x

[attofishpi]

x

u

X.Y.U.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhvrvVGh2hY

[Age]

Since your so called "theory" has life, itself, starting or beginning at a particular time here on earth and you believe that life also has meaning, purpose, and an aim, then you will have to also explain who or what started "this life" here on earth and who or what gave "this life" meaning, purpose, and an aim also.

No one can explain how life on Earth began,

Are you sure of this?

once again you are asking for evidence.

Providing some sort of evidence does help.

I found providing evidence for what is said helps.

My theory concerns why life evolved, not how

Okay, so why did life evolve again ?

Also, you are much different than most other adult human beings. Most talk about how it is easier to work out how things began, then it Is to explain why things began. But, if you can do the latter, then I am sure there are some who would like to hear your views. So, once again, why did life evolve?

The contradiction between how life started here on earth with a purpose and an aim but here on earth life has supposedly gone so "terribly" wrong also needs to be explained. If life has started on earth with an aim then how life, on earth, has gone and is going is exactly the way life was meant to go.

Life on Earth has gone wrong due to unforeseen circumstances during mankind's early development.

I know that this is what you believe is true, you have repeatedly said this same thing a few times already.

What were these supposed unforeseen circumstances, and, who or what exactly were these circumstances unforeseen from?

Obviously if something as big as life, itself, has started with an aim, then whatever happens was meant to happen. There is nothing you could say to refute this.

Yes i can refute this because what has happened on Earth was not meant to be.

How do you KNOW this?

Without knowing what life's aim was, how can you say that it has gone "exactly the way" it was meant to?

But who or what is saying that I do not know what Life's aim is?

By the way Life's aim has not changed. The past tense of 'was' is not applicable here. To put this in terms that you human beings can understand, what Life's aim was, still is, and always will be. How I can say that Life had gone 'exactly the way' Life was meant to is because I KNOW Life could not go any differently than how life IS.

Just because i think differently from everyone else doesn't mean that i'am "separate from life", or not part of it's meaning.

Of course not. I never even thought of such a ridiculous thing, let alone suggested such a thing anywhere. Why did you day this here?

If one believes that they know life has gone "terribly" wrong and they believe that they know what is right and how to fix everything, then obviously that was the aim of life, when life began. You obviously are not separate from life. You a part of life, so whatever you think, it is because of life, itself, and not because you are above nor beyond life. Either you accept that you are a part of the meaning, purpose, and aim of Life, or you do not. So, which one is it?

What "you" are thinking now is because of Life and It's continual evolution. Either Life went, so called, "terribly wrong" and because you are a part of Life and It's meaning, then your thinking now is also "terribly wrong". Or, if you say that you KNOW Life, Itself, has gone "terribly wrong", then how do you explain how you KNOW this? If you are a part of Life, then how can you see Life from a separated perspective?

The only way that you could logically argue that there was a "terrible wrong" in Life's evolutionary progress is by admitting that you have an outside view of Life, and by explaining how this even possible.

[Sculptor]

I was talking about 'behavior'. Meaning, to me, the behavior in humans has changed more than behavior has in any other animal.

So am I talking about behaviour. Structure conditions behaviour. There is nothing like Whale song; swimming is unlike tree climbing.

Thank you for your stating the obvious, but can you clarify why you are doing this?

Why are you talking about "structure conditions" behavior when I obviously was not?

The behavior of taking things out of context, and then replying from one's own take of things is another very common, and very obvious, human only behavior. This type of behavior is what I was obviously talking about. Again, it is yet another example of just how much human behavior has changed considerably from all other animal's behavior has. "Structure condition behavior" is something I have never heard of before nor even really care about in relation to what I was saying.

Since 'whale' can be defined as an animal that sings and swims then the behavior of a whale has not changed that much at all since the whale has been in existence.

There is also nothing like human speech; flying is unlike tree climbing. But so what?

Compared to any other animal that has been in existence for as long as the human animal has, to me, the behavior of the human animal has changed radically. Whereas all other animals behavior has remained relatively the same; they just out act out of instinct, to survive. The human animal acts out of instinct, to survive, as well as behave, or misbehave being the true sense, in countless other ways, which are just plain wrong.

