Farm Theory, Also Called, Spring Theory, Yard Theory And TheEvolution Of Our Universe

Farm Theory, Also Called, Spring Theory, Yard Theory And The Evolution
Of Our Universe

What is the farm theory? I's been around for a long time, but no one
around here has it discussed much, I gather. How it goes is this. This
universe evolved but different areas of our universe evolved at
different rates of speed. Depending on mass, size, volume and many
other factors, each area, or 'farm' evolved at a rate unique to
itself.

What this means is we have a universe with lots of farms in it, and
each one has its own specific physics, gravities, and other qualities.

This is why, in some farms, huge planets evolved that human beings
evolved on, yet the skeletal structure of the human beings are
slightly different from how they are developed within the bodies of
human beings on other farms in our universe.

Some farms may be so unique that there is nothing we recognize as a
higher life form. Yet, it is there, or rather, they are there hiding
among the many life forms of life that evolved on that farm.

Some human beings didn't develop rib cages with bones for some reason,
on very large planets and the muscular system of the abdomen looks
entirely differently from what we are familiar with here on this
planet.

In any event, this universe is still evolving as we go out into the
outer fringes and beyond, and it will continue to evolve as there is
no limit to the size of the area we have to develop within. There may
come a point in time where to balance things out well, slowing down,
and maintaining a size that is limited may happen. But it is not going
to happen any time soon.

We pass from one life to the next, then to the next, and so on, yet we
are hampered by these Bible toting fools who say "god" created this
universe. That we are hampered by these types of folks, and that our
laws are based on the ideas of the big three monotheistics,
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, not to mention Buddhism, just goes
to prove how lousy our karma is, and how ****ty asssed and ass
backwards this planet is, and how ****ty assed and ass backwards our
lives are.

Jonjon

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:11:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

What is the farm theory? I's been around for a long time, but no one
around here has it discussed much, I gather.

Because it's non-scientific nonsense, and this is a science group (which
unfortunately hasn't stopped other rubbish from being posted).
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 28, 11:27*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:11:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
What is the farm theory? I's been around for a long time, but no one
around here has it discussed much, I gather.

Because it's non-scientific nonsense, and this is a science group (which
unfortunately hasn't stopped other rubbish from being posted).


Giving it another name does not mean it is false or unscientific
though still remaining slightly fanciful. One could just as easily
have called the concept a "zoological garden" or "life supporting
environment" or "life bubble" rather than "farm". A scientist without
imagination would not go far. Imagination steers the quest for
scientific truth. Theory follows the imaginative idea like a dog
chasing its tail. Without a "what if" there can be no search for the
reality behind the question. Choices must be plucked from the air to
describe anything new since the vocabulary and imagery do not yet
exist.

The facts remain that the environment is critical to the form of the
development of life at all levels. Squat forms for mobility in high
gravity situations. Expanded lung capacity in thin atmospheres.
Slippery shapes for mobility in situations of high fluid density.
Wings and hollow bones for low gravity and modest atmospheric
pressures, etc.

The religious aspects should be ignored since time wasted on religion
is as precious as any other and only followed by those who seem to
have far too much of it to waste. Gravity applies equally to those
counting the seconds, whether believer or not, when the ground finally
beckons.

On Sep 28, 4:28 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:

Giving it another name does not mean it is false or unscientific
though still remaining slightly fanciful.

The religious aspects should be ignored

It's precisely the "religious aspects" that make it unscientific. Just
as the "orchard theory" of evolution did not arise from open-minded
objective study of nature, but instead was concocted for the shoehorn
monstrosity that is Intelligent Design, so the original post gives
strong evidence that the "farm theory" of evolution originated to give
a scientific appearance to the religious teachings of Hinduism. (As
opposed to Buddhism, which the poster lumps in with misguided
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.)

Any "theory" that is transparently spawned from a religion as a way of
appropriating for that religion's beliefs the respectability of
science is, rightly, rejected out of hand from consideration. When,
and only when, there are legitimate grounds, originating from
observation and objective thought, for its consideration will it be
considered.

The _argumentum ad hominem_ is indeed a fallacy, but that is because
the presence of bad advocates for a statement does not make it less
likely to be true; the absence of good advocates for a statement still
does make it less worthy of consideration.

John Savard