Math isn't evidence? Try telling that to the scientists who have presented their "proof" of how the Twin Towers collapsed without explosives. LOL

Math isn't evidence? See if you can find one scientist or physicist who will agree with that statement.

****

Bacteria from Mars found inside ancient meteorite

Martian bacteria arrived on Earth on a meteorite which smashed into the Antarctic 13,000 years ago, Nasa scientists believe.

Their fossilised remains have been found in the rock, which was blasted out of Mars 16 million years ago as the solar system was forming.

The meteorite, called Allen Hills 84001, made headlines in 1996 after fossils were found in it. Scientists believed they were bacteria from Earth that contaminated the rock while it lay in the frozen wastes.
But a Nasa report now says there is strong evidence they originated on Mars, according to The Sun.

Dr Emily Baldwin, deputy editor of the UK's Astronomy Now magazine, said: "Many scientists argued that what looked like fossils in the meteorite were really caused by the explosive event, such as an asteroid impact, that blasted the rock out of Mars in the first place.

"But the Nasa team is now saying they have proved that they could not have been produced by the blast itself.

source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6660045/Bacteria-from-Mars-found-inside-ancient-meteorite.html

The bit about being separate is nonsense, and had no bearing upon what I claimed.

Meaning is an artifact of drawing correlations. All examples of meaning will involve it. That is because meaning does not exist - cannot exist - without drawing correlations. One example to the contrary would negate this. Your unsupported contradictory opinion cannot.

1.'Lower' life forms existed prior to their more complex counterparts.
2.Meaning requires drawing correlations.
C1.Life existed before the ability to draw correlations.(from 1,2)
C2.Life does not require meaning.(from 2,C1)

Not much more can be said here. Either you see this, or you don't.

I see it perfectly, I just think its wrong.

You certainly don't see what I have stated, I see and perfectly understand what you have to say, but I have to disagree.

You are one of those people who look at life from your own single consciousness point of view.



Now you are claiming to know what came first, the chicken or the egg.


You are claiming the egg came first.

I would say you need to expand your mind but I know that will not happen. I know exactly where you are coming from.



The fact that "Everything is connected" does have a direct effect and bearing on your way of thinking.


You separate EVERYTHING.

In your first you're comparing apples and oranges. Using math to explain how a building crashed is VERY different from calculating odds.

As for your second point, it's still mot conclusive evidence. They found something that LOOKS LIKE it may have been alive a at some time in the past. This is very different from discovering actual life on another planet.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO LIFE OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. I AM SAYING THERE"S NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR LIFE OUT THERE. I am open minded on the subject.

Also concerning the "meaning of life" as it relates to an individual is quite different than the "meaning of life" as it relates to the whole.

Humans are probably the only beings who can claim that anything "has meaning." We are also capable of having an imagination which allows us to project our consciousness via our imagination anywhere we choose. In doing so, we can imagine what life might mean in general or for the entire universe.

Nothing 'requires' meaning. Nothing on its own can have any meaning.

What is meaningful is a matter of an individual conscious perspective.

Some feel that certain evidence does exist. Others are more hard core like you, and disagree. If you choose to say that their evidence is 'not conclusive' that is your opinion and conclusion.

I would say the evidence is overwhelming that life exists, everywhere, but you don't have to agree with me or anyone else.

I would also say that of all the stars and galaxies and planets that exist in this universe.... that to even suggest that only the earth has life, is preposterous and arrogant.

Jb,

A sure sign that an opinion is unfounded is when the person who holds it resorts to ridicule and/or talking about the authors rather than what has been written. That is what happened in your response to me. There was nothing within it that addressed what I wrote, including the comments about chickens and eggs. What I've put forth is a simple concept to grasp, and it has nothing to do with chickens and eggs or the lack of our ability to know which of those came first. It's common sense basically.

Prior to apple pie crusts comes apples, apple trees, dirt, sweetener, flour, water, etc. Those are all a part of apple pies, and thus without them there could be no apple pie crusts.

There is overwhelming evidence that supports the notion that life began in simple forms and evolved to become more and more complex. To deny that much is to deny our current scientific knowledge base. Granted, sometimes what we once thought/believed to be true has - at times - turned out to be not and we have revised our knowledge as a result, better known as a paradigm shift. I mean, we have been wrong in the past. However, that and that alone is not sufficient reason to deny the current knowledge base without overwhelming evidence to support such a move in thought. It does not follow from the fact that we have been wrong about some things that we have and/or wrong about everything. As I first stated...

