Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

You have used reference to paradigms and paradigm shifts like a baton to beat on the views of others, but I don't know that you understand paradigm shifts or the various paradigms of science that have existed since Darwin. If you do understand this, why beat on a paradigm that is no longer relevant and 150 years out of date to try and convince people to ignore current understanding and jump on your paradigm?

Of course you're right!

But the fact remains that everyone still believe in "survival of the fittest" driving gradual change. Some words have been changed but it's still a belief some individuals are more or less likely to be "selected" for success leading to a change in species over time as these pressures continue. Darwin is still held up as a 19th century genius who made these connections. Experiment is continually showing 19th century assumptions and premises were in error.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course you're right!

But the fact remains that everyone still believe in "survival of the fittest" driving gradual change.

I don't know that everyone does. I don't think the evidence supports that. You believe in it. That is widely supported. You have seen to it.

Some words have been changed but it's still a belief some individuals are more or less likely to be "selected" for success leading to a change in species over time as these pressures continue.

You don't even provide evidence that you understand natural selection or biological fitness. It is about the impact of the environment, the traits that are best suited to the environment and the propensity of those in a population with varying traits to reproduce to lesser or greater extent from the interaction.

Darwin is still held up as a 19th century genius who made these connections.

Darwin made a lasting and significant impact on our understanding of biology, that you do not agree with, but are unable to offer any valid and rational reason to reject.

You seem more interested in asserting your beliefs based on a very limited personal understanding and have all of that believed without question.

Experiment is continually showing 19th century assumptions and premises were in error.

So you claim, but NEVER demonstrate.

All you will do is claim you have demonstrated this hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands and billions of times, yet unable to ever show you did it even once.

Or claim that it is invisible to those not special like yourself. Or some other irrational unsupported get out of jail free card that you are so fond of using.

 

[cladking]

You don't believe in intelligence. You've said so many times. So you think machines possess something you don't believe exists. More contrarian nonsense.

I believe that with sufficient computational ability or with the proper programming a machine can be invented that that has the characteristic of being clever. In all life cleverness is an event not a characteristic.

It is beginning to appear that computational ability with never be able to create machine intelligence but this does not rule out programming. I believe the way a bee thinks can be programmed and the result will be a system capable of redesigning itself until it achieves intelligence as humans define it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that with sufficient computational ability or with the proper programming a machine can be invented that that has the characteristic of being clever. In all life cleverness is an event not a characteristic.

That is fantastic. It might be correct. I'm not really interested.

It is beginning to appear that computational ability with never be able to create machine intelligence but this does not rule out programming. I believe the way a bee thinks can be programmed and the result will be a system capable of redesigning itself until it achieves intelligence as humans define it.

Based on your paradigm and that you don't believe in intelligence, I can't imagine how it would all matter to you.

I don't know that bees think or if they do, very much. Certainly nothing you have done has provided evidence and insight into bee intelligence. What you believe is the problem here and stating further instances of that belief is not the solution.

The problem seems to be that you believe you know everything, while at the same time seemingly forced to use secret redefinition, semantic acrobatics and empty assertion to carry this alleged knowledge to us stinky-footed bumpkins that are incapable of possessing your vision.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that with sufficient computational ability or with the proper programming a machine can be invented that that has the characteristic of being clever. In all life cleverness is an event not a characteristic.

It is beginning to appear that computational ability with never be able to create machine intelligence but this does not rule out programming. I believe the way a bee thinks can be programmed and the result will be a system capable of redesigning itself until it achieves intelligence as humans define it.

Regarding this bee thinking. I have wondered if you have made observations or become aware of them and simply anthropomorphized them into a conclusion that is an amalgamation of the actual observation and your own personal projection onto the observations. That you jump way ahead with what you think. Don't really analyze that thinking and then superimpose it on the actual observations and consider this new pseudo-view factual due to the interaction of fact, personal ignorance and ego.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course you're right!

But the fact remains that everyone still believe in "survival of the fittest" driving gradual change. Some words have been changed but it's still a belief some individuals are more or less likely to be "selected" for success leading to a change in species over time as these pressures continue. Darwin is still held up as a 19th century genius who made these connections. Experiment is continually showing 19th century assumptions and premises were in error.

