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

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

I accused you of having only faith (again, not religion, they are vastly different) because...

a) you believe this nonsense
b) without evidence.

That's the definition of the word.

You can't just turn around and say "NO YOU!" when my position is based solely on evidence and science.


Quod Gratis asseritur, Gratis negatur.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


You are entirely free to have your own faith in what you believe....

Look don't get so uptight with my comments....

Just lay in your bed at the end of the day and contemplate what you know and try Not to think about what I have said....

Don't let it all get to you, as you don't upset me at all, and the Universe will continue on in spite of me or you...

We Shall all know Truth in the End.... No matter what we believe or think...

And that we can all be thankful for that...

It is all there for YOU to experience....

Peace...

and I mean this in the most honourable way...

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

Perhaps You would be incapable of understanding ???

Sorry but I am not interested in coming down into the gutter to brawl...

.....And that is what yielding to defeat looks like boys and girls.

Yes I am honoured to be slaughtered by you but I remain at peace with Life which I am truly grateful for...

I hope you find the same in this World...

Truly...

Tell the whole world how great you are please and I shall watch you have your feast....

But it is IMPOSSIBLE for You to change Truth, You are Powerless....

No matter how much you yell out and claim, you can NOT win your Fight against LIFE....

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

We Shall all know Truth in the End.... No matter what we believe or think.

No, because if I'm right then knowledge is wiped from our heads with our consciousness when we are truly dead - that is oblivion for you.

But it is IMPOSSIBLE for You to change Truth, You are Powerless....

No matter how much you yell out and claim, you can NOT win your Fight against LIFE.

Nor can you. So when it comes to understanding life, we ought follow the science.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Here's a good website to get you started. Plenty of good evidence.

www.near-death.com...

reply to post by OldThinker


Creationists can teach whatever they want at Sunday School. The reason God is not a permissible explanation in a classroom is because there is absolutely no evidence that he exists or ever existed. We don't teach children ideas that have not been confirmed with independent research (AKA confirmed via the Scientific Method).

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Does it feature any rigorous scientific investigations? Because otherwise I'm inclined to believe that the site's "evidence" will be skewed by bias.

Several things that make me instantly very skeptical.
"Edgar Cayce"
"Christianity"
"Jesus Christ"

Apparently the Hindu don't have NDE's.

:/

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by Solomons

 

Creationism doesn't have proof? lol. Would you agree that statistics is a science? Well if you do then think on this statistically speaking of course. Evolution..a theory mind you...taught as science.....hmmm. Ok life just begun. Do you know that there is a greater chance for a blind man to complete a rubics cube than life just to begin. Ok you say. Now do you know that if the world was filled with blind men shoulder to shoulder and they completed the cube at the exact same time is also more statistically to occur. Now fill our galaxy with blind men shoulder to shoulder with the cube and they complete it at the exact same time. Yep you guessed it. lol--->no evidence for Creationism.

In order for you to argue that the formation of life is impossibly rare or unlikely, you would have to examine a sample of planets friendly to the existence or emergence of life that is large enough to be reasonably representative of all planets in the universe. So, how many planets besides Earth have you sampled in order to reach your conclusion?

Life didn't simply appear as a complex organism. Rather, it began with as simple single-celled organisms. The basic building blocks of life are proteins and the building blocks of proteins are amino acids, and recently amino acids were discovered on a comet flying through space. You're effectively arguing that a human or other complex organism appearing from scratch via natural processes is virtually impossible. The issue at hand, however, is whether a single-celled organism could come as a result of naturally occurring forces acting upon a number of naturally occurring components. It may take random chance quite a while for a monkey to accidentally type out a Shakespeare play, but the task of making a single celled organism is far less complex.

Source (NASA Stardust Spacecraft):From Comet, a clue to life

Your blind man analogy is absurd rhetoric.
1. First, you presume that all life in the universe would have to be carbon based. As Earthlings, all we know for certain in that regard is that carbon-based life is possible. As for the other elements, we lack any information to prove one way or the other that other lifeforms could be based on other elements.

