Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[outhouse]

We are all just matter changing form.





---

Conscious thought factually only exist in the matter called a brain.

Conscious thought is factually not matter that can change forms.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Unsubstantiated


Try backing that statement before claiming it is real. As it stands that is 100% imagination.

A soul factually does not exist at this point in time scientifically.


It does exist in imagination and mythology though.

I wasn't referring to souls, I was referring to physics and matter. Don't give me this facepalm B.S when you don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Conscious thought factually only exist in the matter called a brain.

Conscious thought is factually not matter that can change forms.

Conscious thought is factually a form of interaction. Everything factually interacts. Nothing that is part of this universe which is composed of matter or energy stops interacting in some form or another.

 

[Sapiens]

What we call consciousness is a complex form of interaction. That interaction does not cease at death, it merely changes as our form changes. We reach a different level of consciousness ie: a different level of interaction. To me, reincarnation is nothing more than a type of change from one interactive state to the next. We are all just matter changing form.


---

That's right. We lose the ability to maintain homeostasis and get eaten by worms (and such), rot sets in. None of our atoms are destroyed, they are incorporated into other things.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That's right. We lose the ability to maintain homeostasis and get eaten by worms (and such), rot sets in. None of our atoms are destroyed, they are incorporated into other things.

Yes. That is interaction. Our feeling of being "conscious" is really nothing more than us interacting with our environment in a complex manner. When we die, the form changes and we interact in a less complex, less interactive manner, to the point where it is no longer consciousness as we would recognize it. I guess that would seem like I am saying that consciousness exists everywhere or in everything, but no, I don't actually like the term consciousess. I prefer the term interactive.

We are highly interactive forms. We are neither truly living, nor do we die, nor are we any more "conscious" than any other lump of matter. We simply interact more and in more peculiar ways.


---

 

[RichardParker]

Yes. That is interaction. Our feeling of being "conscious" is really nothing more than us interacting with our environment in a complex manner. When we die, the form changes and we interact in a less complex, less interactive manner, to the point where it is no longer consciousness as we would recognize it. I guess that would seem like I am saying that consciousness exists everywhere or in everything, but no, I don't actually like the term consciousess. I prefer the term interactive.

We are highly interactive forms. We are neither truly living, nor do we die, nor are we any more "conscious" than any other lump of matter. We simply interact more and in more peculiar ways.

---

I still can't fallow.
Our consciousness depends on our brain. No brain, no consciousness.
As I said, it's comparible to a house. Even though the parts might remain and can't be destroyed, the HOUSE won't exist, once the specific structure of the individual parts got "rearanged".
Our consciousness might be the result of parts interacting, but this does not mean that ANY configuration of these parts interacting with in any other way also is still a representation of consciousness.

I still can't fallow your position.
Maybe if you could rephrase what you mean, perhaps?
So far, I'm not even sure if you mean the same thing as I do when you talk about "consciousness", and I'm also not sure if your version of "reincarnation" means, that "we", our "personality" and so on, keep existing once we die.

 

[Aman777]

That's right. We lose the ability to maintain homeostasis and get eaten by worms (and such), rot sets in. None of our atoms are destroyed, they are incorporated into other things.

Dear Readers, The above is an example of the wishful thinking of unbelieving Evols who are afraid to face the fact that they MUST be Judged for the deeds done while in the flesh. Heb 9:27 Our BODIES, our FLESH , our BRAINS may be eaten by worms...BUT...our Spirit returns to the Creator in order to account for every idle word, according to Jesus Christ. Mat 12:36 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Thief]

and I see the concept of regression is not dealt with.....

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
I call him Adam.

It's NOT a matter of evolution.

 

[idav]

and I see the concept of regression is not dealt with.....

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
I call him Adam.

It's NOT a matter of evolution.

If you want to take more literally, god chose his favorite ape species and assisted them by breeding us like dogs and even telling us to ourge the evil from our lineages,, as if thag worked with the mythical flood.

 

[RichardParker]

Dear Readers, The above is an example of the wishful thinking of unbelieving Evols who are afraid to face the fact that they MUST be Judged for the deeds done while in the flesh. Heb 9:27 Our BODIES, our FLESH , our BRAINS may be eaten by worms...BUT...our Spirit returns to the Creator in order to account for every idle word, according to Jesus Christ. Mat 12:36 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Please provide evidence that this spirit and your god exists.
Otherwise, this is just idle speculation on your part.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I still can't fallow.
Our consciousness depends on our brain. No brain, no consciousness.
As I said, it's comparible to a house. Even though the parts might remain and can't be destroyed, the HOUSE won't exist, once the specific structure of the individual parts got "rearanged".
Our consciousness might be the result of parts interacting, but this does not mean that ANY configuration of these parts interacting with in any other way also is still a representation of consciousness.

