The Origin of Lives

Users who are viewing this thread

Teru Wong

New Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
A Live, a-live, a life.

Philosophy has to be real(listic).
To be more specific, philosophy must have connections to the "outter" world.
Philosophers are using their words to beautify our world.

Everyone can be a philosopher. Not every philosopher can become a "thinker".
By applying our philosophy into our real life, we "truely" change our world by our hands.
A way of thinking can influence our world.
You may become dominant because of the TRUTH (I am referring to the knowledge itself).

Philosophy without talking about the God is insane. Existence of the God cannot be denied. It is an attempt to ignore a subject that "manipulates' our world from the very beginning.
However, the nature of the God varies from one religion to another.

Below is my philosophy.
You may come across this various time on internet in these few months.
In fact, it is very close to the (only) truth.
We usually define "science" as a subject outside the boundaries of "philosophy".
The purposes for both of them are to search for the TRUTH (knowledge) itself.
Scientists become dominant. Philosophers are going weaker.
Vice Versa? No, absolutely. The clock cannot be turned back.
Why don't we make ourselves REAL (useful) to our world?
Philosophy is not a high sounding nothing.

In this thread, you will come across something that may amaze you.

Lives are lives in different levels.
A higher form of lives (universe) gives BIRTH to the lower ones.
The planets are living objects with consciousness (the ability to think and react until death).
Creation by BIRTH.
Planets come across the natural process of BIRTH, GROWTH and DEATH.

Consciousness (as stated above) is the only way to define living objects.

The universe (highest form of lives) gives BIRTH to planets (natural mechanism) with "consciousness". Thus, planets are in a lowerr level of lives and "offspring" of the universe. Planets are "reproduction" of the universe and they are inside the "life cycles" of the universe itself.

Microorganisms (similar to our body cells) of the planets evolved and diversified. Those who have "consciousness" (minds are generated by brains) are the "offspring" in a lower level. We usually call them "animals". Others are organic living tissues. As a level higher then "animals" (including humankind - a specie with higher intelligence), they are inside the "life cycles" of the planets. The role of a planet is a mother-in-common for all living organisms inside her body.

The glorified image of the Earth (the planet gives birth to us) derived from differences in-between the God (a Conscious Earth) and "animals". The start of many religions cannot be tracked. Most of them are contributed by both the God and humankind. Differences in their physical presences create various imagination. Philosophy is a by-product of our civilization. Meanwhile, the most controversial of "live and death" and "consciousness" are being solved by modern technological advancement. However, it does not necessarily mean that philosophy has come to an end. The definition of philosophy has to be rewritten.

The origin of lives is a biological entity (filled with chemicals). It is a biological entity because it is a living object (with consciousness). With rigidity of our technology, we cannot locate the structure to generate minds in the universe and the planets. However, "lives are lives in different levels" has fully explained the situation on the Earth (and our universe) nowadays.

1. No space arrivals
2. No lives in planets nearby
3. Living organisms on the Earth (We are not space arrivals, but evolution of the microorganisms of the planet itself. In another word, we "belong" to this planet.)

Philosophers should be appreciated to see the truth being found. Th
ose philosophers who passed away are incapable of sharing our joy. "Live and Death" is a natural process of lives.

The Origin of Lives is BIRTH

Teru Wong
 
  • 31
    Replies
  • 742
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Existence of the God cannot be denied.

That kinda renders refuting your claims, pointless... You've already planted yourself as immovable and stubborn when faced with evidence, without contradicting it with valid scientific proof. So why should anyone take you seriously? It's not like you have any REAL evidence supporting you. Or do you? In that case, spit it out! If your hypothesis ever reaches the peer-reviewed literature, it will go through rigorous scrutiny by actual scientists. And if you still, after it's mangled corpse has been dragged of the academic arena, believe in your nonsense, one might call you stupid..

In the real life, philosophy isn't worth jack shit, when it comes to "The Origin of Lives".
 

Teru Wong

New Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
That kinda renders refuting your claims, pointless... You've already planted yourself as immovable and stubborn when faced with evidence, without contradicting it with valid scientific proof. So why should anyone take you seriously? It's not like you have any REAL evidence supporting you. Or do you? In that case, spit it out! If your hypothesis ever reaches the peer-reviewed literature, it will go through rigorous scrutiny by actual scientists. And if you still, after it's mangled corpse has been dragged of the academic arena, believe in your nonsense, one might call you stupid..
In the real life, philosophy isn't worth jack shit, when it comes to "The Origin of Lives".


This is definitely a new discovery.
Lives are lives in different levels. As stated above, the origin of lives is a living entity (supreme being) under the natural rules. Natural process of lives including birth, growth and death is the only principle of our universe.
You have ignored the significance of this discovery. If you understand what I’m talking about (properly you did not), you will definitely become a TRAITOR of knowledge (as a philosopher).
The planets are living object. The Earth is definitely not a “ROCK” as those barbarians have claimed. I found there are no needs for me to respect anyone who betrayed the “truth” (knowledge itself) because they have to be responsible for our “DEATH” by denying a “Conscious Earth”.
Space migration WILL NEVER work. Imagination (dreams) causes DEATH.
Philosophy is not a talk about dreams. Philosophers are really contributing to our world.

