Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

53 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Are you suggesting there were no rainbows until a god destroyed the world and made rainbows to signify his promise?  Really? A rainbow is part of the behavior of matter under specific circumstances, are you asserting an imaginary god created it to signify that it would not destroy the world by flood? A flood that can be proven never to have happened supposedly caused by a entity there is no evidence for to begin with? 

MoonTanman 

Just the immediate world around Mesopotamia, the Black Sea , and the vosferous. Where the early civilisation gathered. The sky was more an opaque canopy , where the sun dominated the day , the moon dominated the night . Opaque No rainbow . 

The bringing down of the canopy , brought tremendous flooding , after which the atmosphere was clear , and when it did rain from clouds newly replacing the canopy , the rainbow appeared as you say . Not again would the canopy come down , it was down for good . The rainbow would appear when the rain and sun were in the correct orientation , as it is to this day. 

Mike 

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

MoonTanman 

Just the immediate world around Mesopotamia, the Black Sea , and the vosferous. Where the early civilisation gathered. The sky was more an opaque canopy , where the sun dominated the day , the moon dominated the night . Opaque No rainbow . 

The bringing down of the canopy , brought tremendous flooding , after which the atmosphere was clear , and when it did rain from clouds newly replacing the canopy , the rainbow appeared as you say . Not again would the canopy come down , it was down for good . The rainbow would appear when the rain and sun were in the correct orientation , as it is to this day. 

Mike 

Mike,

for the entity in dispute's sake. Crap!

1. Where one early civilisation is to be found, not all civilisations were to be found there.

2. Will you please use a spell checker. Your bizarre spelling is becoming annoying. Bosphoros or Bosporos, not vosferous, and certainly not with a lower case first letter!

3. If there is an opaque canopy, how can the sun dominate the day? You do realise means opaque means it will not let light through? So, the civilisation in the ME, the one you believe to be the first civilisation, arose in darkness. Just how did those crops thrive?

4. What evidence do you have for this opaque canopy? What was the canopy made of?

Just in case you missed my earlier point, crap.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 

• You claim the rainbow is evidence for God, yet it is simply an expression of fundamental laws, one of many emergent properties.
• You claim the formation of the Earth is evidence for God, yet.....as above.
• You claim science doesn't understand male-female attraction. I offer 3,000,000 hits on Google Scholar as a refutation.
• You take each of your desires to represent reality: because you wish something to be true that is your evidence it is. That is the epitome of illogic and arrogance.
• You claimed to know more of fish than science. I listed ten sciences that provided us with a much deeper understanding of fish.

It is clear you still feel your hierarchy concept has some value. 

AREA 54 

 . Rainbow , only works under set conditions . 

. Yes the Jewel of the Earth , peopled. Stands out like a Gemstone , among all the potential homes we have observed . ( For  Mankind , Animals , Minerals ) 

. I do not understand your ( male - female ) comment ? 

. Well there is a case for Humans having an inbuilt affinity to understand the difference , for Right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, symmetry, ( left and right ) , up and down , attraction and repulsion , TRUTH and FALSEHOOD . 

. I am using the convenience of the fish in my pool , myself as a human being , and God as an invisible being that I would like to know more of His/Her/ It's attributes. The three types being nicely distributed across the HIERACHY That I keep talking about . 

---------------------

see following comment from me about what I have observed today , and reasoned on the Man - Fish part of the HEIRACHY , which can give possible insight into the God - Man part of the HEIRACHY.. 

Next post by me 

Mike 

[Area54]

5 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

AREA 54 

 . Rainbow , only works under set conditions .

Basalt only crystalises under set conditions of temperature, pressure and melt composition. Bower birds only build their elaborate courtship structures under set conditions. Students are only admitted into University under set conditions. The universe is tightly structured by fundamental constants, particles and forces. Set conditions are solid evidence of those constants, particles and forces, not of a Supreme Being.

