Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

reply to post by OldThinker & post by OldThinker


Christianpost.com & apologeticspress.org both very ungenuine sites. Can you find any other reports outside of these very anti-evolution sites? They've made up stuff in the past.

reply to post by Welfhard

I would like to believe in the soul but I'm naturally critical of faith.

I don't think it has anything to do with faith but with experience and some evidence. Science can not explain it fully at this moment.

I have create a thread on personal identity and others have created good threads on OBEs and NDEs. Granted, the concept of personal identity is more philosophical in nature.

This property is altered when the brain malfunctions.

No, the experience is altered but you are still you. It's a continuity of personal identity. I am aware of some studies on this but they do not answer the philosphical question.

reply to post by Welfhard


Yeah, I want real news sources too. Those stories could be fabricated or there are real reasons behind them.

Originally posted by EdCase512
.....Lastly and none too seriously, any so called scientist that will embrace the "jesus horsey" set needs to be examined really, really hard...then given a nice padded room.

What??????

Have you seen the few hundred posts/great scientists, proven right, who had a relationship with JC?


You are, or atleast the above statement, is, at best......extremist...sad really

OT

reply to post by Deaf Alien

No, the experience is altered but you are still you. It's a continuity of personal identity.

No, the property is altered as the brain malfunctions because the brain supports consciousness. That's why brain damage can change personality and memory as well as cognitive capacities (like reading and talking).

An analogy of this is an atom. Add/subtract electrons, neutrons or protons and you drastically change the properties and behaviour of the atoms.

Damage/alter crucial parts of the brains and it's behaviour and properties (i.e. consciousness) change.

"Identity" is a byproduct of self-awareness, which itself is part of consciousness.


I love neuroscience.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Boy, we have veered so far off the topic I'll find a good thread and we can continue the debate.

But anyway, my last answer in this thread:

That's why brain damage can change personality and memory as well as cognitive capacities

Just like I said. It can alter your personality, memory, etc. But can it alter your personal identity?

"Identity" is a byproduct of self-awareness, which itself is part of consciousness.

I always used to ask, "Why me and not you? Why am I aware of myself and not others?"

This is a vast subject and the debate can go on and on for a long time. This debate has not been settled.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Just like I said. It can alter your personality, memory, etc. But can it alter your personal identity?

But "personal identity" is merely a sense of self and one's intrinsic difference (and similarities) to others. Sense of self, a byproduct of the brain along side personality, memory, etc..

I always used to ask, "Why me and not you? Why am I aware of myself and not others?"

Why would your brain + mind be aware of any other brain. It's a similar thing to PCs. My PC is "aware" of it's components and hardware because they are all one thing - one discrete computer. It's not aware of the components of the Mac in the next room - why would it? It's not different for you.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

Why would your brain + mind be aware of any other brain.

That is not what I meant.

There are billions of people on earth, not counting all those people in the past and the future. Why am "I" in this body? I could have been you, or anyone else.

Here's a wiki on personal identity link

I am trying to find a good thread where we could continue the debate lol. Or we could create a new thread

reply to post by Welfhard

But the thing that gets me is the fact that people see numerous different gods of all different religion. So these experiences are mutually contradicting. Doesn't make any sense.

That is over simplification of a very involved and complex subject!

I can see it Now.... Major Announcement !....'Scientists today have found people see numerous different gods of all different religion. So these experiences are mutually contradicting.' There is No LIFE!

Is that all there is to this subject ???

How naive can one get, to sum up a phenomena that is so diverse and complex, into a conclusion of just two lines.

Man wouldn't it be great if all in this experience was that simple ???

I would suggest that the Scientific community deserves a little more credibility than that, don't you ???

No offence intended but really....

Not many experience what you claim! These are a very small minority!

The problem here is, it is Not what you propose to know, but rather what you don't know.

There will always be the opposites in humanity, it is part of the make up of your experience.

What you expect to happen at the end of this experience for you, shall Not happen but what you don't expect to happen shall happen.

