mentholated

They just said rib to put woman in a submissive position. In reality, ancient woman was bred with god to create man. But the creator is not the same as the "god" or gods. God was an imperfect being.

Or something like that.

The bible, and in fact all mythologies were never meant to be taken literally. They were, however, inspired by some truths. If we compare our level of awareness now to what we were long ago, it is obvious that we underestimate our ancestors. They must have known how illogical the sights they were seeing appeared to them.. and if these events were retold in the language of the consciousness we use today, they would possibly be digested easily by us. Unfortunately, the social institutions of "education" restrict our unbounded minds from understanding and knowing all by providing us with a cookie cutting reality.

sordavie

Rofl

__________________

Gambit7

I'm serious!

How many times have geneticists referred to DNA as the true window to God? If God were an assumed alien being then one could easily surmise that DNA is the key to understanding it/he/she/thingamabob.

All the "missing link" really represents is missing DNA. So fill in the damned blank ourselves and see what we find. Maybe it'll look like a "Grey" or something Or perhaps my avatar!

__________________

Gambit7

this:

PLUS

this:

EQUALS

this:

__________________

xTYBALTx

Mmmhmmm.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Daxx

Nothing like a little interspecies action.

__________________
I am the one, I am the zero, I am your low resolution hero.

luna

For some crazy reason, I don't think DNA works like that.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

Gambit7

it's more of a "what would it look like" figurative scenario, not really a discussion about how to manipulate the DNA (although that does seem appealing).

btw Luna; welcome to the conversation! (I figured you were lurking)

__________________

Gambit7

Some of you may peruse this website already. It's one of the best for illiciting complex thought processes on basically anything and everything; led by some of the world's greatest minds.

http://www.edge.org

**Relavant to our discussion of life elsewhere:
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/life_index.html

Prepare to be enthralled by this website (if you're not aware of it).


Note: I'd comment on the Life Videos, but my mind is swimming right now and I'm tired... I expect they'll give us plenty of conversational material though. Enjoy!

__________________

luna

Always lurking, Gambit.

I am still waiting for your reply to questions posed by Sordavie earlier in the thread, however. I am interested in your sources for your conclusions as well. I assume edge.org isn't that source, unless I'm looking in the wrong place on the website?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

AMosely

http://www.seti.org/seti/seti-science/index.phpIf you're really serious, you should know that you are incorrect in your understanding of DNA and genetics. It simply doesn't work that way. DNA is as much evolved as any other physical trait or aspect of a given species. It's very difficult to deduce the precise differences at the moments in time that they occured - or more accurately, overlapped. But the study of our own DNA, or more specifically that of our own species over time is something that has been studied for centuries. The larger question of life beyond our planet is a subject that our species has done little more than wonder about.

The Voyager mission is about the most we have done, and even that is on the fringe of extinction (having narrowly missed a Bush budget cut in 2005). The fact that they are about to pass through the heliopause of our solar system is astounding, yet very few humans are even aware of this - or care to be.

Are any of you familiar with the Drake equation? The SETI institute? If you are interested in the search for extraterrestrial life, you are not alone. I'm sure it has been mentioned in these forums before, but it is worth mentioning again. If you are interested in furthering this research, you can support it for free by running the BOINC program when your computer is not doing anything else. You can also write your congressman/woman to support NASA and interplanetary science.

Is there other life out there? I would bet that there is. But I'd also bet that our chances of finding it within the lifetime of our species - or even our home planet - is little to none, especially when our species still widely accepts religion and myth as our primary source of 'large' answers. This needs to change. Only after a more realistic search for truth in the universe becomes widely accepted, financed and executed.

I always like to think of small Earth is from just the edge of our solar system, compliments of Voyager (and Carl Sagan, who turned the camera around for this picture):

ScratchMonkey

Radio communication was initially very loud and noisy, and as technology developed and the need to pack many more conversations in the same space and band of frequencies arose, it got very quiet. Detecting Marconi's transmissions from interstellar distances was hard enough. Detecting a modern cell phone call from that range is likely impossible.

Anyone interested in "computing DNA" should join a folding team. That should give you some idea of just how hard it is. Does TG have a folding team?

http://folding.stanford.edu/

Here's my team's stats:

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...&teamnum=90759

Aha, a bit of digging reveals TG's team stats:

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...&teamnum=78445

Beatnik

What you're talking about is either Scientology or the last episode of one of the seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

__________________

Gambit7

Okay, I'm going to give this a shot here.