The question in the OP is misguided. Any pursuit of an answer to that question is a waste of time. It's like searching for the crust of an apple pie by looking at an apple tree. Apple pie crusts are contingent upon flour, apples, sweetener, apple trees, etc. in the same way that meaning is contingent upon drawing correlations which is in turn contingent upon complex thought/belief formation, which is in turn contingent upon a physiological nervous system replete with a prefrontal cortex, etc.

One is entitled to their own opinions, but one is not entitled to their own facts. There are no relevant facts that support the notion that complex life forms existed prior to simple ones. There is no good reason given to suggest that meaning comes prior to life, which is what must be the case in order for life to have meaning other than what complex creatures attribute to it.

I think if you go back and check my first post in this thread you'll discover I said something very similar to this.



Yes, there is some evidence. But, not enough to convince me or the scientific community at large. There is enough to keep looking for more though.

Preposterous and arrogant? I said there is likely life on other planets. But, without more evidence, I must remain agnostic.

Why is the idea that there is no other life so absurd? Maybe the universe simply isn't old enough to have created life twice. If there is life out there it won't matter because it's too far away for us to ever fund it. Which is the same as it not being there at all.

Which you also did when you remarked: "Either you see this, or you don't." which by the way implies that if I don't agree with it then I just can't 'see' your truth.




If you can't see the simple analogy between the chicken and the egg and your statement above and before then you don't understand the chicken and egg analogy.

You said: 'Lower' life forms existed prior to their more complex counterparts. (the egg = lower life forms)

Its a very simple analogy. We all know that chickens come from eggs... but which came first? I'm shocked that I have to explain this to you.

Your statement that lower life forms existed prior to their more complex counter parts means that you are stating that "the egg came first." Its that simple.



Bad example.



Life on earth appears to have evolved in this manner. I don't deny these appearances at all. (But these are the eggs, I'm still looking for the chickens.)



I don't deny the current knowledge base. Its just not the whole story.





Then philosophy itself is also a waste of time. Why even bother?



No, that apple pie crust is an inaccurate analogy. The rest of that statement comes from an entirely foreign premise which is also inaccurate as it assumes that no information or intelligence existed in the universe in any form whatsoever until after the evolution of humankind,which is an assumption that cannot be proven one way or another, and one that I don't agree to accept, hence I cannot agree with your statement.



The absence of our knowledge of relevant facts does not mean these facts do not exist.

There are no relevant facts that support the notion that complex life forms did NOT exist elsewhere prior to the existence of the earth itself.

And this is a very old universe.

I will admit, however that I am not claiming they did, I am just saying that there are no facts to prove they did not.

I am not claiming that the chicken came first.
I am not claiming that the egg came first.
I don't know which came first.

You are claiming that the egg came first.




I don't think I suggested that meaning comes prior to life. I think I stated that nothing has meaning until some conscious life form gives it meaning.

The chicken and the egg are two different stages of the same life form. It has no bearing.

It is an analogy.

It has perfect bearing.

Tell me exactly what all the different stages of the human life form you are aware of and have proof of.

What piece of slime did we humans evolved from? What one celled animal did we spring from again? What form of life was it that crawled out of the ocean to eventually become human? And how exactly did it manage to do that?

Please enlighten me.

It implied no such thing. It was and is quite clear. Either you see it or you don't. By "see" I mean grasp what is being put forth.




As I've said, the question is misguided. Life comes before meaning, therefore there can be no meaning OF life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

As if answering those questions affects what's been stated thus far. I could not know the answer to those questions, and what I've stated be true nonetheless.

A "common ancestor" for all living things is not the specific individual organism or one celled animal that had its eye on eventually becoming human.

In any case, you are still talking about THE EGG.

Which came first.... The Chicken or the egg.

Creative has chosen the egg.

Then just admit that you believe the answer to the question,
Which came first, the chicken or the egg, in your opinion, is the egg.

Its just a symbolic question.

Obviously the egg came first. We know this to be true because reptiles evolved before birds and reptiles lay eggs. Since chickens are birds we can safely say they came after eggs.

You clearly did imply exactly that. If I did not "see" it you meant to imply that I was unable to "grasp" what is being put forth.

I grasp it perfectly. I just don't agree with it. How can I get that concept through to you. I understand where you are coming from perfectly. So because I don't agree with you, you are claiming that I just don't "grasp" (comprehend) what you are saying.



Its quite unimportant anyway.





That topic could go way off into la la land but I know you can't go there so I'm not going to.

You don't get the symbolic meaning of it either.