I still can't fallow your position.
Maybe if you could rephrase what you mean, perhaps?
So far, I'm not even sure if you mean the same thing as I do when you talk about "consciousness", and I'm also not sure if your version of "reincarnation" means, that "we", our "personality" and so on, keep existing once we die.

Our level of consciousness (level of interaction) depends on the brain, but that ability to interact itself is not dependant on the brain, it is limited by the brain. That our brain stops functioning does not mean necessarily that consciousness ceases or that our ability to interact comes to an end. It means that complex manner in which we were accustomed to interacting will change. We will interact differently. Does consciousness cease when we die? No, because there is really no such thing as consciousness, or life, or death to begin with, there is only interaction. There is really nothing to cease, nothing that comes to an end. The form changes, but the interaction never stops. There is only continual interaction. What happens to the "house" does not matter.

 

[RichardParker]

That our brain stops functioning does not mean necessarily that consciousness ceases or that our ability to interact comes to an end.

Ok, so here I actually have a problem.
Because I don't know how this claim can be justified.
Literally EVERYTHING we know about consciousness and everything that is "us" (personality, ability to make choices, self-awarness) is linked to the brain. You damage the brain, you can demage the parts that link to these areas. So I don't see any possibility how "we" (anything of us) can outlast our brain.
I mean, granted, IF something about us (especially the consciousness) is independant of the brain, or not a product of the brain, then it certainly COULD go on...
But this is the key thing I'm asking about here: What's the evidence that this is actually so? And how can we explain the fact that brain-damage alters these things, if they do not actually depend on our brain?

Does consciousness cease when we die? No, because there is really no such thing as consciousness, or life, or death to begin with, there is only interaction.

This seems to stand in direct conflict to what you've said before.
You've writen "That our brain stops functioning does not mean necessarily that consciousness ceases", which implies that there IS such a thing as consciousness.

Ok, let's take this from a different angle:
Consciousness is our ability to experience stuff, right. It's essentially the "me" part.
Are you saying, that, if I die, there STILL is "me"? There STILL is the thing that percieves itself as "myself", that experiences stuff?
If yes, then I wonder how you can justify that, since these things are connected to the brain.
If no, then what is it, that gets reincarnated? If "I" don't keep existing, if my ability to experience stuff stops at the time of my dead, what is it, that goes on? Just my molecules? How is this "reincarnation"?

 

[Aman777]

Please provide evidence that this spirit and your god exists.
Otherwise, this is just idle speculation on your part.

Dear Richard, Sure. God told us more than 3,000 years ago:

That we live in a Multiverse. Gen 2:4 and Gen 1:6-8
That the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the Stars didn't put forth their light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 This is a recent discovery of Science.
That every living creature, except Humans, had their origin in the water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was some 3.7 Billion years ago in man's time.

Can you refute God's Holy Word by showing us HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, knew and correctly wrote this in Genesis? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[idav]

Dear Richard, Sure. God told us more than 3,000 years ago:

That we live in a Multiverse. Gen 2:4 and Gen 1:6-8
That the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the Stars didn't put forth their light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 This is a recent discovery of Science.
That every living creature, except Humans, had their origin in the water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was some 3.7 Billion years ago in man's time.

Can you refute God's Holy Word by showing us HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, knew and correctly wrote this in Genesis? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

You have a very peculiar bible edition.:areyoucra

 

[Aman777]

You have a very peculiar bible edition.:areyoucra

Dear idav, It's the KJV which NO unbeliever can possibly understand. 1Co 2:14 If you have a problem understanding, I will be happy to explain. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Sapiens]

Clearly then, since you do not understand it, you must be an unbeliever.

 

[RichardParker]

Dear Richard, Sure. God told us more than 3,000 years ago:

That we live in a Multiverse. Gen 2:4 and Gen 1:6-8

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
Ahm... Am I on the wrong verse? As far as I could find, this was Genesis 2:4...
What verse did you mean, when you said it speaks about the multiverse?