If this is on dispute, then show why. But bringing completely out of context concepts into the picture here is not clearing any thing up.

The only point I was making was that you made a silly point.
"No species is more changed that humans." Is an empty comment since there are no strict criteria for what sort of change gets attention. Not using legs to walk but instead moving thousands of miles through the oceans, singing songs humans are mentally in capable of understanding beats sitting on a sofa with a beer farting and eating pizza.

[The Woodster]

No one can explain how life on Earth began,
Are you sure of this?

Absolutely, it's a fact.

Okay, so why did life evolve again ?

All will be explained, in my "Meaning of Life"

Also, you are much different than most other adult human beings. Most talk about how it is easier to work out how things began, then it Is to explain why things began. But, if you can do the latter, then I am sure there are some who would like to hear your views.

And they shall, very soon.

What were these supposed unforeseen circumstances, and, who or what exactly were these circumstances unforeseen from?

Life, wherever it exists throughout the universe on habitable planets, has a very specific goal. On Earth mankind, the supposed saviours, have become distorted and corrupted.
Can you not see this? Can you not feel the 'wrongness' of our world? All human history, from it's very beginning, it's economy, industry, politics and warfare should never have been.

What has happened on Earth was not meant to be.

The only way that you could logically argue that there was a "terrible wrong" in Life's evolutionary progress is by admitting that you have an outside view of Life, and by explaining how this even possible.

Not sure how it is possible, but it is true, I 'see' and understand things completely different from most other people.

For example, i know what dreams really are, and why we evolved the need for them. And it is nothing like what you may have been led to believe.

[surreptitious57]

I see and understand things completely different from most other people

There are not many like that here - two others maybe - so your perspective would be most welcome
And even more so were you actually like no one here at all but even if you are it makes no difference

[Age]

So am I talking about behaviour. Structure conditions behaviour. There is nothing like Whale song; swimming is unlike tree climbing.

Thank you for your stating the obvious, but can you clarify why you are doing this?

Why are you talking about "structure conditions" behavior when I obviously was not?

The behavior of taking things out of context, and then replying from one's own take of things is another very common, and very obvious, human only behavior. This type of behavior is what I was obviously talking about. Again, it is yet another example of just how much human behavior has changed considerably from all other animal's behavior has. "Structure condition behavior" is something I have never heard of before nor even really care about in relation to what I was saying.

Since 'whale' can be defined as an animal that sings and swims then the behavior of a whale has not changed that much at all since the whale has been in existence.

There is also nothing like human speech; flying is unlike tree climbing. But so what?

Compared to any other animal that has been in existence for as long as the human animal has, to me, the behavior of the human animal has changed radically. Whereas all other animals behavior has remained relatively the same; they just out act out of instinct, to survive. The human animal acts out of instinct, to survive, as well as behave, or misbehave being the true sense, in countless other ways, which are just plain wrong.

If this is on dispute, then show why. But bringing completely out of context concepts into the picture here is not clearing any thing up.

The only point I was making was that you made a silly point.

But I have already stated that what my point is has obviously absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that comment and what you are talking about. I was talking about behaviour, and nothing about physical structural change. Considering a huge part of this topic has been about greedy and war-like behavior I thought what I was referring would be obvious, but obviously it was not. I really do need to learn how to write more succinct, so that every one can understand.

"No species is more changed that humans." Is an empty comment since there are no strict criteria for what sort of change gets attention.

That may be an interesting response to that 'empty comment', but considering I never made a 'comment' like that one, nor have I even had a thought similar to that one, can I ask why are you responding to me regarding that 'silly comment'?

Not using legs to walk but instead moving thousands of miles through the oceans, singing songs humans are mentally in capable of understanding beats sitting on a sofa with a beer farting and eating pizza.

Again, an interesting response to some previously unknown comment, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

Maybe if you read again what I actually wrote without some presumption, or just from an open perspective, then you might see and understand what I am actually saying.

[Age]

No one can explain how life on Earth began,
Are you sure of this?

Absolutely, it's a fact.