11 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes the Jewel of the Earth , peopled. Stands out like a Gemstone , among all the potential homes we have observed . ( For  Mankind , Animals , Minerals ) 

And the puddle was amazed to discover that it had been lucky enough to find a hole that fitted it exactly. Surely this was not luck, but the act of a superior being,

 

13 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I do not understand your ( male - female ) comment ? 

In one of your earlier posts you stated that science did not have much understanding of male-female attraction. I pointed out that was seriously incorrect. I was just reminding you of that.

 

15 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well there is a case for Humans having an inbuilt affinity to understand the difference , for Right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, symmetry, ( left and right ) , up and down , attraction and repulsion , TRUTH and FALSEHOOD

You do not have to go beyond the pages of this forum to find strong, even bitter disagreement over what is right, what is wrong, what is beautiful, what is ugly. Perhaps not what is up and down, but certainly whether the Earth is round or flat. Or the endless disputes about the moon landings.

There is clear evidence that many humans lack any affinity to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Early scientists recognised this and developed a methodology that did not require reliance on an unreliable "inbuilt affinity".

20 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I am using the convenience of the fish in my pool , myself as a human being , and God as an invisible being that I would like to know more of His/Her/ It's attributes. The three types being nicely distributed across the HIERACHY That I keep talking about

Yet you have failed to provide either evidence or reasoned argument to justify your claim as to the reality of such a hierarchy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

OBSERVATION  within the HIERACHY ( God - Man - Fish ) 

Over the last few weeks / months . The number of goldfish has changed. From an established  7 goldfish , to 7 + ( 4 newer ones , recently born , mainly black growing into gold later  ) . = 11 total . 

Observation :    when they anticipate feeding ( say first thing ) , they , or More exactly , the 7  adult fish line up so as to expect me coming with the food . The 4 young are not lined up , they carry on darting about from here to there , which is what all the fish do ultimately during the day , once fed. 

So what it occurs to me , the young , have not yet learned from the parents about lining up to be fed . ALTHOUGH , The oldest one of the young , occasionally can be seen on the end of the Row of adults , ready to feed. 

This observation says to me , does this happen with humans , yes to begin with the babies are all over the place with feeding . Later , gradually they are trained to come to the table to eat .

so conclusion . This seems to be a trait that crosses the Age and HEIRACHY line . 

So this (A ) might be a design feature across all layers of the HEIRACHY in question. And ( B ) how we may be able to cross the HEIRACHY boundary between MANKIND and GOD .  As it is not indemic or natural to que up for feeding , so it is not natural for humans to seek God , as the young small fish did not get in the  line ready for feeding . 

A little convoluted , but interesting . It might explain , if only to me that the concept of looking to a God for nourishment is not natural or commonplace . Anymore than the young goldfish , just carried on darting about , all over the place . 

 

Mikeb

[Area54]

5 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

This observation says to me , does this happen with humans , yes to begin with the babies are all over the place with feeding . Later , gradually they are trained to come to the table to eat .

You never fail to surprise me with your ignorance.

One of the few behaviours all normal babies have, practically from the moment of their birth, is the instinct to seek out a nipple and suck. After a period of reasonable behaviour they become, as young teenagers, strongly disinclined to come to the table to eat.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

MoonTanman 

Just the immediate world around Mesopotamia, the Black Sea , and the vosferous. Where the early civilisation gathered. The sky was more an opaque canopy , where the sun dominated the day , the moon dominated the night . Opaque No rainbow . 

The bringing down of the canopy , brought tremendous flooding , after which the atmosphere was clear , and when it did rain from clouds newly replacing the canopy , the rainbow appeared as you say . Not again would the canopy come down , it was down for good . The rainbow would appear when the rain and sun were in the correct orientation , as it is to this day. 

Mike 

 Canopy? Are you a follower of Ken Ham now? Rainbows are quite common, I can create a rainbow easily, we understand why a rainbow forms and that the effect is a result of a fundamental property of matter and light. No need for a god apologizing for a flood that cannot have happened... 

