Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.

[mickiel]

Weeks go by, and no evidence is produced. Atheist always sing their song to you of producing evidence, yet can produce none themselves.

Peace.

Still no evidence from the Atheist Logician that evolution is a fact. Cry your song of producing evidence, but when its " Reverse the order and you must produce the evidence", you clam up like a turtle and go into your shell.

And because of this obvious behavior, your belief in evolution is transpsarent, I see through it.

Even the co-founder of the theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, eventually saw the error in his theory. He turned away from it, but Darwin foolishly continued.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Even the co-founder of the theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, eventually saw the error in his theory. He turned away from it, but Darwin foolishly continued.

Peace.

The theory of natural selection was began by Darwin AND Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. After they made their twin announcements, both Darwin and Wallace struggled like Laocoons with the serpentine problem of human evolution and its encoiling difficulty with the reality of Consciousness. But where Darwin clouded the problem with his own naivete', seeing only continuity in evolution, Wallace could no longer do so.

The discontinuities Wallace begin to see were terrifying and absolute. In his own words;" Man Conscious faculties, particularly, couldnot possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have determined the progressive development of the organic world in general, and also man's physical organism."

Wallace felt that evidence showed that some " Metaphysical Force" had directed evolution at three different points; The beginning of Life, the beginning of Consciousness, and the beginning of civilization. It is because of this, and his search into spirituality, that Darwin is more well known than Wallace.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

The theory of natural selection was began by Darwin AND Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. After they made their twin announcements, both Darwin and Wallace struggled like Laocoons with the serpentine problem of human evolution and its encoiling difficulty with the reality of Consciousness. But where Darwin clouded the problem with his own naivete', seeing only continuity in evolution, Wallace could no longer do so.

The discontinuities Wallace begin to see were terrifying and absolute. In his own words;" Man Conscious faculties, particularly, couldnot possibly have been developed by means of the same laws which have determined the progressive development of the organic world in general, and also man's physical organism."

Wallace felt that evidence showed that some " Metaphysical Force" had directed evolution at three different points; The beginning of Life, the beginning of Consciousness, and the beginning of civilization. It is because of this, and his search into spirituality, that Darwin is more well known than Wallace.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

Die hard evolutionist would like to Ignore Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of the theory of Evolution, because one of its founders rebunked the Theory as false. He Learned the Truth! The very founder denys it. A serious blow to this baseless theory which Natural Selectionist would like to sweep Wallace under a rug somewhere, as they sweep the truth under that same rug.

Then we have Lloyd Morgans version of " Emergent Evolution" in 1923. He felt that all properties of matter have emerged from some unspecified forerunner. Those complex chemical compounds have emerged from the conjunction of simpler chemical compoundes. Properties distinctive of living things have emerged from the conjunction of these complex molecules, and consciousness emerged from this. INCREDIBLE assumption, meaningless Conjecture, that Consciousness came from a pool of convergent Chemicals!

Consciousness developed from liquid! Sheer stupidity!

And I want to go into that baseless boredom.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Humanity didnot evolve from Liquid, don't you believe that, this Universe has not always been here. The Law of " Entrophy" says closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintergrate over time as they decay to a lower order of avialible energy and organization. Entrophy always increases and never decreases in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder.

Because the avialible energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the universe couldnot have always existed.

Absolute proof of creation, sure evidence of God.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

[


Primordal man was not created to be given eternal Life, it seems God had other reasons for their existence, and one of those reason was to disprove the theory of evolution.

Yes, the very existence of Primordal man proves that natural selection is a baseless theory. Cavemen were not conscious, they didnot evolve, and they were discontinued by God, we are not from their bloodline.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

Peace.[/quote]

 

[Agnostic75]

Humanity did not evolve from Liquid.......

Charles Darwin did not say that it did. At the time that he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist. At the time of his death, he was an agnostic.