So, forever more, no one can explain how life on Earth began?

Again how do you know such a "fact"?

Okay, so why did life evolve again ?

All will be explained, in my "Meaning of Life"

Okay.

Also, you are much different than most other adult human beings. Most talk about how it is easier to work out how things began, then it Is to explain why things began. But, if you can do the latter, then I am sure there are some who would like to hear your views.

And they shall, very soon.

Okay.

What were these supposed unforeseen circumstances, and, who or what exactly were these circumstances unforeseen from?

Life, wherever it exists throughout the universe on habitable planets, has a very specific goal. On Earth mankind, the supposed saviours, have become distorted and corrupted.

Where is the evidence that "mankind" is the 'supposed saviors'? And what about the womankind?

Can you not see this?

If you had been reading my words, then it would have been obvious that I can very easily see where, and WHY, ALL adult human beings have become distorted and are corrupted.

Can you not feel the 'wrongness' of our world?

Again, yes. This is already obvious in my writings.

All human history, from it's very beginning, it's economy, industry, politics and warfare should never have been. What has happened on Earth was not meant to be.

If you say and believe so.

The only way that you could logically argue that there was a "terrible wrong" in Life's evolutionary progress is by admitting that you have an outside view of Life, and by explaining how this even possible.

Not sure how it is possible, but it is true, I 'see' and understand things completely different from most other people.

'Seeing' and understanding things completely different from most other people does not even imply that you have an 'outside' view of Life, Itself.

For example, i know what dreams really are, and why we evolved the need for them.

Okay.

And it is nothing like what you may have been led to believe.

Two things:
1. I have not read nor heard of any one who said anything about knowing what dreams are, not why human beings have evolved with the 'need'for dreams, so I could not have been led anywhere or to any thing regarding this.
2. Even if I had been 'led'in some direction I still neither believe, not disbelieve, any thing.

[The Woodster]

Where is the evidence that "mankind" is the 'supposed saviours'? And what about the womankind?

Mankind;
noun
1. human beings considered collectively; the human race.
2. synonyms: the human race, man, humanity, human beings, humans, Homo sapiens, humankind, the human species, people, men and women

[Sculptor]

Thank you for your stating the obvious, but can you clarify why you are doing this?

Why are you talking about "structure conditions" behavior when I obviously was not?

The behavior of taking things out of context, and then replying from one's own take of things is another very common, and very obvious, human only behavior. This type of behavior is what I was obviously talking about. Again, it is yet another example of just how much human behavior has changed considerably from all other animal's behavior has. "Structure condition behavior" is something I have never heard of before nor even really care about in relation to what I was saying.

Since 'whale' can be defined as an animal that sings and swims then the behavior of a whale has not changed that much at all since the whale has been in existence.

There is also nothing like human speech; flying is unlike tree climbing. But so what?

Compared to any other animal that has been in existence for as long as the human animal has, to me, the behavior of the human animal has changed radically. Whereas all other animals behavior has remained relatively the same; they just out act out of instinct, to survive. The human animal acts out of instinct, to survive, as well as behave, or misbehave being the true sense, in countless other ways, which are just plain wrong.

If this is on dispute, then show why. But bringing completely out of context concepts into the picture here is not clearing any thing up.

The only point I was making was that you made a silly point.

But I have already stated that what my point is has obviously absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that comment and what you are talking about. I was talking about behaviour, and nothing about physical structural change. Considering a huge part of this topic has been about greedy and war-like behavior I thought what I was referring would be obvious, but obviously it was not. I really do need to learn how to write more succinct, so that every one can understand.

"No species is more changed that humans." Is an empty comment since there are no strict criteria for what sort of change gets attention.

That may be an interesting response to that 'empty comment', but considering I never made a 'comment' like that one, nor have I even had a thought similar to that one, can I ask why are you responding to me regarding that 'silly comment'?

Not using legs to walk but instead moving thousands of miles through the oceans, singing songs humans are mentally in capable of understanding beats sitting on a sofa with a beer farting and eating pizza.

Again, an interesting response to some previously unknown comment, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

Maybe if you read again what I actually wrote without some presumption, or just from an open perspective, then you might see and understand what I am actually saying.

