In the animal world of our planet, there are two major divergent directions when it comes to the symmetry of the animal. Many primitive animals on Earth have radial symmetry. This means they "radiate" out around a central point. As life became more complex, it developed bilateral symmetry, which is what humans have: two sides that are mirror images of each other. Again, we see both types of creatures, although the specimen that I have for radial symmetry, may yet be a plant type creature. However, it looks very much like many primitive Earth animals. Here are the pictures.

On Earth, we have "soft" creatures that have developed in the water, and we have "hard" creatures that have made a shell and then left the water to live on land. It seems the process of making a shell to hold one's water "inside" is a good practice around the cosmos, since it looks like the creatures of Mars have also learned to make shells to protect themselves. What are these shells made of? Is it the same chemistry as Earth? It looks to me like the creatures of Mars have made more use of silicon than many Earth creatures, but this still remains to be seen.

Soft creatures don't tend to be preserved as easily as something with a shell, so on Earth, finding old "soft" things is much harder than finding old "hard" things. The same is probably true on Mars, although the conditions on Mars at the present time should be very good for preserving the remains of things that once lived there. So I have found no "soft" creatures in the debris, unless you count the glassies that I believe are a Martian glass fungus, which are still living within the Meteorite to this day.

As far as "hard" creatures that are in the animal category, I have found worms, bugs, and spiders. Does this seem reasonable? I think it does. The insects are the most successful species on our planet and it looks like they have done the same on Mars. The only disadvantage to being an insect, is the size of an exoskeleton that the creature can develop. As long as the creatures stay small, and the lack of a global water supply for most of the planet's history would tend to push creatures to stay small, then they have little evolutionary gain in "learning" to be "large" animals "out of the water." So it seems to me, the planet history of Mars would favor "insect" like creatures. All of the creatures found so far have been very tiny and even the bacteria like formations within ALH-84001 seem to be much smaller than similar Earthly organisms. This seems reasonable, since Mars has just never had the energy that Earth has enjoyed and thus "things" probably never got very big on Mars. Mars was probably a planet of miniatures. Tiny little battles among tiny little creatures on an isolated world of isolated volcanoes, is a good description of the evolution of life on Mars.

Another question is the question of the use of carbon as the main mechanism of life. On Earth, all life is carbon based that we know of. It has been proposed that life might evolve around silicon as an alternative. Since there seems to be a lot of silicon hanging around Mars, did the Martian creatures evolve around silicon as the base or did they use carbon, as terrestrial creatures do? The answer, apparently, is that the Martian creatures also use carbon, just as we do. On two of the sand samples, SAND2 and SAND3, I included representative samples of the living thing's debris in the samples. I had these tested for organic and inorganic carbon. The tests came back showing that organic carbon was present. Therefore, I am assuming, at this point, that the creatures of Mars also used carbon as the basic element, and maybe even all life in the cosmos uses carbon as the basic element.

The next question is the question of DNA. DNA, or RNA in some organisms on Earth, provides the "code" that stores the information about how the organism is to develop. Clearly, for any life to become organized, it must have something that at least plays the same role as DNA or RNA. The question is, "do Martian creatures use DNA or something else?" Since I am assuming that Martian creatures use carbon, I think this fact makes it more likely that the Martian creatures also use DNA as the primary method of passing on information to successive generations. I have no way of testing for DNA yet, but it sure would be interesting to see if these creatures do have and use DNA.

On Earth, when populations are separated from each other, they tend to evolve differently, because they are faced with different situations. On Mars, it looks like there may have been some common early evolution, in the form of the early ocean(s). But early in the planet's history, it must have lost the oceans and life was confined to the calderas and pools of the large ancient volcanoes. I suspect these calderas were filled with water and had many volcanic vents "leaking" into them. This would have provided the energy and water necessary for life to evolve over the eons of time. Since large distances separated these volcanoes and the creatures were probably very small, it is entirely possible that Mars acted much like a giant laboratory for life to develop differently at each volcano. If there was little or no interaction between the different volcanoes, the life of each volcano could have become separated from the rest of the planet, and so each volcano might be like a different planet, in some ways. On the other hand, there may be vast underground streams and passageways that allowed life to "move" from system to system. The only way we will ever know is to go there and find out.