What would be the value of attacking the practice of including images of monsters or the phrase "Here be dragons" on maps when that is no longer done?

What is the value of using and attacking a popularized and incomplete 19th Century description of natural selection and biological fitness in the 21st Century?

Wouldn't it be better to learn what is being described and discussed in the here and now and, if you object or question it, then raise those questions and objections legitimately in the context and vocabulary of the current paradigm?

You really cannot circle one wagon in any effective way. Not even to overcome a long-dead enemy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as I said you don't notice that word meanings change within a sentence;

""The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence."



Even in science words have many meanings.



Thank you very much. We might be able to use this as a platform to begin to disagree.



I've been interested in and have studied science since I was very very small. But my primary interests were always the nature of thought and machine intelligence. As a young man I decided that generalism and metaphysics were the only way to tackle such issues. Now I believe I have made some (limited) headway. I have no idea how I got so far afield that I sometimes can't communicate with reasonable people and have better communication with religious people than scientists. I believe the next few decades will see a reevaluation of definitions and axioms leading to a reinterpretation of experiment all through science. The days of a mechanical universe ended long ago and we never held a proper funeral.

But I do and did recognize that the word "sentence" was used with two different meanings. I also realize you did that using the two different definitions of the word that you thought I would recognize. You were correct. It is an example of using a recognized word and recognized definitions in a context that would guide the reader to the intended meaning of the writer.

That you think I failed to recognize that is further evidence of your intent in the use of that word as you applied it.

Changing the definitions of words used without telling others that you did that, what you mean by those changes and that the definition you are using is different and failing to alert others or explain why it is different and needs to be different is not the same as your example.

You don't use words like sudden, bottleneck, experiment, evidence or assumption in the same way as you illustrate with the word "sentence". You have secret meanings for those words that you don't present and that are not part of common parlance and used in a way to guide the reader to this secret meaning.

Your illustrated choice and use of the word "sentence" is a straw man. It does not correlate with the methods you have followed.

As near as I can tell, you have destroyed the value of those words and rendered them useless in further conversation with you.

For instance, according to you sudden now means a duration for an event that goes from nanoseconds to to decades to thousands or millions of years. Rendered meaningless from the common usage and recognized definition of happening quickly.

Why can't you just explain what you mean and stop secretly repurposing words to mean something they do not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been claimed that speciation occurs at bottlenecks. Behavior has also been implicated in this.

Here is why this is wrong and claiming it also implies an imperfect understanding of species and an imperfect and useless species concept.

A bottleneck as used in population genetics and by the rest of biology is a catastrophic event that radically decreases the numbers of a population and often the genetic diversity of a population. The numbers are typically reduced to just above extinction levels. Extinction being defined as the response to environmental changes that occur so quickly or on such a scale that existing traits, variation, fitness and reproductive capacity of the population cannot overcome the changes.

This has been compared to artificial selection and breeding to further the claim of speciation. The predominant similarity is that in each case members of a population are isolated from other members of the population and their accompanying variation. In the case of a bottleneck, that isolation results from the elimination of the rest of the population and is permanent. With artificial selection and breeding, it results from the removal of members of the population and can be permanent, but does not have to be and often isn't. That is the only real similarity and it is insufficient as a reason for declaring it a mechanism of speciation.

1. There is no evidence that individuals change species within their own lifetimes or in response to catastrophe.

2. There is no evidence that speciation is sudden even if you expand that definition to mean multiple generations.

3. There is no evidence that offspring are a different species from parents.

4. There is no evidence that the population prior to the bottleneck event is a different species than that of the post-bottleneck event. Surviving a car wreck is not a speciation event. Surviving a tornado that wipes out your town is not a speciation event. You are the same person and same species in both cases.

There is no evidence that the subjects of artificial selection change species once they are isolated from a population. Even after multiple generations the can be bred back into that population. While isolation is a key component of allopatric speciation, it requires significant time for the gradual accumulation of genetic and biological differences to form a new species. Breeders often backcross into wild type strains.

5. Once that bottleneck eliminates numbers and variation, it is gone and no longer accessible to the surviving members of the population. This is not true of artificial breeding. The variation in the population from which the subjects have been removed still exists and remains accessible.

6. There is no evidence that speciation requires weird behavior or any behavior. There is no evidence that species decide to suddenly change species in response to the environment. The gradual change over time that is selection of the environment does not include evidence that individual or even group choice is the driving change to some desired outcome.