Seriously?
Take it up with someone that is interested in the workings of your weird mind.
You were wrong. Own it.

[The Woodster]

x

u

X.Y.U.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhvrvVGh2hY

Thanks, Smashing Pumpkins are one of my favourite bands. Saw them when this album came out, still got the T-shirt.

[Age]

Where is the evidence that "mankind" is the 'supposed saviours'? And what about the womankind?

Mankind;
noun
1. human beings considered collectively; the human race.
2. synonyms: the human race, man, humanity, human beings, humans, Homo sapiens, humankind, the human species, people, men and women

So, when you say 'man'kind you actually mean all humans correct? If so, then that may clarify the second question, but what about the first question, and all the other questions?

[Age]

The only point I was making was that you made a silly point.

But I have already stated that what my point is has obviously absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that comment and what you are talking about. I was talking about behaviour, and nothing about physical structural change. Considering a huge part of this topic has been about greedy and war-like behavior I thought what I was referring would be obvious, but obviously it was not. I really do need to learn how to write more succinct, so that every one can understand.

"No species is more changed that humans." Is an empty comment since there are no strict criteria for what sort of change gets attention.

That may be an interesting response to that 'empty comment', but considering I never made a 'comment' like that one, nor have I even had a thought similar to that one, can I ask why are you responding to me regarding that 'silly comment'?

Not using legs to walk but instead moving thousands of miles through the oceans, singing songs humans are mentally in capable of understanding beats sitting on a sofa with a beer farting and eating pizza.

Again, an interesting response to some previously unknown comment, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

Maybe if you read again what I actually wrote without some presumption, or just from an open perspective, then you might see and understand what I am actually saying.

Seriously?

Yes.

Take it up with someone that is interested in the workings of your weird mind.

You were the one who took this up in the beginning. Do you just want to take it up, and then expect me to just leave it?

If you respond to some thing that I write, but which you completely misunderstood, take out of context, or as you have done here presumed some thing that I never even thought about let wrote, then I will make that clear to readers.

I will also make it clear to the readers that it was you who was obviously interested in what you thought I was saying, but as soon as I made it clear that I never even said what you thought, and you finally realised that that was not what I was saying, then you suddenly become very disinterested.

You were wrong. Own it.

I was supposedly wrong about 'what' exactly?

If I can see I am wrong, then I will be the first to admit it and own. I am just yet to see what you are seeing. If you can see where I was wrong, then show it.

I have shown where and why you are wrong, by stipulating exactly how you mistook what I was saying. Obviously I never said what you perceived I did so why do you not now do the same, and the decent, thing and show where you think I am wrong, instead of just saying I was wrong.

If you present some thing, then at least we have to some thing to look at. If you can show where I was wrong, then, as I said, I will be the first to own it and admit it. Until then just saying I was wrong, does not suffice. For all we know you could just be trying any thing to not own the wrong that you yourself have obviously done.

So, do you have any thing at all to present or no?

[Sculptor]

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:32 pm
Take it up with someone that is interested in the workings of your weird mind.

Do you just want to take it up, and then expect me to just leave it?

Exactly. You do not even know what I meant when I said you got it wrong FFS.

[Age]

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:32 pm
Take it up with someone that is interested in the workings of your weird mind.

Do you just want to take it up, and then expect me to just leave it?

Exactly. You do not even know what I meant when I said you got it wrong FFS.

Exactly, and I still have absolutely no idea what you meant when you said I got it wrong. Until you, or any reader, tells me what the "it" supposedly is I will continue to still have absolutely no idea.

You are yet to even describe what you believe I got wrong because you are either;
Incapable of doing so.
To stupid to.
Just do not want to. Or,
Have absolutely nothing.

As I have already stated, I have already shown where, and why, you are WRONG, but for reasons only you know, you can not or will not do the same.

[Sculptor]

Do you just want to take it up, and then expect me to just leave it?

Exactly. You do not even know what I meant when I said you got it wrong FFS.

Exactly, and I still have absolutely no idea ...

Indeed.