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

OBSERVATION  within the HIERACHY ( God - Man - Fish ) 

Over the last few weeks / months . The number of goldfish has changed. From an established  7 goldfish , to 7 + ( 4 newer ones , recently born , mainly black growing into gold later  ) . = 11 total . 

Observation :    when they anticipate feeding ( say first thing ) , they , or More exactly , the 7  adult fish line up so as to expect me coming with the food . The 4 young are not lined up , they carry on darting about from here to there , which is what all the fish do ultimately during the day , once fed. 

So what it occurs to me , the young , have not yet learned from the parents about lining up to be fed . ALTHOUGH , The oldest one of the young , occasionally can be seen on the end of the Row of adults , ready to feed. 

This observation says to me , does this happen with humans , yes to begin with the babies are all over the place with feeding . Later , gradually they are trained to come to the table to eat .

so conclusion . This seems to be a trait that crosses the Age and HEIRACHY line . 

So this (A ) might be a design feature across all layers of the HEIRACHY in question. And ( B ) how we may be able to cross the HEIRACHY boundary between MANKIND and GOD .  As it is not indemic or natural to que up for feeding , so it is not natural for humans to seek God , as the young small fish did not get in the  line ready for feeding . 

A little convoluted , but interesting . It might explain , if only to me that the concept of looking to a God for nourishment is not natural or commonplace . Anymore than the young goldfish , just carried on darting about , all over the place . 

 

Mikeb

Mike, to continue this conversation with any hope of making sense you first must provide evidence for gods or goddesses or for anything supernatural. So far you have done nothing but spout nonsensical assertions like a religious creationist caught between a rock and a very hard place. Come back to reality Mike, the feelies are taking control of your mind... 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

55 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 Mike, to continue this conversation with any hope of making sense you first must provide evidence for gods or goddesses or for anything supernatural. 

Yes, but I have provided , the most concrete ' evidence ' of the supernatural beings that are behind the scenes . In the way the operators of a " Punch and Judy  show , seldom show their faces . They are below the curtain . You sit back and watch the show . Below the curtains are the owner and operator of " Punch and Judy " of the show . 

The show is the Universe , the World and its people  , the minerals and crystals ,  the whole shabang . You can see all these things . That's all you get ! Sit back and appreciate and enjoy the show ! I can not show you any more than that . If I could , I would . 

 

Mike 

 

 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You never fail to surprise me with your ignorance.

One of the few behaviours all normal babies have, practically from the moment of their birth, is the instinct to seek out a nipple and suck. After a period of reasonable behaviour they become, as young teenagers, strongly disinclined to come to the table to eat.

No! This is the point . There appears to be no instinct to sit in a row , like the adult fish , and wait for their owner (me ) . It is a learned experience , only one out of the four new ones , is regularly lining up with the adult fish . Now whether the others learn by imitation, or are drawn by hunger I have not worked through enough observations yet . I think to some extent they are all ( young and old ) drawn to me .

why I am not sure ? Curiosity , strength in numbers , ?? 

May be it is my beard ? 

I must say , it makes me feel important !

I wonder if this is why ' politicians , and leaders ' get a buzz , by Governing other people , and being listened to ? 

 

Mike 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes, but I have provided , the most concrete ' evidence ' of the supernatural beings that are behind the scenes . In the way the operators of a " Punch and Judy  show , seldom show their faces . They are below the curtain . You sit back and watch the show . Below the curtains are the owner and operator of " Punch and Judy " of the show . 

The show is the Universe , the World and its people  , the minerals and crystals ,  the whole shabang . You can see all these things . That's all you get ! Sit back and appreciate and enjoy the show ! I can not show you any more than that . If I could , I would . 

 

Mike 

And therein lies the problem, you are asserting things as part of reality there is no evidence of, no need for, and plenty of reasons not to believe. At no time in history has the supernatural ever shown science to be wrong... 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

 

No! This is the point . There appears to be no instinct to sit in a row , like the adult fish , and wait for their owner (me ) . It is a learned experience , only one out of the four new ones , is regularly lining up with the adult fish . Now whether the others learn by imitation, or are drawn by hunger I have not worked through enough observations yet . I think to some extent they are all ( young and old ) drawn to me .

why I am not sure ? Curiosity , strength in numbers , ?? 

