On 6 May, 02:15, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > AFAIK evolution works by: the hen comes from the egg, the next egg > (becoming the next hen) comes from that hen. This should also apply for > epigenetics. >
I don't think so. Epigenetics are changed by one's exposure to one's environment. While you may, indeed, pass on epigenetics, it would be after some environmental exposure and before others. Equally, the child would inherit a certain epigenetic background but would immediately begin altering it based on their own exposure to their own environment. Epigenetics are definitely inherited, but mutate much more than chromosomal DNA, which in turn, mutates far faster than mitochondrial DNA. And, as far as I know, no one has looked into how or whether epigenetics are recombined at the fertilisation stage. If so, then there are HUGE changes in epigenetics from one generation to the next even if some are passed straight through without mutation and/ or recombination. > "To believe in laws of Nature is just logical, it doesn't make a person > an athiest." > I agree with Quinn that it would lead one to believe in animism. > Speaking of older cultures I appreciated a revelation earlier on a old > Native American belief that the world is on the back of a giant turtle. > Indeed that is nearly spherical, and someone could observe this from a > mountain or other height. > > On 5/5/2010 10:15 AM, RP wrote: > > > > > To believe in laws of Nature is just logical, it doesn't make a > > person an athiest. As for contradiction, a person's beliefs change > > with time. No one is born wise from his mother's womb. > > > On May 5, 5:22 am, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> "Those who bow before the Lord are better than the atheists who don"t. > >> The beleivers have a better chance of coping with life"s adversities > >> as they have hope and fortitude, the non-believers only believe in the > >> finite and are thus unable to bear life"s vicssitudes with > >> equanimity."- Posted by RP at 00:14,Wednesday, 7 October 2009 > >> I am Far from an athiest and you are contradicting yourself my friend! > > >> On May 4, 10:54 pm, RP<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Everthing that is born is finite as it will certainly die. The > >>> universe was born with the Big Bang and will disintegrate with the big > >>> Crunch. All life is dualistic in nature, as a movie needs a screen > >>> consciousness needs a sense. If the universe is continuously expanding > >>> it doesn't mean that it will never disintegrate. To equate God with > >>> the universe , is doubting his existence and you may as well consider > >>> yourself to be athiests. If a hen can come out of an egg and god is > >>> still there, then the universe can come out of the cosmic egg and God > >>> be still there. > > >>> On May 4, 12:58 pm, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> "God is pure consciousness, formless, unborn, eternal, indestructible > >>>> and the source, the spirit and the end of all. We are conscious, have > >>>> a form, are born, live and die. Our only solace is that we arise from > >>>> him, are upheld by him and go back to him. He is the Truth and we are > >>>> just his reflections and vanish when the vessel dies."-RP > > >>>> I have to refer back to the origional post to respond to this.If God > >>>> is the source then the big bang does not really count for much in this > >>>> discussion. Furthermore, as the theory has evolved we find (and these > >>>> are assumptions of course)that the universe is continually expanding > >>>> and likely to expand infinitly. Also, if others are correct in their > >>>> posts which state the universe and God are one and we are part of this > >>>> universe (also assuming anything, in fact, exists) than we are not > >>>> finite but infinite as well. Therefore arising from Him, being upheld > >>>> by Him and going back to Him we become one with the eternal and the > >>>> only thing that is dualistic is our perception of what is 'real' ie; > >>>> the physical being or the vessel as you put it. I will go so far as > >>>> saying that what we percieve as real is less real than what we cannot > >>>> measure ie; the ethereal. > > >>>> On May 4, 1:08 pm, RP<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> The universe started developing with the big bang and will > >>>>> disintegrate at some time in the future. Duality is always finite. God > >>>>> alone is infinite as he is non-dual. > > >>>>> On May 4, 7:39 am, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> "The "gods " would then just be super-beings who will be born with > >>>>>> this > >>>>>> universe and die with it , e.i. dualistic in nature"-RP > > >>>>>> This would assume that the universe is finite, no? I fail to see the > >>>>>> logic here. > > >>>>>> On May 3, 10:14 am, RP<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> The "gods " would then just be super-beings who will be born with this > >>>>>>> universe and die with it , e.i. dualistic in nature. > > >>>>>>> On May 3, 5:42 am, [email protected] wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Ifpure consciousness transcends human awareness then as Kant > >>>>>>>> saysthe assertion of unity is only a hypothesis believed as an > >>>>>>>> article offaith. What if the pre Greeks are righter about the nature > >>>>>>>> of realitywith their notion of multiple "gods" a multiplicity of > >>>>>>>> realities? > > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: RP<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> To: "Minds Eye"<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 8:05 am > >>>>>>>> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: God and I > > >>>>>>>> Pure Consciousness, God, Atma , or the Self is non-dual and above > >>>>>>>> awareness. Awareness implies dualism as it is not possible otherwise. > >>>>>>>> The entire creation which is dualistic in nature springs from the > >>>>>>>> non- > >>>>>>>> dual and is like a hen coming out of an egg. i.e. all predetermined. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> know that I have no company in this view , yet I have expressed it as > >>>>>>>> basically I am truthful in nature. > > >>>>>>>> On May 2, 8:14 am, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > OM , most people don't want to die RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > While I don t know most people nor their wants and desires, the > >>>>>>>> > human organism as well as psyche does have a drive for life. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > or have so many desires like psychic powers RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Again, I have no experience with most people so do not know what > >>>>>>>> > they want. As to psychic powers, it is true that I ve heard > >>>>>>>> precious > >>>>>>>> > little from most of the people that I do know about psychic > >>>>>>>> powers. > >>>>>>>> > However, I cannot say the same about them having desires. It > >>>>>>>> appears > >>>>>>>> > that most people I know have quite a set of passions and > >>>>>>>> desires. . . > >>>>>>>> > attachments to all sorts of issues, things, attributes, hungers > >>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>> > I make no value judgment about such things other than that > >>>>>>>> which I > >>>>>>>> > know such thirsts do attract suffering. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > that they make so much of consciousness. RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > And, my closer friends do have a focus on consciousness while my > >>>>>>>> > acquaintances do not share much about consciousness itself. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > In my view there is only God, Atma Or Pure Consciousness. We are > >>>>>>>> > all just his > >>>>>>>> > reflections or have emanated from him RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > When observing things ultimate, I d say we are of like minds > >>>>>>>> here RP > >>>>>>>> > at the very least, have similar points of view. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Maybe my reasoning is awry and you and others are right RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > If you are associating this response with my last post, I see no > >>>>>>>> > contradiction. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. The > >>>>>>>> reasoning I > >>>>>>>> > criticized had to do with how I interpreted your words > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > ..It would be simply a state of coma.Go and ask for general > >>>>>>>> > anaesthesia for a few minutes, that would be your self- > >>>>>>>> > realisation. .. RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Now, perhaps here it is I who don t quite interpret your meaning > >>>>>>>> > correctly. Only you will be the judge of that. Your above > >>>>>>>> words, to > >>>>>>>> > me, imply no awareness when self-realized only a state of coma > >>>>>>>> . From > >>>>>>>> > what little experience I have here and what I have read from > >>>>>>>> those who > >>>>>>>> > have taken this path over the millennia, while we are living and > >>>>>>>> > associated with a specific body (not dead), even though specific > >>>>>>>> > states of consciousness can come and go where one is not > >>>>>>>> attached to > >>>>>>>> > self nor appearances, there must be and is a consubstantial > >>>>>>>> > recognition of both the absolute (no words/concepts) as well as > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> > I that which thinks, has emotions etc. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > But in that case also I am right, You will become one with God > >>>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>> > you get salvation and then there will be no individual I , as > >>>>>>>> far as > >>>>>>>> > you will be concerned. If I am not mistaken , you at least > >>>>>>>> believe in > >>>>>>>> > predeterminism , like me. RP > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Many issues in this small set of words RP first, I m not so > >>>>>>>> sure that > >>>>>>>> > the issue of being right is that important to me here. I wanted > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> > discuss and share with you. We may not agree and this is fine. > >>>>>>>> We in > >>>>>>>> > fact may be fully agreeing and don t know it due to the use of > >>>>>>>> > subjective words and terms. There are many possibilities here. > >>>>>>>> As to > >>>>>>>> > one becoming one with god I find that to be the case for > >>>>>>>> everyone > >>>>>>>> > primarily demonstrated by divine omnipresence. Now, the term of > >>>>>>>> > salvation doesn t seem to enter into the discussion for me at > >>>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>> > not when it comes to terminology. Perhaps you can elucidate > >>>>>>>> here. As > >>>>>>>> > to an individual I , we are in agreement in one sense at least. > >>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> > find that the common notion of I , ego etc., in any ultimate > >>>>>>>> sense is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