"And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."
And this would be Genesis 1:6-8.
Again, no reference to the multiverse.
Did I get the wrong verses?
I had to use an online-bible to look up these verses, because my bible isn't in English, so I thought maybe it was just a language issue, but these English verses don't talk about a multiverse either.

That the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the Stars didn't put forth their light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 This is a recent discovery of Science.

What science? I don't understand.
First of all, the bible verse doesn't say anything about the big bang either. And the big bang didn't occur on a 3rd day, this makes no sense. "Days" refere to the motion of our planet on its own axis in regards to the sun. So, there couldn't be any days before the big bang. So, if your book really says something like that, this is rather an indication for an error in your book.
Also... a recent scientific discovery showed that stars got created on the 4th day? This again makes no sense! Days depend on stars, they can't be there AFTER days already have passed... and I'm sure any scientist will tell you that!
What journal did you find this "discovery" in, where they claimed that stars got created on the fourth day?
It even takes stars longer to form than just one day, which is another reason why this makes no sense.

That every living creature, except Humans, had their origin in the water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was some 3.7 Billion years ago in man's time.

Wait... now you are switching from days to billion years? I really don't understand.

Can you refute God's Holy Word by showing us HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, knew and correctly wrote this in Genesis?

Well, so far nothing I read even agrees with our scientific discovery, so I'm not sure what you expect me to explain.
The things you say (stars getting created on the fourth day, the big bang being on a thrid day...) don't match with what we know about the formation of the universe, and the things you claim I can find in these verses (f.e. the bible describing the multiverse or the big bang) aren't there.
I don't know, maybe I'm reading the wrong bible?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

That the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the Stars didn't put forth their light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 This is a recent discovery of Science.
That every living creature, except Humans, had their origin in the water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was some 3.7 Billion years ago in man's time.

Care to back ANY of this up with evidence?

 

[idav]

Dear idav, It's the KJV which NO unbeliever can possibly understand. 1Co 2:14 If you have a problem understanding, I will be happy to explain. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Nowhere in the KJV does it talk about multiverse, the big bang and evolution.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok, so here I actually have a problem.
Because I don't know how this claim can be justified.
Literally EVERYTHING we know about consciousness and everything that is "us" (personality, ability to make choices, self-awarness) is linked to the brain. You damage the brain, you can demage the parts that link to these areas. So I don't see any possibility how "we" (anything of us) can outlast our brain.
I mean, granted, IF something about us (especially the consciousness) is independant of the brain, or not a product of the brain, then it certainly COULD go on...
But this is the key thing I'm asking about here: What's the evidence that this is actually so? And how can we explain the fact that brain-damage alters these things, if they do not actually depend on our brain?



This seems to stand in direct conflict to what you've said before.
You've writen "That our brain stops functioning does not mean necessarily that consciousness ceases", which implies that there IS such a thing as consciousness.

Ok, let's take this from a different angle:
Consciousness is our ability to experience stuff, right. It's essentially the "me" part.
Are you saying, that, if I die, there STILL is "me"? There STILL is the thing that percieves itself as "myself", that experiences stuff?
If yes, then I wonder how you can justify that, since these things are connected to the brain.
If no, then what is it, that gets reincarnated? If "I" don't keep existing, if my ability to experience stuff stops at the time of my dead, what is it, that goes on? Just my molecules? How is this "reincarnation"?

I perhaps view consciousness a little differently than most. The way I see it, consciousness is simply the ability to interact with our environment. Sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing, thought, emotion...are all ways in which we interact with our environment. Everything interacts in some way, even a rock or tree. Surely when the brain functioning stops or is damaged, our ability to interact will change. We may lose our sight, or our senses, or we may lose our feeling of consciousness, the feeling of self, but we will never stop interacting in some manner. Our interactive ability is not limited to the brain. It is the Fundamental Forces at play which allow us to interact and give us this feeling of "consciousness", to see, to touch, to taste, and to smell.... That which we call consciousness is not a product of the brain, it is a result of those Fundamental Interactions which exist everywhere and also outside of the brain.The brain is merely a complex mechanism by which many different interactions can be performed or realized at the same time and place. The brain is a complex, interactive device which can be altered or damaged thereby changing the degree of that interactiveness. The brain is not a producer or creator of consciousness any more than God is a creator of the universe. Nothing new is created or produced in the brain. It's complexity merely allows for a greater range of interaction than we would have without it...or, conversely, it may even limit our ability to interact in ways we would have never thought possible.