What you implied was that abiogenesis did not occur, but that is not the same thing as saying that evolution has not occured. Millions of Christians are theistic evolutionists. They believe that God has used evolution to create life slowly over time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[Agnostic75]

I have often been accused of not debating, which I disagree with. But I will make a " Conscious effort" to dispute that accusation in this thread. I am interested in Ancient history, and the Bible is part of that in my view. I never have believed that civilization is just 2000 years old or that Adam was the first human created. Obviously we had Neanderthal and Cromagnon prehistoric humans, obviously. But it's my contention that they could not have had Consciousness, as we have it. And I don't think Consciousness is completely understood.

If God would have given them Consciousness, Civilization would have started with them. Language would have began with them. Mathematics would have began with them, Government would have began with them, Science would have began with them. None of these things began with them, so I see no way possible they had anything beyond an "Instinctual Consciousness."

Marilyn Savant has an IQ of 228, the highest IQ ever recorded, and she is in the "Guiness Hall of Fame." She has a weekly question and answer column in Sunday's Parade Magazine. She scored 46 out of 48 on the very difficult Mega Test. No one has scored higher, and two other people also scored 46. One man scored 47, but he broke the rules by changing his name and taking the test over.

If at birth Marilyn had been taken to a remote jungle, and had been raised there by people who never spoke, and never used sign language, and Marilyn was never taught to read and write, and never left the village that she was raised in, she would not have known anything about civilization, language, mathematics, or government, but she surely would have had consciousness.

If consciousness means self-awareness, many scientists believe that, for example, dolphins and chimpanzees are self-aware. As far as I know, all that it takes for a lifeform to be self-aware is enough intelligence.

 

[mickiel]

Charles Darwin did not say that it did. At the time that he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist. At the time of his death, he was an agnostic.

What you implied was that abiogenesis did not occur, but that is not the same thing as saying that evolution has not occured. Millions of Christians are theistic evolutionists. They believe that God has used evolution to create life slowly over time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Biogenesis states that living things only come from other living things, Life only comes from Life. And when living things procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are. Every living organism alive today is a product of and proof for biogenesis. No one has ever documented a single case of non-living matter comming to life in self-replicating form. Not a single case.

There is no abiogenesis. There is no example of spontaneous generation which includes self replicating machinery( DNA< RNA). There is zero scientific evidence of abiogenesis, if so, produce it.

Peace.

 

[Agnostic75]

Charles Darwin did not say that it did. At the time that he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist. At the time of his death, he was an agnostic.

What you implied was that abiogenesis did not occur, but that is not the same thing as saying that evolution has not occured. Millions of Christians are theistic evolutionists. They believe that God has used evolution to create life slowly over time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Biogenesis states that living things only come from other living things.......

Since I am an agnostic, I obviously do not promote naturalism or creationism.

Life only comes from Life.

I never said otherwise, but if life only comes from life, where did God comes from? If God has always existed, why can't energy and/or matter have always existed? Most scientists claim that energy and/or matter existed before this universe came about.

And when living things procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are.

Of course, but it is probable that natural selection and mutation have changed future generations.

There is zero scientific evidence of abiogenesis, if so, produce it.

There is zero scientific evidence that the God of the Bible exists, but there is lots of scientific evidence that a global flood did not occur, that the earth is old, and that if a God exists, he used theistic evolution to slowly change lifeforms over time.

There is excellent evidence that even if God started life on earth, the flagellum has evolved. Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a Christian theistic evolutionist. He testified at the Dover trial. Following are two of his websites about the evolution of the flagellum. The first website is a video. The second website is an article.

[youtube]RQQ7ubVIqo4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

The Flagellum Unspun

 

[mickiel]

.


quote
I never said otherwise, but if life only comes from life, where did God comes from? If God has always existed, why can't energy and/or matter have always existed? Most scientists claim that energy and/or matter existed before this universe came about. quote

I don't know where God comes from, I wish I did. I don't understand how he could have always existed, I don't know. But I believe he is energy itself, and that all energy comes from him. It is said that he has always existed, so then, yes, energy has always existed.



.


quote
There is zero scientific evidence that the God of the Bible exists,

The existance of God is not based on science, or anythingelse that is lesser than God. Science is not great enough to disect God, nothing is. God just IS, how he is, I just don't know.

