Cool,

This is way more interesting than the usual bible bashing threads. I credit myself with the change in direction.

I had no idea I had so much in common with those old pontificators Poirot. I'm always banging on about these type of symbols and you may remember my musings on The Peak, and cycles of life, orgasm, drugs etc. Even my recounting of the symbolism in snooker of black balls.

I suppose it comes back to that line I always sing, 'You're not the first to think, that everything has been thought before.'

'Pythagoras and Plato both considered this elliptical, rugby-ball shape to be significant'

Rugby! Indeeeed.

And testicles.

'So wisdom and enlightenment lie in the cleavage?'

Oh you know it Grim.

'Houellebecq, now you've made me wonder whether that's all that was being drawn with those two circles'

Arf!

Everything is linked, everything is in it's place, and porn is the centre of the universe. I feel really happy, in a really serene sort of way.

Praise the Lord!

wn i too have had to backtrack
to this post....''OUG,trivia first..[edited]..both offered profound thoughts about spirituality...worthy of your consideration.

Explaining it -Pericles is amongst the Serafim of writers
of clarity on OLO,..and I assure you I have been making an effort, but I will try harder to explain it more clearly…

Almost everything you say about evolution is wrong.""..

how else can i take that...?

almost..EVERYTHING...you[I]..say
is wrong...

to me if im deliberatly cALLED..."wrong'
that infures im lying

all im saying[in my clumsy way]
is STATE WHERE IM WRONG...

if im wrong...you..even in your last post
failed to point out WHAT IS IN ERROR..

ie "EVERYTHING"
sorry..*NEARLY..everything

you then go on
at me to say

""The only places I have seen science misrepresented so"
ie whetre EVERYTHING[sorry NEARLY everything is WRONG[thus lie]..""are on creationist-inspired websites...They are lying.""

if they are miss/re-presenting..ie.."lying"
then by inferance so must i be

thus my asking repeatedly for you to state
wHERE IM [wrong?]...ie QUOTE
""Almost everything you say..about evolution is wrong""

so please dear wm
state where im wrong?

we can reason this out
life neds a food...[so first 'life' cant be flesh eating]
it might have been ANYthing..from algie...to !*!*!..?*?*?

thats what im asking
WHERE AM I WRONG?

or name the first life
and the first evolution...[any evolution]
with your evidence..*

name names
or state where im wrong

what in your OPINION..validates evolution
what do you BELIEVE..evolved into what?...your best egsample

cause i in 38 years havnt found one..
that satisfies all the evidence..science would need
to state definitivly..proof...that genus evolves into other genus

even here it seems
*your walking both sides of a fence

quote...

QUOTE...""There is no proof of fish evolving into apes
nor of apes becoming man, because it didn't happen.

This is what science says.""

these are words you wrote
the first 'other' words after infuring im wrong

""Scientists are clear in stating
what they know and what they think;
and why they think so based on what they know.""

i know your not clainming to be a scientist
but look again at your words...

[if it aint got them KEY things..its not science..!]

""Scientists are clear..*in stating""
your only statemant was im wrong/like a lier

$TATING...""what they know..and what they think;
and why"""

ESPECIALLY WHY
survival of the fattest?
or whatever..but WHY?..

..""they think so...!""

why they think so
and faith in darwin isnt proof

true proof will be able to be REPLICATED
to verufy..the experiment

it will state faulsifyables
that if refuted refute the theory...!

science must be...""based on what they know.""
ir what they KNOW..because they tested it...made science faulsifyables...and can explain how it REALLY works..BUT*
noone KNOWS...not one has proof

IF you got proof
name names

not infure them

""Understanding clearly,
exactly what scientists are stating
can often be very difficult as are the complexities of what they are describing""

YES THATS WHY MOST who claim science
or rather the god free version of chance creation and fortunous evolution..NEED TO BE MORE AWARE OF THE LIES IN THE THEORY..!

before infuring lies upon those
simply asking for YOUR PROOF

tell me
where im.... wrong...*

quote..""Almost everything you say
about evolution is wrong.""..

Aaaah the wisdom of the cleavage; the font of sustenance.

Surely the very embodiment of safety and security.

Just one little warning to those who have placed their heads between those cushions, shaken their heads while exclaiming "bleuuuuuggghhhh", your brains will fall out through your ears. I know, Mel Brooks told me it almost happened to him and I respect his opinion.

Thomas Mann wrote this piece on the unity of the organic and the inorganic - I thought it was quite compelling:

"This interdependent whirling and circling, this convolution of gases and heavenly bodies, this burning, flaming, freezing, exploding, pulverizing, this plunging and speeding, bred out of Nothingness and awakening Nothingness - which perhaps would have preferred to remain asleep and was waiting to fall asleep again - all this was Being, known also as Nature, and everywhere in everything was one. I was not to doubt that all being, Nature itself, constituted a unitary system from the simplest inorganic element to Life at its liveliest,..... Our human brain, our flesh and bones,these were mosaics made up of the same elementary particles as stars and star dust and the dark clouds hanging in the frigid wastes of interstellar space. Life, which had been called forth from Being just as Being had been from Nothingness - Life, this fine flower of Being constituted the same raw material from Nature as inanimate Nature. It had nothing new to show that belonged to it alone. One could not even say that it was unambiguously distinguished from simple Being. The boundary line between it and the inanimate world was indistinct. Plant cells aided by sunlight processed the power of transforming the raw material of the mineral kingdom so that it came to life in them. Thus the spontaneous generative power of the green leaf provided an example of the emergence of the organic from the inorganic. Nor was the opposite process lacking, as in the formation of stones from silicic acid of animal origin. Future cliffs were composed in the depths of the sea out of the skeletons of tiny creatures. In the crystallization of liquids with the illusory appearance of life, Nature was quite evidently playfully crossing the line from one domain into the other. Always when Nature produced the deceptive appearance of the organic in the inorganic - in sulphur flowers, for instance, or ice forms - she was trying to teach us that she was one."

William Trevor and Poirot,

Thank you for bringing to this thread some stimulating thought without compulsive antagonism. It is all too rare in discussions on matters spiritual, religious or metaphysical.

Thank you especially for that quote from Thomas Mann. It is an exemplary description of panentheism (not pantheism).

I hope both of you continue to participate in OLO discussions.