May be it is my beard ? 

I must say , it makes me feel important !

I wonder if this is why ' politicians , and leaders ' get a buzz , by Governing other people , and being listened to ? 

 

Mike 

You feed them Mike, they associate you with food, my fish do the same thing... But my fish are wild caught, it takes a while for them to figure out I am not a threat. Some take longer than others but food is a powerful incentive. And BTW goldfish had their behavior altered by selected breeding to be bold. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Mike, to continue this conversation with any hope of making sense you first must provide                  

.                        "evidence for gods "

.

It does not matter what name you place upon my gazing out of my window , first thing today , before I have even got out of bed . I look through a gap no more than half a meter ( 18 inches ) wide . 

The sun is shining , the sky is azure blue the tree tops are furdent green . The sun glints by reflection though a captured water droplet , in a tree, to shine with starlike white. The birds are tweeting . I gaze at the flowers my wife has planted , in profusion about the garden . ( the colours and shapes are divine ) . 

 

There is your .  ....  " Evidence  for gods .."..

when I think of the images of the surface of the moon , the surface of Mars , and all the other images so far of planets far and wide . Desolation . 

...---------------------    ------------

if you asked me to show you the Government of England , 

well I suppose I could show you  , the Houses of Parliament . But they would be empty buildings ( they are all on Holiday ) . 

I could show you some projects they had funded , say a rail link to Scotland

I could show you some project in a part of the world that needs help , or some disturbance that is getting out of hand . 

I could show a picture of a few individual Mp's .

the whole thing is spread out all over the place . 

----------------------     -----------------

So it is with your ..." Evidence  for  gods .." It's spread out across the Universe " 

Mike 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

I just farted - that is at least as good evidence as yours.

[Klaynos]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

... evidence ...

Mike, you keep using that word. I'm not sure you know what it means. You presented no evidence just a little story about how you think the earth is pretty (whatever pretty is). 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

3 hours ago, Manticore said:

I just farted - that is at least as good evidence as yours.

Well, I do not think you would make that comment , if you for a moment considered what resources , assistants, and knowledge you would need if you were to lead a massive engineering project to Terra-Form  the nearby planet of MARS . 

This could be thought of as a future Earth Like project . It would be absolutely massive . Do you thing 100,000,000 engineers would be adequate. Where and how would you get sufficient water to create some seas. How long do you think it would take . Do you thing the end result would be beautiful and capable of continuance. 

I think if the project was completed it would be pretty impressive. 

( I think the above might help experience what effort went toward getting Earth to the state where it could be populated . The Earths start , no doubt , was similarly a major project for the Original Creators . ) 

Mike 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

You have no evidence that the earth isn't in its natural state. There is no evidence that the earth was terraformed by any sentient being. 

You have nothing but wishful thinking. 

[DrP]

23 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well, I do not think you would make that comment , if you for a moment considered what resources , assistants, and knowledge you would need if you were to lead a massive engineering project to Terra-Form  the nearby planet ........ Do you thing 100,000,000 engineers would be adequate..... Where and how would you get sufficient water to create some seas. How long do you think it would take . Do you thing the end result would be beautiful and capable of continuance. 

 

 

You are talking about a different mechanism for speeding up the seeding of a planet or totally changing a planet.... This didn't happen with Earth. What we know that did happen is that it took about 4.5 billion year to get to where we are now...  so, just sit back and let it happen naturally....   The probability is that it will never happen (life forming) on MOST planets unless they are in the Goldilocks zone.

 

PS - don't let it kill your joy or your sense of numinous for the amazing universe we live in if you change your mind about there being a super being...  being honest it is even more amazing and beautiful without one...  look what we have become from just matter without any help! I think of it like that now rather than "God is amazing to have made this (ignoring the horrificness of nature)"    rather - "wow - everything is just amazing - lets find out what really happened!"

