Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It was in some book I read. I've done a great deal of research and while most have been on the net I've also read a lot of books. I have not kept notes nor always bookmarked sources. I just try to keep a trail of breadcrumbs.
As always (I could be wrong but as I remember the author of the book claimed some of the Scrolls have roots going much farther back. One of the earliest (I believe 1500 BC) was most interesting to me because it appeared to be an Ancient Language original translated into the nature of truth, how to recognize it, and the light that is consciousness.
I do not claim to be infallible or know anything at all.
I am telling you, there are no Bronze Age writings of the Bible.
I am telling you, there are no Bronze Age writings of the Bible.
...I trust includes helping out the earth and your fellow humans where you can
So what?
So nature unfolds logically and binarily from initial conditions in virtually infinite series of events that derive from harmonic and chaotic processes....
...And this applies to both cosmology and slime molds.
You think viruses have consciousness? Bacteria? Lichen? Stinkweed?Life is consciousness and free will.
In my terms, sometimes I'm conscious ─ awake and aware ─ and when I'm asleep, or under anesthetic, I'm not conscious.Reality still unfolds from initial conditions but life exercises free will. It is consciousness and free will that sustains all life and NOT fitness AND NOT natural selection.
When you've defined "consciousness", talk me through an example of how it can change species in ways I didn't mention in my earlier post.It is consciousness that underlies change in species because there is no fitness and no goal.
"the situational ability to apply your brain's decision-making processes free from external coercion".
In my terms, sometimes I'm conscious ─ awake and aware ─ and when I'm asleep, or under anesthetic, I'm not conscious.
When you've defined "consciousness", talk me through an example of how it can change species in ways I didn't mention in my earlier post.
When organisms have brains, brains are simply part of the organism. When organisms are capable of consciousness, brains create conscious states and non-conscious states. You = your brain+your body. Indeed, your body has 'sub-brains' as well, largely independent neural systems, notably one for the heart, and another for the gut, though they don't create consciousness.This definition is highly flawed. "Brains" neither make decisions nor are conscious.
Where on earth do you get that "4000 years" from? We have writing ─ cuneiform, hieroglyphs, perhaps proto-Chinese characters, for instance ─ from more than 4000 years ago. Protowriting existed in Sumer 5,500 years ago, as well. We have no reason to doubt that language existed a long time before civilization ─ all known human groups worldwide have language, and it appears to be a distinguishing characteristic of modern H sapiens, and so may have something like 150,000 years or more of history. Whether that's accurate or not, modern humans left Africa some 70,000 years ago and were in Australia arguably 60,000 years ago, and each of those emigrant groups have language in common form ie brains skilled in symbolic communication, vocal chords, specialized tongue, coordinated throat and lips.Our consciousness is built around language for 4000 years and other life form have their language built around consciousness.
So amoeba are conscious, you say?Simple organisms have simple consciousness and make only simple decisions. I have no doubt they can be far more complex than you might imagine.
And where's that definition of "free will" I asked you for?Life is consciousness and free will.
”We’re never neutral”. When I said “we”, did I claim myself to be the exception? “We” means all of us. I’m no exception but at least I’m aware of it. Got it.Yeah, but you are special, because you are neutral and we are never neutral, but you are not a part of that we. Got it.
First, whether creationism provides a model or not, it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the ToE. You’re playing a false dichotomy.we also are aware that the creationists cannot come up with a model for their beliefs. They do not have to come up with a model that says how God did it, but they still have to come up with a testable model that explains all of the evidence and that does not appear to be possible for them.
1+1=2 (Y)Here is the formal problem. For all cases of X is Y and not Z, it is not universal if I can do Z.
Your model is this: For all humans(cases) all thinking is as mine/LIIA(Y) and not different(Z). I just do Z right here in this post.
Sure, we can do differently. But when it comes to “1+1”, there is only one logical Answer. We cannot answer differently unless you are irrational and since you already acknowledged that you are irrational, then go ahead and do differently but it will be false from a logical perspective.Good, then learn when we can do differently.
I did many times. It’s not even an argument. I stated facts and provided the resources. That’s it. You’re in a state of denial that blocks your ability to understand it. And again, genetic variations as in the so-called “microevolution” do not give rise to the alleged “macroevolution” over generations.If you were correct, you could verify it here. You could show your sound, evidenced argument that shows that natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations did not produce the tree of life. But you can't, because the theory is correct, and correct ideas cannot be falsified.