Your friend,

I think all of your points are valid, although I disagree at certain places.  I have spent a lot of time thinking about philosophical and logical arguments that would prove or disprove the "finiteness" of the cosmos.  I have not been able to come up with arguments on either side of the issue that I find perfectly acceptable.  That is the reason that I have placed my statement on the Internet.  My hope is that someone will have better ideas than me, and share them with me.  It is my desire to engage all those that would listen in a conversation about the cosmos and whether it is finite or infinite.  I think most cosmologist and astronomers are confused about the issue and apparently don't think about it much.  It seems to me, that any model of cosmology that says there was only a single big bang, and it happened a finite time ago, and it expanded at some finite (even variable) rate, and has an edge, by all accounts, must be describing a finite cosmos.

When I was very little, my mother told me that the stars went on forever.  Being raised a Christian, I believed her, because I believed in an infinite God with an infinite creation.  So when I read stories of creation that indicate a finite cosmos, where the stars don't go on forever, and where God Himself, must not be infinite, then I don't think that model can possibly be correct. The thought that God's creation is not infinite, would reduce the size of God, to me.  Many people have told me that they have trouble imagining an infinite cosmos.  I tell them that I have trouble imagining a single universe that has an edge.  I must always ask them, what is beyond the edge.  How can they say nothing?  It is much easier for me to imagine that there are just more stars, no matter how far one might look, in any direction. 

There are two models of creation that bother me, and both for the same reason.  One is the single big bang model that is currently accepted by science.   This model states that everything there ever was, came from a single gigantic explosion they call a big bang.  There was nothing before the event and then, all of a sudden, there was everything.  The second model that I find distasteful, is the Fundamental Christian view called Creationism, which again states that everything there ever was, came from nothing only 6,000 years ago.  There was nothing before the event and then, all of a sudden, there was everything.  Both models rely on faith, which is fine for a model of religion, but crazy for a model of science.  I can't accept either as possible because they both imply a finite cosmos.  If there is a common beginning to "everything," then the cosmos must be finite.  To be infinite, it must be infinite in every direction, including backwards through time.  If there is any limit, then the cosmos is finite. 

As a philosopher who has studied logic my entire life, I realize that I can place my thoughts into different categories. I realize that at the beginning of every logical process, is a set of assumptions, from which the logic must flow.  I define assumptions as those things accepted by faith.  The logical flow from any set of assumptions is directly tied to the assumptions.  The rightness or wrongness of the logic is dependant on the assumptions.  One can have perfect logic, but if your assumptions are bad, then any conclusions drawn from the logical flow, must be considered suspect, in the least.  So I can make the decision, to accept an infinite cosmos, as an assumption of mine.  Or I can argue for it logically, based on what I perceive to be even more primitive assumptions.  So I have chosen to try to find arguments that would support my contention that the cosmos must be infinite.

If you look within my paper "The Philosophy of Space and Time," you will see that I have laid out my assumptions and the principles that I am willing to argue logically. The assumptions that I have made are three: there is a reality, we can know the reality, and reality is the same throughout the cosmos.  I have also laid out three principles that I think "guide" the cosmos.  These I am willing to argue, although I just accept my assumptions.  The three principles are thus:  the minimum condition for existence within any universe is identity and relationship, any coordinate system must establish itself faster than the fastest thing which moves within that coordinate system, and that the cosmos is infinite.   Concerning the first principle, I have had many people in science, from every area, agree with me in my statement.  All of my philosophy stems from this basic principle and I am willing to argue it's validity with anyone any time.  The second principle is also very basic and I think intuitive for anyone that will spend some time thinking about it.  The final principle is the one in question in this argument.  In defense of this principle, I have made a single statement that I think is true of nature.   All things cycle.  I think, in the end, it is the same statement to say that all physical systems cycle and the cosmos is infinite.