And I hold no need to know everything.

Peace.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to mikiel: Where did God come from? If God has always existed, why can't energy and/or matter have always existed?

 

[mickiel]

Message to mikiel: Where did God come from? If God has always existed, why can't energy and/or matter have always existed?

I already answered that question, now you are being redundant. Or your not reading my answers.

Either way, it matters not to me.

Peace.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to mikiel: Where did God come from? If God has always existed, why can't energy and/or matter have always existed?

I already answered that question, now you are being redundant. Or you are not reading my answers.

I just checked this page and the previous two pages, and I could not find anything where you answered my question. As far as I know, I first asked the question on this page. Since you said that life comes only from non-life, it was reasonable for me to ask you where God came from.

 

[mickiel]

I just checked this page and the previous two pages, and I could not find anything where you answered my question. As far as I know, I first asked the question on this page. Since you said that life comes only from non-life, it was reasonable for me to ask you where God came from.

Then you are blind. I told you I do not know where God came from.

Now, enough of your questions, you ignore too many answers to be reasonable in conversation.

Ask someonelse,

Peace on your journey.

 

[Agnostic75]

I just checked this page and the previous two pages, and I could not find anything where you answered my question. As far as I know, I first asked the question on this page. Since you said that life comes only from non-life, it was reasonable for me to ask you where God came from.

I told you I do not know where God came from.

And if the universe is naturalistic, I do not know where it came from.

Now, enough of your questions, you ignore too many answers to be reasonable in conversation.

All that I have done is ask you to back up your claims with evidence. So far, I do not have any idea whether you get most of your evidence from the Bible, or from personal revelations. I do not even yet know whether or not you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

 

[mickiel]

By the end of the third century, Christianity had suddenly flooded the pagan world with its own claims to authorization and began to dissolve into itself many of the then existing pagan practices. That the world was only some 1,000 years old, this eternal hell belief, the " Thite" and many pagan holidays being called " Holy Days." Everyone ignored the first foundation of humans created, Primordal man.

And I want to get into their real purpose.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I am not 100% sure, but I am leaning toward the creation of Primordal man, as an actual part of the creation of modern man. I think God wanted to perfect the " Instinctual" part of humanity first, the physical motions,the running of our internal organs, and replay this over and over again, until he adds Consciousness to Adam.

And I want to get into that.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I am not 100% sure, but I am leaning toward the creation of Primordal man, as an actual part of the creation of modern man. I think God wanted to perfect the " Instinctual" part of humanity first, the physical motions,the running of our internal organs, and replay this over and over again, until he adds Consciousness to Adam.

And I want to get into that.

Peace.

God created humanity and has a special intrest in them. I think he wanted to first run a " Model" of humans, far before he added Consciousness. He wanted humans to live without Atheism, without predujices and hate, without war and sick concepts. So he first created Primordal man, and witheld Consciousness, thus witholding our absurd side which Consciousness would surely give birth to.

And I want to dig into that.

Peace.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I heard a wonderful argument concerning the evolution of consciousness in humans, if anyone is interested in looking more into this...

The argument is that the earliest signs of consciousness that can be found in the archaeological record are the earliest human-like statues.

Humans then could imagine themselves and recreate an image of themselves, recognizing their individuality and place in this world.

Interesting.

 

[mickiel]

God created humanity and has a special intrest in them. I think he wanted to first run a " Model" of humans, far before he added Consciousness. He wanted humans to live without Atheism, without predujices and hate, without war and sick concepts. So he first created Primordal man, and witheld Consciousness, thus witholding our absurd side which Consciousness would surely give birth to.

And I want to dig into that.

Peace.

The weight of original thought cannot be placed on Primordal man because it didnot begin with them. God didnot want Primordal man thinking in terms of things, only reacting to things, highly developing their instincts. He did not want to run the interfence of religion in them, he wanted to run his models in totally physical areas. He didnot yet want the advent of Atheism, or the polarization of government. It takes Consciousness to have Government and to not believe in God, so God was not after belief in this first stage of Man.

He was after somethingelse,

and I want to go into what.

Peace.