2. Second, you seem to imply that all similar life in the universe would have to have been created at roughly the same time. I don't think anyone has ever suggested such a ridiculous premise - so, once again you are making a strawman argument against a nonexistent opponent.

3. You seem to forget that regardless of what planet you're on, certain basic physical laws of chemistry and biology still apply. Moreover, potential life forms on other planets would have arisen in the presence of the same elements that Earth-based life arose. All the non-biological forces on Earth, such as sunlight, volcanism, lightning, and liquid water, are all quite likely to occur on other worlds. At least in regard to carbon-based life, this environment facilitates the development of life. In order for life on this hypothetical planet survive, life would have to be able to tolerate such things as gravity, radiation, and the planet's temperature range. From an environmental standpoint, such life would likely have much in common with earth-based life since both would have had to be able to thrive in the face of the same challenges.

The universe contains an incredibly large number of stars, and the conditions and ingredients required to start and support life probably exist in many, many millions of places. Furthermore, these places may include intergalactic space, within gases where life’s precursors may first have formed, then evolved, to create living entities that waft through the heavens in forms vastly different from ones we might recognize. Based on the enormous number of galaxies spotted Hubble, the probability of the formation of a single celled organism, something you consider almost impossible, can only increase.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by Welfhard

No, because if I'm right then knowledge is wiped from our heads with our consciousness when we are truly dead - that is oblivion for you.

Some may Not agree with you on this so lets just see on the day we take our last breath.

This day will show the Truth, No matter what I say or anyone else, wouldn't you agree ??

This is the ultimate test!

No one can escape!

No matter what their beliefs or qualifications are.

Guess you are just going to have to be patient and wait for that day...

There is nothing to gain by arguing over this subject is there ???

Why then, did Darwin, in his autobiography, write, “I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”?
It is unquesstionable that Darwin had many interactions with Christianity. He attended Christ Church seminary for tree years. The Captain of the Beagle was a devout believer, who read the bible to CD nightly. When CD would mention a god, it was almost always to explain an unanswered question. It was much like Sir Isaac Newton, who, being unable the resolve adequatly a three body gravitational problel, said, "It is God's design." The differential and integral calculus he invented were not quite powerful enough to deal with non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. It took the somewhat later work of Lagrange and Poincare in perturbational mechanics to eliminate the necessity of calling on some god to explain what is not yet understood.
My point, I guess, is that we should always demand the right to be smarter tomorrow than today. It is only then that understanding will replace faith.

I found a website to help you guys: en.wikipedia.org...

And evidence of speciation: www.talkorigins.org...

I hope you guys read those pages, didn't take long to find, and really reconsider denying a scientific fact.
As well as you can read some books, The Blind Watchmaker is a very good account of evolution, and Dawkins' new book "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems promising too. Comes out Sept. 22nd I think.

Edit: I just remembered an argument that has popped up many times, honestly it came from people less rounded in the evolution/creationism debate than yourselves, so I don't know if you guys find this a valid argument but I'll just address it now: Myth that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is that within an isolated system entropy, measure of randomness, cannot decrease. Earth isn't an isolated system. (scienceblogs.com...)

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Vinci]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

I accused you of having only faith (again, not religion, they are vastly different) because...

a) you believe this nonsense
b) without evidence.

What exactly is it that you think is nonsense?

The idea that consciousness is separate from the brain?

Knowledge and consciousness are very different things.

YOU are immortal. YOU are the observer.

What would ever make you think the driver needs a vehicle to exist?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Jezus]

Jezuz: If you put a bullet between someone's eyes, they (hopefully for them) will not respond. All of their memories, thoughts, and ability to observe the universe, cease. There has never been a proven return of consciousness once the entire brain is dead. That is what we know, if you choose to think otherwise, you choose to do so on a complete lack of evidence, with extreme hypothetical arguments entailing.