As I look around me, I see where everything cycles.  Our lives begin and end, nations come and go, species spring forth and then are gone. The Earth itself is half way through it's lifetime.  Our galaxy is 90% of the way through its lifetime, and everywhere I see the birth and death of different physical systems.   This led me to look for a larger cycle in the cosmos, a cycle the size of a universe.   When I first heard about big bangs and black holes, I said to my teacher, "and then black holes get so large that they eventually turn into a big bang, don't they?"  He looked at me very strange and then said "No, that's not the way we teach it."  I thought that funny since I saw cycles everywhere else and so there must be one at this large scale.  I think the evidence is now overwhelming that I am correct.  Current science thinks the whole cosmos is only 13 billion years old.  We have stars in the Milky Way that are 20 billion years old.   The Milky Way must be 100's of billions of years old.  Large molecules in our own body, would have to have been formed by passage through multiple star systems, each taking 10 to 20 billion years.  Everywhere we look in the cosmos, we see "holes" where big bangs have occurred.  When we look as far as the Hubble Space Telescope can see, we only find more galaxies, some of which must have been very old, billions of years ago when the light left the galaxy.  And finally, the unification equation E=gmc2 requires that there be limits on all physical systems and clearly shows that there are physical limits on how much material can be involved with any black hole or big bang.  All of these are intuitive arguments that the cosmos is infinite.

Now back to my argument above.  If I can prove that the cosmos is not, or can not be finite, then the only other choice is infinite.  The argument that I used above relies on a philosophical concept called the cone of knowledge.  Since the only way we can "know" the reality around us, is by the passage of energy through the system, and since that energy apparently can not move faster than the speed of light, then there would exist around any viewpoint, a cone of what things are knowable from that viewpoint.  Only those events, that light has had time to reach the viewpoint, can be know by that observer.  The gravionic model shows that we can know things at the speed of gravity which is much faster than the speed of light, but the argument remains the same, only the size of the cone grows.  There is a physical limit on what we can know.  Anything outside this cone of knowledge is called the ultimately unknowable. 

Now philosophically, there are two situations.  Outside this cone of knowledge there is either more "stuff" or there is not more "stuff."  But, if I can prove that inside the cone of knowledge, we can see the cycles that I have proposed, then that would be more evidence that the cycles continue past what we can see.  I think I can prove that these cycles are evident in the cosmos we see through our telescope, but in the end, I must agree with you that nothing I have said "proves" the cosmos is infinite.  But I think the task is even larger to prove that the cosmos is not infinite.  So again, that is why I post my arguments, because I want to know what others think and I want to look for the best ideas, no matter who thinks them first.  Although you say that I can't prove the cosmos is infinite, you have given no arguments to prove that the cosmos is finite. 

In the end, I believe the cosmos is infinite, that God made a very simple set of rules that can express themselves in an infinite number of ways, that life is the purpose of the cosmos, and evolution, through the use of DNA, is the method that God uses to make new life on each world in an infinite Cosmos.  I believe that in an infinite cosmos, there is no need to have the "first" arising of life, since in an infinite cosmos, life was always somewhere, and it merely needs to travel to each new world to start the process of natural selection, where organisms, through the hardships of the world, learn to live under the conditions that God has placed on that world.  In an infinite cosmos, physical systems are moving in every direction, so it is only a matter of time before each new world encounters the "old" life of other more ancient solar systems.  We now know that organisms the size and complexity of bacteria can live and travel through space without harm.  Since the asteroids and comets represent the blown apart remnants of old suns and planets, one would expect that life would reside in some of these, particularly comets, which are probably the ancient oceans of planets that have come and gone.  Their death, many billions of years ago, has led to the life we now see on Earth.  We are part of these endless and ancient cycles.

I apologize for having taken so very long to respond.  It would probably have been more polite to let you know that I received your reply and enjoyed it immensely.  I will probably not address your specific comments concerning the possible infinite properties of the cosmos (I am not even sure that you would be interested) for I only have a little time, but I have once again visited your website and would like to make a brief comment or two concerning the contents of your paper on evolution.

I have enjoyed your website so far and I am grateful that you are interested in taking the time to discuss your ideas with those who perhaps, do not agree.  If I may, I would like to discuss a few of the arguments that you provided in support of "evolution" and I hope that this exchange will prove helpful to you...