The claim that speciation occurs at bottlenecks would have to address these points rationally and with evidence to be established as a valid method for speciation. To date, it is only claimed and never supported as a mechanism of speciation. I predict this is where it will remain.

There are a number of concepts of speciation, but none of them are the bottleneck/behavior model that has been declared. The most widely used concept accepted by biologist is the biological species concept. If members of a population can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring, the are the same species.

That has not been demonstrated to be a factual result of the claim of bottleneck/behavior speciation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But I do and did recognize that the word "sentence" was used with two different meanings. I also realize you did that using the two different definitions of the word that you thought I would recognize. You were correct. It is an example of using a recognized word and recognized definitions in a context that would guide the reader to the intended meaning of the writer.

That you think I failed to recognize that is further evidence of your intent in the use of that word as you applied it.

Changing the definitions of words used without telling others that you did that, what you mean by those changes and that the definition you are using is different and failing to alert others or explain why it is different and needs to be different is not the same as your example.

You don't use words like sudden, bottleneck, experiment, evidence or assumption in the same way as you illustrate with the word "sentence". You have secret meanings for those words that you don't present and that are not part of common parlance and used in a way to guide the reader to this secret meaning.

Your illustrated choice and use of the word "sentence" is a straw man. It does not correlate with the methods you have followed.

As near as I can tell, you have destroyed the value of those words and rendered them useless in further conversation with you.

For instance, according to you sudden now means a duration for an event that goes from nanoseconds to to decades to thousands or millions of years. Rendered meaningless from the common usage and recognized definition of happening quickly.

Why can't you just explain what you mean and stop secretly repurposing words to mean something they do not?

I would add that making up definitions for words is not an example consistent with the "sentence" example either. The reader is left to try and figure out what the author is talking about when the definitions for the words do not fit the context or the word is being used to mean something that it does not mean.

This puts the blame for confusion where it belongs. With the author.

 

[gnostic]

But the fact remains that everyone still believe in "survival of the fittest" driving gradual change. Some words have been changed but it's still a belief some individuals are more or less likely to be "selected" for success leading to a change in species over time as these pressures continue. Darwin is still held up as a 19th century genius who made these connections. Experiment is continually showing 19th century assumptions and premises were in error.

Except that modern as in contemporary like the last 50 years, biologists don’t refer to the “survival of the fittest“, as you believed and claimed they do.

The term “survival of the fittest” is not even the name of the evolutionary mechanism, Natural Selection is, and modern biology as in the 2nd half of the 20th century, to the present, have gone beyond Charles Darwin’s works, as it have incorporated modern genetics, modern taxonomy, especially clade taxonomy, molecular biology and many more other biology fields.

So why attacked Darwin’s Natural Selection, when modern Natural Selection have gone way beyond Darwin’s original framework?

Modern Natural Selection, as in the present day, doesn’t use Darwin’s concept of genetics, but what are now used today, especially what biologists all know about genes, chromosomes, RNA, DNA, etc, things that Darwin as well as everyone else that lived in the 19th century.

You should be looking and researching into modern Natural Selection, and not be fixated on the 19th century Natural Selection.

Of course, Darwin have made some errors, and doesn’t know everything, but no one is claiming that he was omniscient, only you are, which is absurd, as he cannot be blamed for not knowing biology in the 20th or the 21st century.

I don’t see you attacking 17th-18th centuries Isaac Newton in the same manner, where the modern theory of gravity is currently General Relativity is the standard. Newton may well be the founder of the gravity theory, but modern physicists are now teaching & researching General Relativity as the standard model for gravity. I don’t see you attacking Newton for not knowing the current knowledge of the 20th & 21st centuries.

And I don’t see you attacking Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell for not knowing the 20th century Quantum Electrodynamics, which is the standard theory for electromagnetism. Faraday & Maxwell didn’t even know about the role of electrons in electricity & electromagnetism, as electrons weren’t discovered until after they have passed away.

it is rather absurd to attack something that someone couldn’t possibly know.

And btw, the survival of the fittest is not only not a mechanism in evolutionary biology, it is also was coined by Darwin. The person who invented this was Herbert Spencer, who originally applied this concept to his sociology/political theory. He reused survival of the fittest to Natural Selection.