It is always the unexpected that teaches you the most, or when most knowledge is found!

The things that shall happen, will Not be according to the thinking or beliefs of human primates.

In the Death experience I had, and I can only speak for myself, I did Not see or come across a god of Human imagination, or description!

It is humankind that chooses to make a religion out of knowledge or not, for whatever reasons, that I shall not judge.

But really don't let ignorance struggle against knowledge as LIFE always wins, no matter what your beliefs or desires!

This world or experience, is Not about anything a human can invent or believe.

So I guess you will come to know when it is your time, so don't struggle trying to reason against that which is at present unknown to you.

Peace...

[edit on 19-8-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by EdCase512
.....Lastly and none too seriously, any so called scientist that will embrace the "jesus horsey" set needs to be examined really, really hard...then given a nice padded room.

What??????

Have you seen the few hundred posts/great scientists, proven right, who had a relationship with JC?


You are, or atleast the above statement, is, at best......extremist...sad really

OT

I suggest reading again. Then correct yourself. "Jesus horseys" are the creationist version of a dinosaur. (Yes it's an insult)
Also think about the many, many great scientists that had NO knowledge of JC. Or even with knowledge...no special regard for either him or any other "god-man".
A belief does not affect ability, it merely reflects society and upbringing. Your argument holds no water.
Always remember the real "language" of science is mathematics, it wasn't a christian who "discovered" zero and the numerals you and I and most of the world use are called "Arabic" for a reason....

reply to post by Deaf Alien

OHHHH I see what you mean now. This thought first occurs when you look at that guy you admire (or girl even) and think "Why couldn't I be more like him or him?" Or something along those lines. The answer is just that it's an issue for the individual asking the question.

Thing is that you couldn't have been anyone else. You weren't standing in a que before reality waiting to be assigned a body. It's also like the guy who wins lottery. Someone had to win and no matter it is, that person will think themselves lucky. You ask me why you are you - you are you because a thing several cells big developed a brain, a function of which is that it's aware of itself the perspective of which is that it suddenly "was." like god is said to have been at "the beginning".

Basically it doesn't really matter, you can understand 'how' but not why because there is no 'why' - which is a philosophers wet dream!


reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Is that all there is to this subject ???

What it means is that people see what they expect to see. That means that the mind embroiders their experience in the exact same way a hallucination works.

So much of the NDE is a product of the mind as the brain dies. The simplest explanation of things is that there is nothing supernatural going on.

But sure, make some more assumptions and you definitely have an explanation that it's a supernatural experience.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

OHHHH I see what you mean now. This thought first occurs when you look at that guy you admire (or girl even) and think "Why couldn't I be more like him or him?" Or something along those lines. The answer is just that it's an issue for the individual asking the question.

Yes, basically I think you got it.

You ask me why you are you - you are you because a thing several cells big developed a brain, a function of which is that it's aware of itself the perspective of which is that it suddenly "was."

But it is the same for EVERY other brain. What is it that makes those cells different from any others? They are just cells. Same design in every brain. Just the firing of neurons.

I am aware of this self. What is it that makes me not the "other person"? This is not about getting "lucky". This is about YOU.

Gosh, I need a break.

I think it is simpler than the creationists make out - by concocting a complex, convoluted argument, the creationists attempt to 'lock-out' an alternative to the irrational basis of creationism. This is why creationists will not include any alternative in their teaching.

Consider this argument:

It's all about probability. the probability that the universe was created by:

- God (whichever god you happen to believe in)

or

- A giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin

Are the same.

While this sounds preposterous, it makes evolution look rather probable.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

I am aware of this self. What is it that makes me not the "other person"? This is not about getting "lucky". This is about YOU.

But you have to admit that it kinda is. That person who won the raffle isn't actually lucky, they were fated to win because the whole affair is deterministic.

The reason you are you and not someone else is because you cannot be anyone else, your just a machine. Your self awareness is attached to your brain, not the other way around and your brain was there first - and you are asking the question.