At the very beginning, you appear to try to solve the problem between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists by reducing "evolution" to a few fundamental principles:

"Almost everyone I know believes in the principles of evolution, even thought many won't admit it.

The principles of evolution are thus:

Every organism carries information about itself in its genetic material.

Every offspring contains the mixing of genetic material from its parents.

Any offspring that does not survive to mating, will not pass on its genetic material."

With each of these, I agree, although I cannot agree with the truth of the notion of evolution.  The process of "evolution" does not exist.  Now, there is something missing here.  I agree with the "principles" of evolution that you have outlined, but I do not agree with the reality of "evolution."

It seems that, in the attempt to defend the theory, you have made a fundamental error.  Further on, you granted that evolutionists are not so much concerned with what you have termed the "principles" of evolution but more so with the "mechanism" of evolution.  But you fail to make any clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution and, in the process, attempt to render support for macroevolution by pointing to the obvious truth of microevolution.

In denying the "mechanism," you have, to a certain degree, denied macroevolution itself.  Allow me to explain.  I am sure that you are familiar with the differences between micro and macro-evolution.  One of the larger problems that has arisen in the exchange between evolutionists and creationists is an ambiguous use of terminology.  The term "evolution" is used to refer to both macro and micro versions.  When you listed the "principles" of evolution, you did not mention that you were speaking only of "micro"-evolution.  Instead, you gave the impression, regardless of intent, that "macro"-evolution is also as supported by such obviously clear-cut "principles."

Again, I agree with you.  Who would deny the "principles" that you set forth?  They are clearly supported by a common experience.  What is not supported by those "principles" is macro-evolution, which is really the only thing that is being debated.  No one debates the truth of microevolution.

Now, when you say that the "mechanism" of evolution is being debated, you then switch over to speaking of the "macro" version of evolution.  This is obvious when you state that, "What concerns scientists are the details of how God or nature changes organisms through time."  This is much more important for that is, roughly, what macroevolution is: change through time (long periods of time).  Again, "micro-evolution" is true.  Its truth is not even in question.  The much larger step must be taken to vindicate macroevolution, a step which is not justified by the evidence.  Thus, although the truth of "evolution" and its principles (micro) are not discussed by evolutionists, the "mechanism" (macro) is.

We both know that the mechanism for microevolution is obvious.  Natural selection, sexual recombination, etc., fill the role nicely.  What is not known is what might possibly carry out the much more difficult process of "macro"-evolution.  And, in that, I believe the argument falls.

You see, evolutionists have no knowledge of the cause of macro and, because they don't even know the mechanism involved, they cannot know its specific effects.  This is evidenced by the common guesswork involved in reconstructing the historical process (did the swim bladder come first or the lung?  Maybe the lung was once a pouch on the gut that became unattached later?  The eye?  Who knows what its earlier function was...--all these "explanations" were given by Richard Dawkins) and in building that "tree" of evolution that all school children have come to know but that seems terribly incomplete.

In effect, the evolutionist seems to be without knowledge of the cause or much of that unknown cause's effects...  What kind of theory are we discussing here?  I believe that we go round and round discussing the truth of "evolution" and its principles (micro, of course) while the men work feverishly in the lab to discover some evidence for macroevolution.

This is exactly what you did...  Taking another example from your paper, you discuss the question of why "evolution" (again unspecified) is not still in full force today.  You fail to address the fact that the question is always concerning macroevolution, not microevolution.  Why do we not see a continuation of macroevolution today?  In charging forward to answer the challenge, you provide evidence for microevolution, surprised that such a question even need be asked.  You provide examples such as the "evolution" of new strains of old viruses, the myriad of dogs which are the result of the efforts of dog breeders and the opinion that the "dog is evolved from the wolf."

None of these constitutes evidence for macroevolution, merely micro...  It may surprise you but creationists would agree with you when you say that new strains of old viruses appear every year and that dog breeders have done a wonderful job in exploring the very boundaries of possible combinations in the thousand years or so that they have been exploring this lineage and that the dog IS a descendent of the wolf (or vice versa).