First, Wormholes (not necessarily an Einstein-Rosen Bridge):
I dont need to cite specific scientists on wormholes, because most physicists in general have models that prove their possible existence... whether it be Kaku, Greene, Dyson, Guth, Krauss,.... Einstein(cough)-Rosen (hence, Einstein-Rosen Bridge) What you have to remember is, none of this is observable. (yet.. CERN has a shot at it though, if they havent created one already) Any of these models taken by themselves support a Universe that cant "work" without them (including Einstein's - General Relativity), that's just the nature of the Universe... you cant take something like Wormholes, delete them from the model and expect to get anything that makes sense. Then again, I could use the same logic against Wormholes for an entirely different model.

Here's an old article on wormholes btw:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

Here's one from Edge w/regards to the inflationary model:
http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/y-Ch.16.html

Here's a great video from Kraus somewhat discussing Vacuum Fluctuations:
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Va...luctuation.htm

Indeed, it seems most scientists who tout the Inflationary Model and parent-child Universes, support the notion of wormholes. Since in order for a child Universe to be connected to its parent there would have to be a Wormhole. You could apply this line of thinking to the new "Brane" theory, that states basically there is no beginning or end and the Big Bang was a result of higher-dimensional "membranes" bumping against eachother; each time they do it creates a Universe with entirely different physics.

Of the "Seething Froth" and Aether:
If you read the articles above you'll get an inkling of what I was aiming at. Remember when we talked about the how the Universe is just "Information?" Bits that turn on and off, eventually evolving into more and more complex structures of infinite possibility? It's akin to the notion (from many of the above scientists) that particles exists fleetingly at all places at all times, cancelling eachother out. In this manner, the Quantum information can still travel a said "distance" instantaneously (thereby explaining entanglement). We can observe the influence of this effect but we cant reach its source since these "vacuum fluctuation" (http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Va...luctuation.htm) are unobservable, they're "virtual." Like Data. This "boiling cauldron" of data is what I (and others) like to call the Aether. I stole the "seething froth" analogy from another physicist whose name I cant recall.

Anyways, if you connect the dots you come to the conclusion that Wormholes (not by classical definition) indeed would have to exist to support modern views of the Universe. Where people get into trouble is assuming it's like some wormhole from DS9 that we can just jump into and out of, then they go and disprove that it's even possible from that assumption. Fact is, it's way more complex then that... but at the same time much more simple (grin) If you live by the notion that everything is connected (as I do), then you basically are living by the notion of wormholes (ala Donnie Darko). You (all of you, including your consciousness) at any given point in space-time are connected to everything else.

I guess in a way we're talking about 3 different types of wormholes here. The classical intra-universe wormhole, the parent-child wormhole, and the quantum foam wormhole. I tend to believe (partially since the universe is flat and there is no center) moreso in the latter. The issue with that is, if you believe in quantum foam, the probability is still there for the other 2 types - so in effect you're believing in just about anything (there's nothing wrong with this).

I'm going to stop here with this because I could go on and on. And the fact is, I'm not very good at explaining things unfortunately (that's one reason I've been working a lot with MindMapping lately). I also tend to take a pretty broad view of the Universe and I cant quantitatively support any of it because I have no real math skills (if math is indeed the determining factor, which it may not be). I take bits of info. from varying reputable sources and formulate my own logical conclusions, as should everyone else. You should NEVER be content to rely on old science and old equations (or new for that matter), always be curious.

In a way, without curiosity and constant "re-thinking" you're going against the forces of the Universe itself... which increasingly is becoming a place that's constantly expanding, changing, and who's laws seem to perpetually adapt. In a billion years I bet the physics we're warm and fuzzy with now will have absolutely no bearing on our existence(s).

Regardless of the place(s) we get our info., the point is to initiate conversation on a complex issue. Too many times people want the "get rich quick" scheme or the "lose weight now" pill.. i.e. they want the info. and where you got it (so they can live by it), and that's it. If it's not up to their standards they move along (and thread gets closed). It's a lot more productive to collectively question and give opinions in a structured manner (working off of eachother), rather then simply holding ones hand out for the answer to all things and the place where you got them. Or merely spending time debunking someone else's opinion.

So, let's carry on...

__________________

Gambit7

So I pose this question to you. If we can sequence our own genomes now (which we can). And we can sequence the genomes of ancient man (which we can). What would it take to postulate a "parent-being" from that data? Why wouldnt we be able to do that?

I could, if I wanted to, take my genome and my mother's and postulate many traits of a hypothetical father from that data. Why not extend this to inter-species comparisons? Does not Darwinism lie at the core of this?

__________________