Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.

[Amill]

Well thats easy, human Zygotes assist in sexual reproduction. The Zygotes eventually develop into an Embryo, and then A fetus. The Zygote exist for about 4 days and becomes a " Blastocyst." It produces the same genes as the parents, nothing that involves evolution, the result is always the same as the parents, a human being is born. One that is simular to the parents, not one who has evolved beyond the parents and become a whole new evolution apart from the parents.

There are absolutely no examples of this process ever producing anything different. All living things reproduce after their own kind, as Genesis tells of.

Peace.

If there's no change down our lineages, then why do humans have different skin colors? I mean if Adam and Eve were white then why aren't all humans white? Or if they were black, how come we're not all black? It's pretty obvious that we're not just 2 halves of exactly our parents genes. How come there's a family that has nearly unbreakable bones? Wouldn't this be a result of a mutation since no one else has this? What about some women that can see some light in the ultraviolet spectrum?

I dare you to watch this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, what is happening is that really its you who are trying to widen the goalpost, you have no credible evidence for evolution, so your grasping at anything you can find. Immunization is not evolution, it can be obtained by using medicines, now your suggesting that medicines can cause evolution? That sickness can cause Evolution, that being cured of a desiease is evolution.

Do you know what "widening the goalposts" means? It means to request something in terms of evidence, but when you have that request filled you refuse to accept it as evidence and instead assert that you require more significant evidence.

For example:

YOU: Mutations do not occur in the human genome - we are exactly the same as our parents. The only mutations that occur are deformations. However, if you can present evidence that such mutations do occur I will accept it.
US: [Evidence]
YOU: But those mutations are not evolution!

Sorry, but mutations arising in the genome and being passed throughout a population via reproduction can only be caused by evolution. We're not talking about a group of people who were immunized, we're talking about a population of humans who developed a specific genetic immunity to something that is unique to them.

Again, if there is any other process which could cause such a thing to occur, name it. Otherwise, you don't have a case. Once again, your only real defense against this evidence is the fact that you clearly do not understand what evolution is.

Its really sad to see the sheer hunger of evolutionist, as they take serious swings at knats.

It's more sad to see someone so impervious to knowledge that he won't accept extremely basic facts of biology and genetics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the orgin of life, not one. So people are scrapping to latch hold of anything that rubs their fascination with explination. The scientific method that is held in high esteem by most Atheist is composed as follows;

A. Careful observation of a Phenomenon.
B. Formulation of a Hypothesis concerning the Phenomenon.
C. Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
D. A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Based on these established ways of learning:

Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.
Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.
Nobody has ever observed Abiogenesis.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any Genome.
Nobody has ever observed any Phylum, class, order or family change.

Nobody! Evolutionist are excellent at hypothesizing, but their real problems are steps A,C and D. They will travel far to validate their theories, because they are unable to accept God as creator.

We don't need to observe the beginning of the universe to know that it happened. We have observed background radiation that has already cemented the big bang theory as the only scientifically viable explanation on the origin of the known universe.

Case in point: Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the sun. We know this, and yet we have only known about Pluto's existence for around 80 years. By your standard, we cannot of observed it's orbit therefore we cannot deduce how long such an orbit would take. But we don't need to observe it - we have the maths, physics and understanding of it's current movement from which we can make a very accurate assessment. The exact same is true in the big bang.

What's more, how can you assert God as a creator if you were not there to observe him create the Universe? That's a massive contradiction.

Also, none of this has anything to do with either evolution or atheism. Evolution is biology, big bang is physics. Both are science, and science is secular.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's more sad to see someone so impervious to knowledge that he won't accept extremely basic facts of biology and genetics.

If it was just one person, it wouldn't really be all that sad. What's sad is that his bizarre behavior is typical of just about every creationist I've ever encountered. Even more disheartening is that the behavior is exhibited by denialists of all sorts, be it towards global warming, HIV, vaccinations, or whatever.

It seems there is a significant subset of the population that is able to deny things exist, even when they're right in front of their faces.

 

[mickiel]

We don't need to observe the beginning of the universe to know that it happened. We have observed background radiation that has already cemented the big bang theory as the only scientifically viable explanation on the origin of the known universe.

.

Flame you offer stimulating reasonabl debate , I honor that. Virtually all scientist accept the Big Bang theory which states the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and plantes were formed, you are correct there. However, the " Law of Entrophy" states that closed systems go from a state of High Energy to low energy and from Order to Disorder. Thus, all closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate 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, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as " Heat Death." Heat Death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum entrophy. It is a Fact that one day our Sun and all Stars in the Universe will burn out. Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its vibrational energy. Because the stars cannot burn forever and because they are still currently burning, they couldnot have always existed because they would have burned out by now. Solid proof of one time creation!