Creationists agree with all of this, but, nonetheless, they remain creationists.  The reason is that you have not supported macroevolution at all and that is what the debate is all about.

At any rate, I am sure that you had no intention to be pulled into a debate concerning macro-evolution.  My only concern was your attempt to utilize the truth of microevolution to support macroevolution on your website.  If you agree with my arguments or, at the very least, if you cannot answer them, I ask (out of concern for one's responsibility, as a professional, to the truth) that you take these arguments off of your site.  They may possibly persuade a poor soul who isn't very well-versed in the subtleties of the debate and who might be influenced by arguments which are subtly deceptive (unwittingly so, I am sure).

As I said, I do not believe that the infraction was intentional.  That is not my point.  And, in that case, surely you will be interested in serving the truth and removing this from your site or, perhaps, rewriting and resubmitting it.

I thank you for all your time and efforts in reading and, perhaps, responding to this...  I hope you are doing well.  You have my warmest regards, sir...

In my first letter to this gentleman, I informed him that I would not remove my paper from the internet.  There are many papers that I have written, that have portions that I no longer think are true.  But philosophy is about a search for every viewpoint, so I leave even the papers that I know have mistakes in them, just for the purpose we find here.  The reason I leave so many errors, is to stimulate conversations just as this one.  I don't believe I was wrong in this paper, although I admit that my arguments are not strong.  So I informed this gentleman, that I would not remove the paper, but, I would post his views next to mind, so that all can make up their own minds about this and other important issues.

The problem in the argument between creationism and macro evolution, as it has been called, is that every creationist that I have talked to have a different view of what creationism means.  I have friends who believe that everything that ever existed was instantly brought into existence 6,000 years ago.  Others believe that only the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but the rest of the cosmos can be as old as it wants.  Some believe that life can evolve on Mars, but just don't like the idea that human life evolved on Earth.  The main argument seems to revolve around a belief in God.  Many fundamental Christians don't accept anyone that doesn't believe as they do.  They think to believe in God, one must believe in his magical powers 6,000 years ago to have created everything from nothing.  I wonder what God did before He created everything!  In an infinite cosmos, He was always busy.  The main point though, is that many other Christians believe that God created us through the process of evolution.  Because one doesn't believe in Creationism doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in God.  If we examine the total religions of the world, we find only a small part (fundamental Christians) that don't believe in evolution, as  a method by which God can work.

You say there is no evidence for macro evolution, but I say you are wrong.   There is plenty of evidence.  What most people are saying when they make this argument, is that they haven't studied enough to see the evidence.  Every leaf of every tree tells of its history and all the processes that have brought it to the place it is today.  All of this is recorded in the DNA of each living creature. I have studied every aspect of science and have looked at the life that I see around me.  Each living system is clearly and completely tied to it DNA.

If you want to really see the evidence for the process of evolution, look at embryology.  I have had a number of people tell me that they don't believe that an organism as complex as a human being could possibly evolve from a single cell.  So I tell them, look in the mirror and you will see an organism that evolved from a single cell.  You were once just a single cell, then it divided and became a little more complex creature.  After a few divisions, we see the evidence of bilateral symmetry emerging, which clearly separates us from many of the creatures of this world.  But at this point in the evolution of any particular creature, we can't tell what creature it will become.  They all look basically alike at this stage and it is only the DNA that tells the writes the final story of what this creature is to become.

At a later stage, even human beings have gill slits that clearly show our relationship to those creatures that live in the sea.  As our embryo grows, it slowly makes all the parts that we call a human being.  If you want to see macro evolution in progress, then simply take a course on human embryology and you will see all the changes that brought us from a single cell to the multi cell creature we represent today.   What most people are saying when they say there is no evidence for macro evolution, is that they have not put in the effort to study all of nature and see the wonderful workings of DNA and macro evolution, because I do not accept your argument that macro evolution and micro evolution are not the same.