I am Teru Wong from Hong Kong, China.
I will take up all the responsibilities for every single word that I put on the web. Take my words serious.

I am not a “nut”. It is very significant finding that will definitely change the directions of our science (especially astronomy) and philosophy.
 

Azazel

Active Member
Messages
4,185
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Take my words serious.


I am not a “nut”.



seriouscall.jpg

 

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
It is very significant finding that will definitely change the directions of our science (especially astronomy) and philosophy.

facepalm.jpg

Alright, let's give you a fair chance. Tell us how you came up with your theories. What are your sources? What scientific examinations have you done that support your claim? And remember, philosophy is not science, so anything you've dreamed up yourself doesn't count as evidence. There is hard cold evidence of a rocky earth, what can you put forth supporting a living earth?
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Where did I hear this before? Oh, yes.

Philosophy without talking about the God is insane. Existence of the God cannot be denied.

Please stop preaching and define God in factual, non-disputable terms. Can't be done-No? You sound no different than all of the other religion sales people who enter these forums. :)

I am not a “nut”.

No, you are just religious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alice in chains

Active Member
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think it's ridiculous how people say "where's your evidence?"...(MOST OF THE TIME, NOT ALL.) Let me ask you people this...have you ever felt good about a concept with no solid scientific "evidence"? If no, then I don't see you as a progressive scientist...I see a lack of ambition and drive for learning. Also, did the first human scientist (one who studies and creates) need validation? I think not. Also, who gives a shit on an idea's respectable sources...the focus should be whether or not it is possible in the current conditions or whether or not it makes any sense. Agreed?
 

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
have you ever felt good about a concept with no solid scientific "evidence"? If no, then I don't see you as a progressive scientist...I see a lack of ambition and drive for learning.

There is a HUGE difference between having a good feeling and believing... But basically, you're right. Only difference is, as a scientist, you do the research and determine if the feeling was correct or not. If it wasn't, you let it go. As a religious believer, you pick a standpoint, and stay by it, no matter what.
 

alice in chains

Active Member
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I disagree the statement about always standing by your religious ideas. I think most religious people are willing to accept a logical idea as a new outlook and something they learned that they didn't understand before about their faith. The scenario as them not questioning is different but I don't even see that as ignorance...I see it as them not making life difficult until the situation necessitates it...if they still ignore a concept that without a doubt makes sense to them, then I can see stupidity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Well, it depends on what parts were talking about. Most religious people I know accept evolution and follow scientific progress. But having a discussion on the existence of God is futile. They will defend their position, no matter what you throw at them.

There is always one rule to follow: No matter how much you believe, it does not make it so. Even if you feel good about it.
 

alice in chains

Active Member
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Oh definitely, I agree.

I would hope 'feeling good' about an idea leads to further investigation...I just wanted to point out that whether a concept has sources or not shouldn't be ignored on that base.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alice in chains

Active Member
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I read the first post in this thread and you all have really discredited this fella...I'm guessing his confidence turned you all off. Mob actually does rule.
 

Teru Wong

New Member
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I read the first post in this thread and you all have really discredited this fella...I'm guessing his confidence turned you all off. Mob actually does rule.

Recently, an advertisment in my town attracted my attention. They show the 3Dimensional model of the Earth covered with a large number of deserts. The link below may attract your attentions.

Flash Earth ...satellite and aerial imagery of the Earth in Flash

Take a closer look by zooming into the deserts. What does it look like?

The Earth is a living object.

Premise (1) No living organisms can be created without any living tissue. You cannot create living things without any living tissue. In the meantime, the Earth is not a vaccum. Therefore, the Earth must contain living tissue from the very beginning.

Premise (2) The Earth offered a suitable environment for living things. This is a cross-reference to premise (1).

Premise (3) Lives are lives in different levels. The Earth is a living thing in a higher level. Plants and animals (including fungi) evolved from the microorganisms of the Earth (for an incredible long period of time). Animals (with brain-like structures) are the offspring of this planet as well as a part of her life cycles.

The candle of lives is actually a-live.

Now look at the aerial map of the Earth again. Compare it with half a century ago. You will get a clue why the world leaders and specialists are fools.

By the way, say "goodbye" to our dear scientists.
Imagination causes death. We're almost there because of their dreams.
Ask your friends in faculties, "Is the Earth a rock?"

Teru Wong
 

Tomperi

Active Member
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Take a closer look by zooming into the deserts. What does it look like?

It looks like desert, a vast area of sand. What's your point?

Premise (1) No living organisms can be created without any living tissue. You cannot create living things without any living tissue. In the meantime, the Earth is not a vaccum. Therefore, the Earth must contain living tissue from the very beginning.

Wrong! You really don't know what you're on about, do you? Next time it might be a good idea to do some research before you start rambling. Here's a quick lesson on Abiogenesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

By the way, say "goodbye" to our dear scientists.
Imagination causes death. We're almost there because of their dreams.
Ask your friends in faculties, "Is the Earth a rock?"

Are you implying that scientists only imagine stuff up? You're more twisted than I thought. If one just has to imagine to get stuff like Polio vaccine, Haber process, and the very internet you're clogging up, why haven't you invented a cure for cancer?

You're just making the same argument over and over.

%20Stupidity%20Doing%20Same%20Thing%20Over%20Button%20%280681%29.jpg
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top