Now some feel we have an open system universe, I disagree with that. A closed system is defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its surroundings. Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It has boundaries that cannot be crossed. So it is with Gods Creation of humanity, its a closed creation, and it does not have evolution which would allow humanity to cross over into a new or improved species which could evolve further from the rest.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

If there's no change down our lineages, then why do humans have different skin colors? I mean if Adam and Eve were white then why aren't all humans white? Or if they were black, how come we're not all black? It's pretty obvious that we're not just 2 halves of exactly our parents genes. How come there's a family that has nearly unbreakable bones? Wouldn't this be a result of a mutation since no one else has this? What about some women that can see some light in the ultraviolet spectrum?

I dare you to watch this vid
[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Adam and Eve were " Mid-Brown", from which we can result in all the pigmentation we see on earth. They were neither white or dark black. And again, mutation from disability is not evolution, its a result of abnormal circumstance. But I would agree that most definitions of Evolution, is the result of abnormal definition. I wouldnot want to accept a theory in my belief system, that only offers credible explination based on mutation or handicap. Thats scraping the bottom of the barrell in your belief.

Peace.

 

[Amill]

And again, mutation from disability is not evolution, its a result of abnormal circumstance.

Mutation from disability? Abnormal circumstance?

 

[mickiel]

Primordal man had no Consciousness, thus couldnot advance beyond instincts. And yet, even though modern man has Consciousness, why is it that the majority of us, in our daily lives, cannot get up above ourselves to authorize ourselves into being what we really wish to be? Well I think the answer to that is given in the book of Jeremiah 10:23;" I know, oh Lord, that a mans way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps."

Stimulating scripture, profound! This is why I like the Bible, its literally full of dogmatic wisdom! Even with the gift of Consciousness, it is not automatically within man to direct his own path.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Flame you offer stimulating reasonabl debate , I honor that. Virtually all scientist accept the Big Bang theory which states the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and plantes were formed, you are correct there. However, the " Law of Entrophy" states that closed systems go from a state of High Energy to low energy and from Order to Disorder. Thus, all closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate 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.

What does this have to do with the notion that the matter which created our universe spread out from a near-infinitismal point of infinitely dense matter? We already know that planets formed over time from simple space rubble, so the notion of the "law of entropy" as it applies to how the universe and planets form is already rendered false. What you may define as "order" or "disorder" are irrelevant, since entropy, in simple terms, deals with loss of energy - not order.

Because the avialible energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the Universe couldnot have always existed, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as " Heat Death." Heat Death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum entrophy. It is a Fact that one day our Sun and all Stars in the Universe will burn out. Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its vibrational energy. Because the stars cannot burn forever and because they are still currently burning, they couldnot have always existed because they would have burned out by now. Solid proof of one time creation!

Once again, none of this does any harm whatsoever to the notion of the universe rapidly expanding from a singular point over 14 billion years ago. I'm sure somebody on here who is more familiar with astronomy and physics would be happy to debate you on these subjects, but as it is I fail to see how anything you mention here is relevant to refuting the big bang theory - let alone demonstrating your supposition that God created the universe.

Now some feel we have an open system universe, I disagree with that. A closed system is defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its surroundings. Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It has boundaries that cannot be crossed. So it is with Gods Creation of humanity, its a closed creation, and it does not have evolution which would allow humanity to cross over into a new or improved species which could evolve further from the rest.

Once again, this is a non-sequitur. You state that the universe is a closed system, therefore God made it, and then go on to mention that evolution does not exist. What does universal entropy have to do with any of these things? How does it in any way support your supposition?

 

[mickiel]

One thing we all know for certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. We have no idea at all whether there is life anywherelse in the Universe, its entirely possible there isn't. My question is, just how much " Luck" are we allowed to assume in this Big Bang Theory? Its obviously such a small probability that we haven't the faintest hope of duplicating such a fantastically Lucky, miraculous event as the orgin of life in our reality in the future, or in our laboratory experiments.

There is no Greater Scientist than God, and no Greater objection to him than his creation, Man.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One thing we all know for certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. We have no idea at all whether there is life anywherelse in the Universe, its entirely possible there isn't. My question is, just how much " Luck" are we allowed to assume in this Big Bang Theory? Its obviously such a small probability that we haven't the faintest hope of duplicating such a fantastically Lucky, miraculous event as the orgin of life in our reality in the future, or in our laboratory experiments.

Not when you consider the size of the universe, the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of planets in each of these galaxies, and the fact that it took around 14 billion years before life on this planet appeared.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

 

[mickiel]

Not when you consider the size of the universe, the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of planets in each of these galaxies, and the fact that it took around 14 billion years before life on this planet appeared.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

I agree, Luck had nothing to do with it, and this Big Bang Theory is nothing but an attempt to suggest that Creation didnot occur, but Life just happened to occur. Which is a theory based totally on Luck, in my view.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree, Luck had nothing to do with it, and this Big Bang Theory is nothing but an attempt to suggest that Creation didnot occur, but Life just happened to occur. Which is a theory based totally on Luck, in my view.

