no things that 'have intent', then I will also know how to question and/or challenge you better. But, if you are not OPEN and Honest here, then you are only slowing things down here.

Just because something 'is said' to be true does not make it true. So, just because 'the matter' in a human head, for example, 'can be said' to constitute intent' does not mean it is, nor make it so. So, to you, does 'the matter' within a human head, for example, 'have intent' or not?

Once you answer and clarify this, then 'we' can move on to how absolutely every physical thing/object in the Universe is made up of the exact same matter, which by the way was another thing, in the days when this was being written, which seemed to not yet be fully comprehended and understood.

Some matter in the human head is what we call intent. Unless you can prove otherwise.

What a Truly weak claim to make; ' Some matter in the human head is what 'we' call 'intent' '.

Who cares what some people only call some thing? Do you have any proof that lol 'some matter', only within the human head, 'has intent' or not?

If you do not, then, again, who cares what just 'some of you' 'call intent'?

Also, of course, if 'some of you' call 'some matter, in the human head, 'intent', then obviously I could never prove otherwise. Oh, and by the way, I would never have even considered to, let alone wanted to.

Which means if you want to 'call some thing' by one or another name/s, then by all means 'just do it'.

Furthermore, how you are 'trying to' deflect, and twist and distort things around here, once again, is not going unnoticed, at all.

So far, what you are saying is like this: there is a Milky Way bar over there, and the universe is made of the same matter in every sense of same-ness, therefore the entire universe is a Milky Way bar. And this is "irrefutably true".

And this is a PRIME example of WHY these adult human beings took so, so long to 'move forward'.

1. I have never said absolutely anything like this, and this is proved True from what I have actually said and written in this forum.

2. If you cannot distinguish 'matter', itself, then so be it.

Now let's see how far you will get with your mind-matter duality belief against a nondualist.

Once again, this one is completely and utterly LOST in regards to what I have said and claimed not just in this thread but also throughout this whole forum.

Who claims that they are a so-called "nondualist" here "atla"?

Lest 'us' 'see' if you will, at least, answer and clarify this question?

[Atla]

Why tell me to 'slow down', what were you presuming, exactly, when you made that remark?

After you answer and clarify that question, then you might like to explain why you seem to have missed, once again, what I was saying and explaining above?

And then also explain how, exactly, could 'the matter' within a human head be, supposedly, different from all of 'the (other) matter' within the Universe?

Also, why did you not clarify if you do want to claim that there are some physical things that 'have intent' or not?

If you want to claim that there are some things that 'have intent', then I will know how to question and/or challenge you better. And, if you want to claim that there are no things that 'have intent', then I will also know how to question and/or challenge you better. But, if you are not OPEN and Honest here, then you are only slowing things down here.

Just because something 'is said' to be true does not make it true. So, just because 'the matter' in a human head, for example, 'can be said' to constitute intent' does not mean it is, nor make it so. So, to you, does 'the matter' within a human head, for example, 'have intent' or not?

Once you answer and clarify this, then 'we' can move on to how absolutely every physical thing/object in the Universe is made up of the exact same matter, which by the way was another thing, in the days when this was being written, which seemed to not yet be fully comprehended and understood.

Some matter in the human head is what we call intent. Unless you can prove otherwise.

What a Truly weak claim to make; ' Some matter in the human head is what 'we' call 'intent' '.

Who cares what some people only call some thing? Do you have any proof that lol 'some matter', only within the human head, 'has intent' or not?

If you do not, then, again, who cares what just 'some of you' 'call intent'?

Also, of course, if 'some of you' call 'some matter, in the human head, 'intent', then obviously I could never prove otherwise. Oh, and by the way, I would never have even considered to, let alone wanted to.

Which means if you want to 'call some thing' by one or another name/s, then by all means 'just do it'.

Furthermore, how you are 'trying to' deflect, and twist and distort things around here, once again, is not going unnoticed, at all.

So far, what you are saying is like this: there is a Milky Way bar over there, and the universe is made of the same matter in every sense of same-ness, therefore the entire universe is a Milky Way bar. And this is "irrefutably true".

And this is a PRIME example of WHY these adult human beings took so, so long to 'move forward'.

1. I have never said absolutely anything like this, and this is proved True from what I have actually said and written in this forum.

2. If you cannot distinguish 'matter', itself, then so be it.

Now let's see how far you will get with your mind-matter duality belief against a nondualist.

Once again, this one is completely and utterly LOST in regards to what I have said and claimed not just in this thread but also throughout this whole forum.

Who claims that they are a so-called "nondualist" here "atla"?

Lest 'us' 'see' if you will, at least, answer and clarify this question?