So why are you attacking Darwin for what Spencer did?

And the other absurdity is that you expect Darwin to know everything, and blame him for what he didn’t know. It is a stupid position to take, and it is anachronistically wrong to do so.

 

[gnostic]

I would add that making up definitions for words is not an example consistent with the "sentence" example either. The reader is left to try and figure out what the author is talking about when the definitions for the words do not fit the context or the word is being used to mean something that it does not mean.

I have had pointed out the same things.

@cladking would often changed meanings to words that no one else would use, and blame everyone for not following his own warped definitions.

And when we disagree with him, he accused everyone of playing word game, WHEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CLADKING IS DOING!

He blame everyone with the accusations of “semantics“, but he himself, often repurposed the terms with something that no one else uses.

He is not just playing word game, it is also the switch-and-bait game that he is playing. He would change the definition to a word or term, then he‘d say “semantics”, whenever anyone disagree with his definition. It is a dirty tactics that he has been using since I first debated with him.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand that. As a Christian don't you believe in life after death?

Thanks for the question. I believe there is life and there is death. I also believe that God can and will resurrect those who have died. Then they will not be dead. Hope that helps to explain how I see things, because -- let's take the example of Jesus and Lazarus, his friend. Jesus brought Lazarus forth from the tomb. Lazarus then was brought back from the dead to life. If you have questions, please ask, I'll try to give you what I understand as best as I can from the Bible. Thanks.

 

[cladking]

You don't use words like sudden, bottleneck, experiment, evidence or assumption in the same way as you illustrate with the word "sentence". You have secret meanings for those words that you don't present and that are not part of common parlance and used in a way to guide the reader to this secret meaning.

"Sudden" is the opposite of gradual. It is always the opposite of "gradual" or slow. Things like a "spring thaw" requires weeks but if you get a late 70 degree day after prolonged cold weather then you can have a sudden thaw. Anything else is semantics.

"Bottleneck" is a population reduction to where a species nearly goes extinct. Ancient people invented agriculture by means of observing that selecting individuals for breeding was just like a bottleneck. Instead of nature selecting unusual characteristics they did it themselves. Whether it's a "bottleneck" or not when humans do it is semantics not science.

"Experiment" is a controlled event that takes place in a lab in order to observe a single characteristic of nature. That some observations have some characteristics of "experiment" is an irrelevancy and mere semantics.

"Assumptions" are beliefs and premises. They are what get us out of bed in the morning. I assume my slippers are next to the bed and that there is air to breath in the hallway. I assume that when hot water goes through the coffee pot there will be hot coffee. I assume the same sun will come up that set yesterday and most of the world still believes in linear human progress and that we're all geniuses.

I believe that most of the assumptions we were taught while acquiring language are false. I believe it is these false assumptions that make words hard to comprehend merely because they are uttered by someone who doesn't share them. I do not share your or Darwin's assumptions but people want to parse my words as though I do. This makes it look like I contradict myself as you parse my words improperly.


I assumed long ago (it is my only and initial assumption) that people always make sense all the time in terms of their premises so I try to deduce their premises. I ask myself what must they believe in order to have chosen those specific words to express it. Of course people have some strange beliefs but they still make sense. Everybody's beliefs and means of expressing himself is unique to his time and place and the more educated he is the more similar to others. Darwin's beliefs were founded on the many erroneous assumptions I've delineated many times and modern Evolution beliefs are founded on Darwin. Darwin was wrong and we still are in my opinion.

 

[cladking]

"Sudden" is the opposite of gradual. It is always the opposite of "gradual" or slow. Things like a "spring thaw" requires weeks but if you get a late 70 degree day after prolonged cold weather then you can have a sudden thaw. Anything else is semantics.

"Bottleneck" is a population reduction to where a species nearly goes extinct. Ancient people invented agriculture by means of observing that selecting individuals for breeding was just like a bottleneck. Instead of nature selecting unusual characteristics they did it themselves. Whether it's a "bottleneck" or not when humans do it is semantics not science.

"Experiment" is a controlled event that takes place in a lab in order to observe a single characteristic of nature. That some observations have some characteristics of "experiment" is an irrelevancy and mere semantics.