Then your view is wrong.

Firstly, because the big bang theory has literally nothing to do with the formation of life - it is the current explanation for the origin of the known universe - nothing else. Secondly, just because we suggest that the formation of life was not down to a design or designer does not mean that it formed "based totally on luck". In this universe there are physical laws which determine these things. Abiogenesis asserts that life did not arise by sheer chance, but by the complex interactions of chemical compounds over thousands of years. It is not "luck" that causes such things to occur any more than it is "luck" that determines that a rock, when dropped, will fall to the ground.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You know the really great thing about the scientific method?

If we don't understand something we don't have to resort to saying "IT WAS MAGIC"

 

[mickiel]

Then your view is wrong.

Firstly, because the big bang theory has literally nothing to do with the formation of life - quote]


I certainly disagree with this. In the root of the theory, is the explination of life itself. Its the scientific explination of how all this began. Your statement is contridiction, but one could enlist the " Law of Noncontridiction" in this matter. That law states a sentence and the oppisite of the same sentence cannot both be true. Such as, " There is a Creator, There is not a Creator." They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.

There are only two Choices, We were Created, or we were spawned from the Big Bang in Space. One choice has the odds of 100 billion billion to one, which is Luck in my view. The other, an acceptance on faith supported by little facts. Heb.11:3, " Through Faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God.

Listen, it takes MUCH MORE faith to believe in spontaneous generation than it does to believe in a creator.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I certainly disagree with this. In the root of the theory, is the explination of life itself. Its the scientific explination of how all this began. Your statement is contridiction, but one could enlist the " Law of Noncontridiction" in this matter. That law states a sentence and the oppisite of the same sentence cannot both be true. Such as, " There is a Creator, There is not a Creator." They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.

Once again, you are wrong. The big bang theory has absolutely no relation to theories on how life begins any more than theories on the formation of planet earth have to theories of how a human is conceived. One is the study of how one thing starts, the other is a theory about something else starts. You cannot claim that life cannot arise out of natural means by claiming that the big bang is false - that is a non sequitur.

There are only two Choices, We were Created, or we were spawned from the Big Bang in Space. One choice has the odds of 100 billion billion to one, which is Luck in my view. The other, an acceptance on faith supported by little facts. Heb.11:3, " Through Faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God.

This is utter nonsense. The big bang has already been evidenced - it did occur, this is almost indisputable. What's more, how can you possibly calculate the "odds" of such a thing? What does that even mean? Provide a source for this claim.

Listen, it takes MUCH MORE faith to believe in spontaneous generation than it does to believe in a creator.

Now you're talking about spontaneous generation, which is an entirely different thing to either the big bang or abiogenesis.

Before I continue this discussion with you, please answer these following questions to assure me that you're capable of understanding a thing I tell you:

1. What is the big bang theory?
2. What is abiogenesis?
3. What is spontaneous generation?

 

[mickiel]

Before I continue this discussion with you, please answer these following questions to assure me that you're capable of understanding a thing I tell you:

1. What is the big bang theory?
2. What is abiogenesis?
3. What is spontaneous generation?

My conversation willnot be controlled by your questions, I have spoken with you inspite of your obvious misunderstanding of the things I believe, now you seek to define what I understand about what you believe.

Lets just say I am not capable, and just free yourself to speak with those who you deem are.

Nice talking to you, Peace on your journey.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My conversation willnot be controlled by your questions, I have spoken with you inspite of your obvious misunderstanding of the things I believe, now you seek to define what I understand about what you believe.

Lets just say I am not capable, and just free yourself to speak with those who you deem are.

You've not presented any of your beliefs - just your misunderstandings about science. I have asked you to support you suppositions by providing evidence that you, at the very least, understand the basics of the science that you are talking about.

Of course, you are as always free not to answer my questions. But if you do not, all it does is confirm my suspicions that you have not the faintest idea of what the science you object to actually says.

 

[mickiel]

You've not presented any of your beliefs - just your misunderstandings about science. I have asked you to support you suppositions by providing evidence that you, at the very least, understand the basics of the science that you are talking about.

Of course, you are as always free not to answer my questions. But if you do not, all it does is confirm my suspicions that you have not the faintest idea of what the science you object to actually says.

Then take your conversation to those who do have ideas that please you.

I wish you well on that journey.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I want to head off into a new direction with this and go a little deeper, which may surprise many. Consciousness is not what we generally think it is. It is not involved in the performance of skills and quite often hinders their execution. It need not be involved in speaking, writing, listening or reading. It does not copy down experience, it is not involved in signal learning and is not necessary for making judgements or in simple thinking.

And I want to examine that.

Peace.