The evidence we have shows that only some organisms exhibit behaviours, that we associate with intent. So intent is probably certain configurations of certain matter, found in some organisms but not found in other things like rocks.

Did I really have to type that down? Again, the idea that the whole universe has intent is one of the oldest ideas in the book, and many of us have pondered it including me, are you really so stupid and clueless again that you didn't know that?

But you have to prove it, which you just said you are incapable of. Therefore I've still every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more. Why don't you try harder for once?

[Age]

Some matter in the human head is what we call intent. Unless you can prove otherwise.

What a Truly weak claim to make; ' Some matter in the human head is what 'we' call 'intent' '.

Who cares what some people only call some thing? Do you have any proof that lol 'some matter', only within the human head, 'has intent' or not?

If you do not, then, again, who cares what just 'some of you' 'call intent'?

Also, of course, if 'some of you' call 'some matter, in the human head, 'intent', then obviously I could never prove otherwise. Oh, and by the way, I would never have even considered to, let alone wanted to.

Which means if you want to 'call some thing' by one or another name/s, then by all means 'just do it'.

Furthermore, how you are 'trying to' deflect, and twist and distort things around here, once again, is not going unnoticed, at all.

So far, what you are saying is like this: there is a Milky Way bar over there, and the universe is made of the same matter in every sense of same-ness, therefore the entire universe is a Milky Way bar. And this is "irrefutably true".

And this is a PRIME example of WHY these adult human beings took so, so long to 'move forward'.

1. I have never said absolutely anything like this, and this is proved True from what I have actually said and written in this forum.

2. If you cannot distinguish 'matter', itself, then so be it.

Now let's see how far you will get with your mind-matter duality belief against a nondualist.

Once again, this one is completely and utterly LOST in regards to what I have said and claimed not just in this thread but also throughout this whole forum.

Who claims that they are a so-called "nondualist" here "atla"?

Lest 'us' 'see' if you will, at least, answer and clarify this question?

The evidence we have shows that only some organisms exhibit behaviours, that we associate with intent. So intent is probably certain configurations of certain matter, found in some organisms but not found in other things like rocks.

Did I really have to type that down? Again, the idea that the whole universe has intent is one of the oldest ideas in the book, and many of us have pondered it including me, are you really so stupid and clueless again that you didn't know that?

But you have to prove it, which you just said you are incapable of. Therefore I've still every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more. Why don't you try harder for once?

you, once again, "atla" have attempted to twist and distort things around here, again because you could not refute anything I actual said, wrote, and meant here. See, what you did here "atla" was to say and write the sentences, 'Unless you can prove that all matter in the universe has intent. Good luck.'

Which had absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with absolutely anything that I said nor wrote here.

So, all you are doing here is just trying to deflect, once again, and in doing so trying to deceive the readers here, once more.

Even in this reply you go on and on about 'intent', which, again, was absolutely nothing that I was talking about at all.

you even, so stupidly, made the remark and comment that I claim I was incapable of proving 'it', which is absolutely False, Wrong, and Incorrect, as well. The amount of times you try to deflect and deceive the readers, the way you have deceive "yourself" is Truly amazing "atla". you speak and write here as though the readers cannot think nor see for "themselves".

[Age]

So, again, to get back to what I actually said and wrote here:

For those that cannot comprehend the irrefutable.

Every action has a reaction.

Every reaction is a new creation.

Every new creation evolves.

Every evolving creation interacts with other creations.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter', and a distance between and around matter. This distance is 'space'.

The action of when matter interacts with itself causes a reaction, and thus a new creation.

This always occurring action/reaction process is how all things/the Universe, Itself, are/is evolving.

The evolving-creation process that the Universe, Itself, is in is eternal.

[Walker]

OP

- In the OP are premises based on observation and reasoning.
- The observations are solid, clearly presented. So is the reasoning.
- If considered otherwise, that’s another topic. An ancillary topic.

- Question: Based on the observations and reasoning, what is the hypothesis? I’ll propose one, since you got the ball rolling with your observations.

Hypothesis:
- Based on the observations and reasoning that you presented, aspects of reality such as motion, change, space, and action/reaction even as with a solitary (but compounded) thing interacting with space, are embedded within the fabric of reality.
- This is the FSK.
- By this FSK, the organizing elements of attraction and repulsion that create the structure of the universe, are displayed and explained as energy forces that shape an atom or a galaxy, or anything else between those bookends.
- Therefore, intent that confers form is also embedded within the fabric of the universe as defined by the FSK, and is not an external force that initiates action known as, reaction without a first action.
- This is consistent with your previous conclusions that the universe has no past beginning, although any relevance of that to a future possible ending is also another topic.