How much change do you have to see, to admit macro evolution.  Some of the birds of Hawaii show vast differentiation in bill design, and all in only a few million years.  The English Sparrow was introduced in Central Park in New York City in the year 1850.  Since that time, the species has differentiated into three different sub species, the very process of evolution.  I have spent a great deal of time "talking" and observing English Sparrows.  For many years I have lived in the city and become acquainted with the "city" sparrows.  Recently I spent time in the desert and got to know the desert sparrows.  I can tell you from my own personal experience, that these two creatures have developed very different personalities.  The city sparrows are very much afraid of all humans and will never come close, even after years of me feeding them.  The desert sparrows don't appear to fear human beings and will come within a few feet in only a matter of days.

When considering macro evolution, I think many people don't consider the true diversity of animals within any species.  Every member of every species "sees" things from its own viewpoint.  Even though members of a species tend to have common traits, each individual has its own viewpoint and its own interaction with its environment.  The very concept of free will in each individual assures that over time, individual will vary and will vary to fit their environment, in their efforts to survive.  Just because you or anyone else can't see every step that nature has made, doesn't mean that nature didn't make the step, only that you can't see it.  One thing I learned a long time ago, was to never let my imagination predetermine what nature can do.  Natures imagination (or God) is infinite, so I wouldn't think of trying to place limits on it.  Don't confuse your own limits with the limits of God or nature.

One thing that seems to bother all creationist, is the concept of natural selection.  I don't understand why they don't like this term.  After all, if I told them I had some natural ingredients, or natural food, or natural vitamins, they would be elated.  Why should natural selection be less?  What is the alternative?   Unnatural selection?  Natural selection merely states that those individual that survive to mating, pass on their genetic material, and can be considered as successful.  I don't know why this implies that God is not somehow good, because creatures try and fail.  We can never know the final outcome, so how can we place goodness or badness on any creature, since we don't know its place in the overall scheme of things.  Natural selection just seems, natural, to me.   

For example, you defined "life" as "...those systems which use gravions to store information about reality."

I feel that I must disagree here.  Allow me to explain and, perhaps you can help me to understand your ideas more fully.  I do not understand how that "life" and the "systems" which have life, can be the same, ontologically speaking.  In other words, how do systems which "use gravions to store information," do so unless they already possess "life."

To "use" gravions and perhaps acquire and/or store information one must first be "alive." It is impossible otherwise.  I do not agree that "life" can be described as a "system."  As I said, those systems may have "life," but they are not "life" itself.

I believe you have attempted to make life a mere physical phenomena or property, which I am not so sure it is.

Second, you defined "reality" as "all mass and the associated connections of gravions and all energy which is stored within those systems."

[It is very important that I ask, in the definition of "life" given above, what do you mean by "information"?  Is information a form of energy?  Is it a physical thing?  This may be important to another point.]

Reality is, according to you, "all mass and the associated connections of gravions" and it is also "all energy which is stored within those systems."  "Those systems," I am assuming, refer to the congolomeration of mass and associated connections of gravions, to which you referred, in their distinct "relationships" (represented by gravity). 

Gravity, you assert, defines "relationships."  "Relationships" are only possible between actual things (with mass).  In that case, if "reality" is the equivalent to "all mass" and the "associated connections of gravions," (in gravitational relationships with all that mass) and "all energy stored within those systems" of mass and gravions, then your definition of "reality" excludes the possibility of anything supernatural...

Now, if you would like to exclude the "supernatural" from the outset by defining it out of the picture, please explain what "supernatural" could possibly mean?  Quite a few individuals use it and you have alluded to "God" in your paper concerning evolution.  In that case, how can you define "reality" to exclude the supernatural, yet still allude to the possibility of the reality of God?

I believe your definition begs the question.  Naturalist though you may be, you cannot define all of reality to fit your presuppositions.

Again, thank you for any time which you may have used in reading and, perhaps, responding to this letter...  I hope to hear from you soon.

Again, you have many valid arguments and I look forward to trying to answer your questions. 