"Assumptions" are beliefs and premises. They are what get us out of bed in the morning. I assume my slippers are next to the bed and that there is air to breath in the hallway. I assume that when hot water goes through the coffee pot there will be hot coffee. I assume the same sun will come up that set yesterday and most of the world still believes in linear human progress and that we're all geniuses.

I believe that most of the assumptions we were taught while acquiring language are false. I believe it is these false assumptions that make words hard to comprehend merely because they are uttered by someone who doesn't share them. I do not share your or Darwin's assumptions but people want to parse my words as though I do. This makes it look like I contradict myself as you parse my words improperly.


I assumed long ago (it is my only and initial assumption) that people always make sense all the time in terms of their premises so I try to deduce their premises. I ask myself what must they believe in order to have chosen those specific words to express it. Of course people have some strange beliefs but they still make sense. Everybody's beliefs and means of expressing himself is unique to his time and place and the more educated he is the more similar to others. Darwin's beliefs were founded on the many erroneous assumptions I've delineated many times and modern Evolution beliefs are founded on Darwin. Darwin was wrong and we still are in my opinion.

I have no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinion whatsoever. I have no respect whatsoever for "expert opinion" either even though I have great respect for all expertise and all knowledge and all experience. Even when there is consensus opinion it is still opinion and I'm far more interested in the premises (assumptions) of experts than in the opinion. Try to remember a very proper name for the species I believe arose at the tower of babel is homo rationatio circularis. These are mere Latin words but they express experiment itself that shows all humans always can reason only in circles. I believe we each reason in circles but can't see it because of the way we think. THIS is why experiment is continually at odds with what we believe is true about ourselves. This is why science has been stuck in a rut since Darwin. Our assumptions are wrong. Darwin's assumptions were wrong and all the old wives assumptions were wrong. All the assumptions since the tower of babel are wrong. Neither we nor reality is as it appears to us.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for the question. I believe there is life and there is death. I also believe that God can and will resurrect those who have died. Then they will not be dead. Hope that helps to explain how I see things, because -- let's take the example of Jesus and Lazarus, his friend. Jesus brought Lazarus forth from the tomb. Lazarus then was brought back from the dead to life. If you have questions, please ask, I'll try to give you what I understand as best as I can from the Bible. Thanks.

For a miracle this important, why is it that only the Gospel of John recorded this event of Lazarus’ raising?

As the Gospel of John is the only one that narrated this miracle, and this gospel being composed later than the other 3 gospels, around post-90 CE, one would assume that whoever was the original author was, one would suspect this episode was the author’s own invention.

I certainly do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Sudden" is the opposite of gradual. It is always the opposite of "gradual" or slow. Things like a "spring thaw" requires weeks but if you get a late 70 degree day after prolonged cold weather then you can have a sudden thaw. Anything else is semantics.

Yes. Your semantics. You have avoided addressing the issues as usual.

"Bottleneck" is a population reduction to where a species nearly goes extinct.

Yes, I told you that. That's how you know.

Ancient people invented agriculture by means of observing that selecting individuals for breeding was just like a bottleneck. Instead of nature selecting unusual characteristics they did it themselves. Whether it's a "bottleneck" or not when humans do it is semantics not science.

And now another meander off to no where.

"Experiment" is a controlled event that takes place in a lab in order to observe a single characteristic of nature. That some observations have some characteristics of "experiment" is an irrelevancy and mere semantics.

More semantics. Experiments are often natural and not controlled like a laboratory experiment. You don't seem to know much about science, so that is likely the birth of your confusion here.

"Assumptions" are beliefs and premises. They are what get us out of bed in the morning. I assume my slippers are next to the bed and that there is air to breath in the hallway. I assume that when hot water goes through the coffee pot there will be hot coffee. I assume the same sun will come up that set yesterday and most of the world still believes in linear human progress and that we're all geniuses.

More semantic acrobatics and rambling meander to no where.

I believe that most of the assumptions we were taught while acquiring language are false. I believe it is these false assumptions that make words hard to comprehend merely because they are uttered by someone who doesn't share them. I do not share your or Darwin's assumptions but people want to parse my words as though I do. This makes it look like I contradict myself as you parse my words improperly.

I don't care what you believe. I am only interested in pointing out the failure of your claims and hope you learn something. Clearly YOU are not interested in facts, just the world or your own manufactured reality that are not facts for the rest of the universe.