Yes, I know. The crisis is with creationism and has been since the repudiation of the ID program by the Dover trial, and a series of embarrassing debunkings of false claims of irreducible complexity in biological systems.
The absolute truth is independent of our relative needs.Truth is already resonating in me. I've found my path, and it doesn't involve god beliefs or religions. I have no reason to believe that you have truth, but I do have reason to believe that a god belief meets some need in you not present in those who are comfortable with one.
Really! Every hypothesis is an assumption. abiogenesis is an assumption that was elevated to an axiomatic status.[1] Science assumes nothing.
False. See the article below if you want to know.[2] We *have* a growing body of evidence in support of naturalistic abiogenesis, but not enough yet, and none for creationism.
Axiom means self-evident truth. “Self-evident” means that the axiomatic status is not dependent on evidence.[3] That's not the definition of axiom. Your definition - belief independent of sufficient supporting evidence - would include the creationist worldview and all faith-based beliefs.
Again, I said “there is no evidence that nucleotides, nucleic acids or self-replication exist in "nature" outside the living cell”.Not for you, perhaps: All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites
Sure it does. How are you going to stop it?
Neither adaptation nor Artificial selection gives rise to new family. Again, I’m specifically saying “family” because the definition of species is controversial. The inability of natural interbreeding is not enough delineation of a species. Variants of the same species may not naturally breed yet they are still the same species. (Such as the example of different variants of dogs).If that were true, you could demonstrate how you know to be so. If that were a fact, interested students of the sciences would know it the way creationists would have learned it - from science.
How do you know that? What is your reference? You’re making an assumption based on nothing but your own limitations but why would that be a factor at all?No god can be the conscious creator of consciousness.
You didn’t get it. Again, the materialistic realm has nothing but waves, lots of waves of varying length/frequency/strength vibrating in every direction. There are no images, colors or sounds only vibrating waves. Only consciousness allows “qualia” of all kind. “qualia” is not possible beyond consciousness. qualia” is not physical.That's not an argument against a materialistic understanding of consciousness.
False. Ring species variants are technically the same species. The variants are not different species, they are “subspecies”.If they can't interbreed, then they are a different species technically.
False logic. The absolute is not subject to the laws that control the contingent. Do you understand?You just made an implied argument against an omnipotent intelligent designer for the universe. Just as this deity would need to discover how its own consciousness arises in order to create conscious animal life, it needed to discover the laws that nature imposed on matter and set parameters accordingly.
Its an irony that you see intelligence in these pathetic watermarks and don’t see it in something like the human genome.One needs to learn English and Venter's substitution code to interpret his inserted sequences, which do nothing except serve as watermarks to protect his patents, but no intelligence is necessary to translate natural sequences into proteins.
You still do not know what a peer reviewed work is. Yes, Elsevier is a well known publisher. And they seem to have quite a range of journals that they publish. Some of them are well respected. Some of them are not. In fact I should say quite a few are not well respected. In fact so many of Elsevier's journals are not only not well respected but thought to be predatory that the publisher is now widely viewed as predatory publisher:
Elsevier now officially a “predatory” publisher
For a number of years now, publishers who expect losing revenue in a transition to Open Access have been spreading fear about journals which claim to perform peer-review on submitted manuscripts, but then collect the publishing fee of a few […] <a class="more-link"...bjoern.brembs.net
But even if that was not true, it still would not be a peer reviewed article. Not everything that you read in peer reviewed journals are peer reviewed. They often have letters and opinion pieces. Nature for example has invited researchers to publish works for lay people in their journal. Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize winning biochemist wrote an article for them on abiogenesis. It was not peer reviewed, It was never presented as being peer reviewed. Yet at least one chemist, James Tour a at one time well respected synthetic chemist, claimed that it was in a series of his talks. He of all people should have know that it was an informal piece. That is what your article was, It was not peer reviewed, it was just that man's opinion.
This was already explained to you and yet you continue to defend it and worse yet try to appeal to the large numbers of Elsevier rather than to how well respected a publisher is. This only confirms that your knowledge of science is very low. And I can say that because mine is only slightly higher. And I have at least an inkling of how little I know.