 

 

3 hours ago, Manticore said:

I just farted -

Do you have any evidence for this?       ;-)

Edited August 31, 2017 by DrP
PS

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

6 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

You have no evidence that the earth isn't in its natural state. There is no evidence that the earth was terraformed by any sentient being. 

You have nothing but wishful thinking. 

No.

We have the Signature of the 100,000,001 terra formers ! 

It was not left as a secret or puzzle.

mike 

[Klaynos]

3 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

No.

We have the Signature of the 100,000,001 terra formers ! 

It was not left as a secret or puzzle.

mike 

Great, a signature. Where? Something that can't just be explained by the physical laws of nature. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

13 hours ago, Area54 said:

One of the few behaviours all normal babies have, practically from the moment of their birth, is the instinct to seek out a nipple and suck. After a period of reasonable behaviour they become, as young teenagers, strongly disinclined to come to the table to eat.

Well , I agree I am picking isolated , fragments of behaviour. But I do believe this has a value . 

I am also noticing , the relationship , between gold fish , and man , is in some areas , biased one way . 

Their interest is mainly food orientated, whereas I have an interest in the relationship . We can see how this is reflected in the GOD to MAN  relationship . 

It would appear there is more interest from God to Man ( interested in developing a relationship ) , whereas man to God relationship (the enthusiasm is less of strong ) . Similar to the man- fish relationship , where the desire for close relationship is weaker among the fish . 

Mike 

[Manticore]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Do you have any evidence for this?       ;-)

About as much as there is for "God".

[Manticore]

Double posted for no obvious reason. (Must be Bog providing evidence.)

Edited August 31, 2017 by Manticore

[DrP]

1 hour ago, Manticore said:

About as much as there is for "God".

Did you feel it's presence within you? Was it warming?

[Manticore]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Did you feel it's presence within you? Was it warming?

Why ask? Have you never dropped one.

(An engineer I worked with always used to say "If you knew how much they cost to replace, you wouldn't rip them like that.").

[DrP]

43 minutes ago, Manticore said:

Why ask? Have you never dropped one.

(An engineer I worked with always used to say "If you knew how much they cost to replace, you wouldn't rip them like that.").

lol - people give the same evidence for God -  "I can feel him". "It gave me a warm feeling inside" "I was moved"...  all of which can be said for a fart, I have produced some that have really moved people (physically of their own accord to a different location). The thing is that you can actually light or smell a fart..  which is better proof of it's existence that the other as you cannot (afaik) light it or smell it. However, here on the internets we only have your word for this I am afraid! I mean, if you can bottle some and post it then we could get it analysed and prove your claim.

 

 

....  I'll send the sample to the 'Anal'itical Chemist...   ba dum! 

Edited August 31, 2017 by DrP

[Manticore]

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

lol - people give the same evidence for God -  "I can feel him". "It gave me a warm feeling inside" "I was moved"...  all of which can be said for a fart, I have produced some that have really moved people (physical of their own accord to a different location). The thing is that you can actually light or smell a fart..  which is better proof of it's existence that the other as you cannot (afaik) light it or smell it. However, here on the internets we only have your word for this I am afraid! I mean, if you can bottle some and post it then we could get it analysed and prove your claim.

....  I'll send the sample to the 'Anal'itical Chemist...   ba dum! 

Ahh.. But bottling a new one would not be evidence that the original one existed.

[Area54]

3 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

It would appear there is more interest from God to Man ( interested in developing a relationship ) , whereas man to God relationship (the enthusiasm is less of strong ) . Similar to the man- fish relationship , where the desire for close relationship is weaker among the fish .

There is no evidence that God, if she exists, has any interest in man. God may be malevolent. God may have lost interest after the first matter condensed and she turned her attention to other matters. There is more evidence for that God than the one it comforts you to believe in.

You talk of your relationship with your goldfish. You say their relationship with you is based primarily on food. That mirrors my relationship with fish. I eat a lot of them. Why shouldn't that be a model for God's relationship with man?