You just are is going to have to be a sufficient answer.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by mithrawept
I think it is simpler than the creationists make out - by concocting a complex, convoluted argument, the creationists attempt to 'lock-out' an alternative to the irrational basis of creationism. This is why creationists will not include any alternative in their teaching.

Consider this argument:

It's all about probability. the probability that the universe was created by:

- God (whichever god you happen to believe in)

or

- A giant intergalactic immortal lobster called Colin

Are the same.

While this sounds preposterous, it makes evolution look rather probable.

I know Colin, you should see his CLAW SHARPENER...rough dude!



Move along....

OT

reply to post by Welfhard

What it means is that people see what they expect to see.

Man what are U on???

Correction: Some expect. (Very very few have time to expect anything.) You only find this at the theatre ....

That means that the mind embroiders their experience in the exact same way a hallucination works.

Hmmmm what can I say ????

So much of the NDE is a product of the mind as the brain dies.

I see you do regard the Mind as some entity, that is separate from the Brain after all.... Are You starting to learn by your own words ???

The simplest explanation of things is that there is nothing supernatural going on.

Simplest ???

I don't recall mentioning anything Spiritual ???

Or am I missing something here???

But sure, make some more assumptions and you definitely have an explanation that it's a supernatural experience.

Sorry to disappoint you again...

Not into assumptions, as your self takes on board...

No offence intended in my comments...

Peace...


[edit on 19-8-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by mithrawept
....It's all about probability. ....

Yep, goo, cold/hot weather, crashing, time and chance! What was I thinking? Forgive me, that soooo logical!

please.....

Behe's central argument against human evolution hinges in how the malaria parasite P.falciparum has become resistant to chloroquine. The reason for invoking the malaria parasite is an estimate from the literature that the set of mutations necessary for choloroquine resistance has a probability of about 1 in 1020 of occurring spontaneously.

Any statistician is bound to wonder how such an estimate is obtained, and, needless to say, it is very crude. Obviously, nobody has performed huge numbers of controlled binomial trials, counting the numbers of parasites and successful mutation events. Rather, the estimate is obtained by considering the number of times chloroquine resistance has not only occurred, but taken over local populations -- an approach that obviously leads to an underestimate of unknown magnitude of the actual mutation rate, according to Nicholas Matzke's review in Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

Behe wishes to make the valid point that microbial populations are so large that even highly improbable events are likely to occur without the need for any supernatural explanations, but his fixation on such an uncertain estimate and its elevation to paradigmatic status seems like an odd practice for a scientist. Behe states a definition that incorporates the 1-in-1020 figure: "Let's dub mutation clusters of that degree of complexity -- 1 in 1020 -- 'chloroquine-complexity clusters,' or CCCs."

He then gores on to claim that, in the human population of the last 10 million years, where there have only been about 1012 individuals, the odds are solidly against such an unlikely event occurring even once. In Behe's own words and italics:

On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a 100 million times 10 million years. Since that is many times the age of the universe, it's reasonable to conclude the following: No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past 10 million years,

source: www.talkreason.org...

reply to post by Welfhard

The reason you are you and not someone else is because you cannot be anyone else, your just a machine.

Bravo... You are absolutely Correct..

Your self awareness is attached to your brain,

Right again....

not the other way around and your brain was there first

I don't think so.... Think again!

Prove me wrong if you can....

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

I don't think so.... Think again!

Prove me wrong if you can...

Prove yourself right. It's not on my head. After all consciousness develops from childhood - it's an evolved attribute an countless of other creatures have it too but not to the degree that we do.

It's a property, and attribute of the sum of brain functions. That's all.

reply to post by OldThinker


Absolutely, Colin the giant intergalactic immortal lobster made the malaria parasite P.falciparum resistant to chloroquine. Colin did this, so that creationists could use it as an argument to debunk evolutionists. Smart eh?

Just because a specific scientist can't explain something now, doesn't mean that it can't be explained in the future.

After all, only a few hundred years ago, theists were murdering 'witches'. Even theists move on (unless of course you've had a few good witch burnings lately?).