Your first questions regard my definition of life.  One of the problems that I have sought to understand during my life is what is the difference between living things.   During my stay at Texas Tech, when the gravionic model first began to arise in my mind, I was working at three jobs while attending college.  One of my jobs was working at a nursing home, where I had to take care of many old people.  More than once, a patient would die while on my shift.  Many times these people would be alone at their death and that always troubled me that no one came to be with them in their last hour.  So I would be with.  I would hold their hands and let them know that someone cared, even at their last breath.  But as I stood there and watched these people die, I always wondered "What is the difference between life and death."   One moment, they are alive and then the next moment they are gone.  What happened in that moment?  Where did the energy of their human spirit go when they died?  What is the difference between the living and the non living?

As my life has progressed, I have continued to view this problem from different angles.   I studied science and it seemed we could generally tell when things were alive (although things like viruses seem a problem) but there was never a good definition to me.   Many Native Americans believe that the Earth itself is alive and I can't find fault with that view.  As we look at our world, we are finding life in places we never expected and living under conditions that we once thought were impossible.  Also, if I take some dirt, I would find that it is full of life.  If I wanted, I could make two piles from the dirt and put all of the living things in one pile and then put everything that was not living in the second pile.  As a thought experiment, let's take the pile of living things and put them in our mouth and eat them.  What has just happened?  Well, the energy of the life in the dirt has now become the energy of my spirit, as I digest the little critters.  Where is the difference between life and death?  Also, if there are enough "bad" critters in the pile, then maybe they will take my life, in order to support their own.  But now let's take the pile of dead stuff and eat it.  What has happened?  The molecules that were once apart of a dead system, are now alive in me.  Where is the difference between life and death, the living and the nonliving?  It seems to me, that in the end, there is very little difference.  If viewed from the proper perspective, the entire planet Earth can be viewed as a living system, since everything is, in the end, dependant on everything else on the planet. 

In all my work, I have tried to find the simplest rules possible to explain what I see around me.  I believe that I can show that the first systems that store information are probably just molecules.  Are they alive?  Once they begin storing information about the cosmos, then I choose to call them alive.  Again, everything I am about is to stimulate the discussion of these important issues, so that the life of the future can be better and more rewarding than the life of today.

The next topic I would like to discuss is of the supernatural.  Under the gravionic model, all real things are included.  We have come to use the term supernatural to define those events which science has been unable to explain.  If an event is real, then it is included in the gravionic model.  Supernatural events, now have a natural explanation under GMOPS.  The philosophers don't like me either, because they like to study metaphysics.  Under GMOPS, metaphysics in included.   I've just tried to make a new model of science that looks at the total energy of any real thing. 

I have seen people healed of cancer, apparently by the prayers of their loved ones.   How could this happen?  It happens, I think, because connections of gravity exits between the participants and nature (or God) and energy is physically moved and transported to the person that needs it.  Our entire being is energy.  The gravionic model just states that some of this energy is contained within the gravitational connections that make up the space of our bodies.  The energy of the human spirit would reside in the connections of gravity that make up our being.  So far from removing God from the equation, the gravionic model is the first model of physical systems that is big enough for God.  If you want, think of the g in the unification equation (E=gmc2) as standing for God.  If an event is real, under GMOPS, there must be a connection of gravity and an exchange of energy.  If your prayers are to be real, then when you pray for others, take the connections of gravity that exists between him and yourself and pass some of your energy through to him.  If you pray to God, then make a connection and receive the energy that you need.  The gravionic model is not designed to eliminate religion, but only to provide a method of determining if your religion is real.  In the end, being spiritual is what it is all about.   Religions propose a method of obtaining spirituality, GMOPS lets them see if they are succeeding.  Also, I don't think a religion is necessary to be spiritual.  I was raised as a Christian and I truly believe that the message of Christ was to love each other.  I have tried to help human beings understand what it means to love each other.  I think when Christian talk of anything other than the love of Christ, they have missed the mark.  This particularly applies to discussions about evolution and creationism.  When we argue over these small issues, we forget the important issue, which is loving each other.  Christ never spoke of evolution or creationism.   Creationism springs from a literal reading of the Bible.  Any interpretive reading allows evolution to be the process of all change and the method whereby God created all we see.  To me, God is far more impressive, to have been able to set into process a set of rules that go back forever, but lead to what we see today.  God would be much less impressive, if he just "zapped" everything into existence, apparently without the foresight to get it "right" all the way back to infinity.