I assumed long ago (it is my only and initial assumption) that people always make sense all the time in terms of their premises so I try to deduce their premises.

You don't assume that. From what you have shown us, you seem convinced no one other than YOU knows anything. Only YOU have all the answers, all the information. All the understanding. Clearly that isn't the case and you seem to resist all attempts to reach YOU.

I ask myself what must they believe in order to have chosen those specific words to express it. Of course people have some strange beliefs but they still make sense. Everybody's beliefs and means of expressing himself is unique to his time and place and the more educated he is the more similar to others. Darwin's beliefs were founded on the many erroneous assumptions I've delineated many times and modern Evolution beliefs are founded on Darwin. Darwin was wrong and we still are in my opinion.

No. Darwin hasn't been shown to be wrong. Not by all your empty assertions, semantic acrobatics and meaningless rambling.

I consider this entire post of yours and the majority of your posts as rationalization. Further, I think it is targeted at yourself to make you feel like you are the genius here. The omniscient being that needs no information, opinions, ideas or facts from others. To me, it seems like an attempt to maintain your beliefs in the face of facts that foil them. It only seems to work on you. What I've become convinced of is that you have no interest in what others say except to re-enforce what I see as a delusional view of reality. Many have tried to help you, but you ignore all of that. I don't see you as having a voice here and I've grown bored with trying to reach you.

What are you going to do when the rest start to feel the same way and see no value in engaging you? Honestly, I think you will go on posting to no one, since they were never the target audience to begin with.

I wish you luck. I hope that someday you realize what you have been doing.

 

[YoursTrue]

For a miracle this important, why is it that only the Gospel of John recorded this event of Lazarus’ raising?

I don't know. I can guess but from what I remember one of the writers said he couldn't possibly write down everything. Anyway it's kind of like here where some are called real dumb by others who think they know better.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no respect whatsoever for anyone's opinion whatsoever. I have no respect whatsoever for "expert opinion" either even though I have great respect for all expertise and all knowledge and all experience. Even when there is consensus opinion it is still opinion and I'm far more interested in the premises (assumptions) of experts than in the opinion. Try to remember a very proper name for the species I believe arose at the tower of babel is homo rationatio circularis. These are mere Latin words but they express experiment itself that shows all humans always can reason only in circles. I believe we each reason in circles but can't see it because of the way we think. THIS is why experiment is continually at odds with what we believe is true about ourselves. This is why science has been stuck in a rut since Darwin. Our assumptions are wrong. Darwin's assumptions were wrong and all the old wives assumptions were wrong. All the assumptions since the tower of babel are wrong. Neither we nor reality is as it appears to us.

Hi again cladking. I have been reading a bit about a scientist who won the Noble Prize but his other ideas about how life began are so literally outlandish I realize with some of these people literally anything goes. He thought it possible that a spaceship came from outer space and left elements for life on the earth. I used to work for a firm that published science fiction. The idea that this quite notable scientist propounded such a ludicrous idea imo of course has really turned me around. I know there are those that will say oh yeah maybe it did happen that way .. And now I say to such ones, maybe I'll see ya, so long for now...

 

[George-ananda]

Thanks for the question. I believe there is life and there is death. I also believe that God can and will resurrect those who have died. Then they will not be dead. Hope that helps to explain how I see things, because -- let's take the example of Jesus and Lazarus, his friend. Jesus brought Lazarus forth from the tomb. Lazarus then was brought back from the dead to life. If you have questions, please ask, I'll try to give you what I understand as best as I can from the Bible. Thanks.

Thanks, now I understand your beliefs better. I happen to believe the Near Death Experience stuff is the start of what our immediate afterlife is like.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks, now I understand your beliefs better. I happen to believe the Near Death Experience stuff is the start of what our immediate afterlife is like.

While I do not like or "embrace" Einstein's thoughts about God, I go along with him by default about his view of life vs death. I didn't ask him and I don't believe I can talk to him now, but I think he probably had the right view of death. Nothingness. But...unlike Einstein, I believe God can "bring back" the dead to life. Not sure though what you're referring to when you say Near Death experience. Thank you for your comment, glad you understand better what I now understand from the Bible. Life is life and death is not.