Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[outhouse]

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

Sure it does. factually.


Experiment


Go unplug your PC and see how much thinking it does

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sure it does. factually.


Experiment


Go unplug your PC and see how much thinking it does

Factually, your computer will still continue to interact in some manner, even though it may be in a less complex manner than when it was plugged in. What I am getting at is that it doesn't matter how we continue to interact after that stage we call death, only that we do.

 

[Sapiens]

I'd say that the quality and intensity of the interaction is of some singular import.

 

[fantome profane]

Factually, your computer will still continue to interact in some manner, even though it may be in a less complex manner than when it was plugged in. What I am getting at is that it doesn't matter how we continue to interact after that stage we call death, only that we do.

You mean it interacts the way a rock does. And after death we will interact with the universe the same way any other inanimate matter does.

 

[kiwimac]

I fail to see why the argument about this, sooner or later we will all find out.

 

[fantome profane]

I fail to see why the argument about this, sooner or later we will all find out.

So no point in understanding the natural world, no point in studying science, just wait till we die and "God" will explain it all to us. Is that it?

 

[RichardParker]

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.

Actually, YES, we WILL stop "interacting".
Not because the interaction stops, but WE stop.
What do you think "we" are, rather than the specific assmeblence of parts that we are at the moment?
And did I get this straight: You think everything that interacts is or has consciousness (by your definition of this word)?
Why would you use a word ("consciousness"), that already has a meaning and usage, and use it in a completly different way?
If you just mean "interaction", why not just say "interaction", and use the term "consciousness" in a way that it is usually used? You gain nothing, it only confuses.

So, sure, if we are just talking about "interactions", then sure.
The parts that make "us" us won't stop existing just because we die and can interact further.
Now what? I thought reincarnation, in which you say you believe, contains the idea that WE (the aware part of us) keeps on existing, not just our physical parts that can further interact.
Or do you again mean something entirely different when you say "reincarnation", than anybody else?

 

[Thief]

I'd say that the quality and intensity of the interaction is of some singular import.

As in 'bang!'....Let there be light!

Or that initial introduction......I AM!

 

[Aman777]

"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?

Dear Richard, Sorry, but that is NOT what the KJV shows. You are confused. Here is what is actually written:

Gen 2:4¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

What Day was the earth made? According to Gen 1:9-10, it was the 3rd Day.

"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.

Again, your version is confusing you. Here is the KJV:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The firmament was the BOUNDARY of the first Heaven and protected the interior of the firmament from the water into which it was placed on the 2nd Day. God called the firmament Heaven. It was the FIRST Heaven and other HeavenS (Plural) were NOT made until the 3rd Day as I showed above. One plus others equals at least THREE Universes within our Multiverse.

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.

The verses show that ONE firmament or Heaven was made the Second Day and other HeavenS were made on the 3rd Day. The first Heaven was made BEFORE the Big Bang of our Universe which happened on the THIRD Day or Age. Remember that the FIRST Stars didn't put forth their light until the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16

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.

Each of God's Days or Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time, which could NOT have been measured by today's Science until the FOURTH Day, when the Stars began to shine. Science has recently learned that the FIRST Stars did NOT form and put forth their light until Hundreds of Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang. The James Webb Space Telescope As you can see, Genesis correctly agrees with this latest Scientific discovery. It's PROOF of God since NO man could have known this scientific FACT 3k years ago.

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

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?

Today remains the 6th Day in the Creation of the perfect Heaven. At the end of the present 6th Day, Jesus will return and change EVERY living creature into a Vegetarian according to Gen 1:30. This is EVIDENCE that each of God's Days are some 4.5 billion years in length, since it has been THREE Days since the Big Bang. Divide 13.7 Billion years by 3 and it comes out to some 4.5 Billion years in length for each of God's Days, in man's time.

I use the KJV since it allows access to the original Hebrew and Greek words used, and is not paraphrased as some versions are. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Care to back ANY of this up with evidence?

Dear Quaxotic, Sure. See my last post to Richard. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[McBell]

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

Define "spirit" in a useful and or meaningful way.

 

[McBell]

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 made the claim,
You support your claim.

Otherwise your claim can be just as easily dismissed as it was presented.

 

[Thief]

YOU made the claim,
You support your claim.

Otherwise your claim can be just as easily dismissed as it was presented.

So too your denial.
Got a reason?......to say nay.

 

[McBell]

So too your denial.
Got a reason?......to say nay.

And once again I ask:

What is it you claim I am denying?​

 

[Thief]

And once again I ask:

What is it you claim I am denying?​

At this point you offer only word games.
That you don't believe is only a claim.

I believe someone had to be first to walk with God.
Faith requires no proving.

Shall your disbelief hold as unproven?

 

[McBell]

At this point you offer only word games.
That you don't believe is only a claim.

I believe someone had to be first to walk with God.
Faith requires no proving.

Shall your disbelief hold as unproven?

What disbelief do you claim I hold?

I hold no active belief either way when it comes to gods.
So, once again you make hasty assumptions in favour of your snake oil.
Then hide behind your faith...

Interesting that you once again did not answer a direct question.

 

[Thief]

What disbelief do you claim I hold?

I hold no active belief either way when it comes to gods.
So, once again you make hasty assumptions in favour of your snake oil.
Then hide behind your faith...

Interesting that you once again did not answer a direct question.

And your word games are less than interesting.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I believe someone had to be first to walk with God.

This is presupposition.

Faith requires no proving.

The is the crux of the argument of the existence vs. the non-existent god. Such debates are cyclic and an exercise in futility.

In this instance where not requiring faith. The falsifiable and testable evidence shows an old earth and that humans on the planet can trace their existence back tens of thousands of years genetically.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You mean it interacts the way a rock does. And after death we will interact with the universe the same way any other inanimate matter does.

Yes, continual interaction in one form or another. Can we say specifically what form that will be? I don't think so.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Actually, YES, we WILL stop "interacting".
Not because the interaction stops, but WE stop.
What do you think "we" are, rather than the specific assmeblence of parts that we are at the moment?
And did I get this straight: You think everything that interacts is or has consciousness (by your definition of this word)?
Why would you use a word ("consciousness"), that already has a meaning and usage, and use it in a completly different way?
If you just mean "interaction", why not just say "interaction", and use the term "consciousness" in a way that it is usually used? You gain nothing, it only confuses.

So, sure, if we are just talking about "interactions", then sure.
The parts that make "us" us won't stop existing just because we die and can interact further.
Now what? I thought reincarnation, in which you say you believe, contains the idea that WE (the aware part of us) keeps on existing, not just our physical parts that can further interact.
Or do you again mean something entirely different when you say "reincarnation", than anybody else?

Everything that is "we" is interaction. Our consciousness is interaction. Reincarnation is just a personal belief of mine. I believe that some interactive part that we could relate to as our "self" continues on after that stage we call death and on into another highly interactive existence.. Obviously there is nothing anyone can provide as evidence for this, which is why it is just a belief. I simply believe that after "death" we will be more interactive and more animated that most people think.


---