Originally posted by Vinci
Jezuz: If you put a bullet between someone's eyes, they (hopefully for them) will not respond. All of their memories, thoughts, and ability to observe the universe, cease. There has never been a proven return of consciousness once the entire brain is dead. That is what we know, if you choose to think otherwise, you choose to do so on a complete lack of evidence, with extreme hypothetical arguments entailing.

Their is absolutely no evidence of that.

We know the consciousness leaves the physical body, but their is absolutely no reason to believe it ceases to exist.

The entity, the you, the me, that feels, and thinks is not part of the physical world.

When you speak in your mind...you hear it...but not with your ears...
When you see in your mind...you see it...but not with your eyes...

Where are these "sounds"?
What are these "images"?

Every time you think, you force you brain to admit that it is not YOU.

Every single thought you have is the evidence that YOU are separate from your brain and the physical reality.

I really don't know why a person would think that the driver needs a vehicle to exist.

reply to post by Jezus

What exactly is it that you think is nonsense?

The idea that consciousness is separate from the brain?

Knowledge and consciousness are very different things.

YOU are immortal. YOU are the observer.

Well firstly, I am not the observation and there is also nothing that says one cannot observe oneself. The observer dilemma is false.

"The idea that consciousness is separate from the brain" is just that, an idea, a belief, a faith. If they are separate then the state of the brain should not influence the consciousness but it does. You can see this with altering the brain chemistry. If the brain is just a sense and control processing unit for the consciousness which is separate then people shouldn't get happy or depressed when certain chemicals enter their system - their ability to sense and move should be the only things affected, but they are not.

The other thing is that peoples consciousness can be divided neatly into 2 individual discrete consciousnesses when the hemispheres of the brain are cut off from one another. That means that a global process universal across the brain (consciousness) is now divided. This can only happen if consciousness is a product of the brain.

When you speak in your mind...you hear it...but not with your ears...
When you see in your mind...you see it...but not with your eyes...

When you speak in your head, the parts of your brain responsible for auditory perception light up (fMRI I'm talking).
The same occurs with the visual system when you visualise something.
The same even occurs in the motor cortex when you watch someone move - your brain replicates the movement.

Where are these "sounds"?
What are these "images"?

Where are the 1's and 0's and videos and music in a computer?

Every time you think, you force you brain to admit that it is not YOU.

Every single thought you have is the evidence that YOU are separate from your brain and the physical reality.

No, all you are proving is that the brain is a super-compartmentalised structure which has internal structures that communicate among each other.

We know the consciousness leaves the physical body, but their is absolutely no reason to believe it ceases to exist.

There is no reason to think it exists beyond death, either.

The entity, the you, the me, that feels, and thinks is not part of the physical world.

Same with the internet and virtual worlds of videogames, but you don't suppose that they exist when the computers are destroyed, do you.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
If the brain is just a sense and control processing unit for the consciousness which is separate then people shouldn't get happy or depressed when certain chemicals enter their system - their ability to sense and move should be the only things affected, but they are not.

No one is saying that the brain doesn't have influence over the perception of the observer.

The point is that the brain can not feel.

The third party, separate from the brain, must do the feeling.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Where are the 1's and 0's and videos and music in a computer?

That is exactly the point of the this whole issue.

Being conscious is different from being a computer...

- Either you are a computer, and the numbers control you, the programming IS your thought.

- OR you are an observing third party that reacts to the brain. As living creatures we react to the hardwired programming (our physical body and brain). The more "advanced" or intelligent the less you are controlled by the hard wiring. Think of an insect that is more or less a biological robot. But unlike a synthetic computer our thoughts are not simply bound by programming, that's why we can create, do something different, and learn.

Originally posted by Welfhard
No, all you are proving is that the brain is a super-compartmentalised structure which has internal structures that communicate among each other.

If you really thought about it you would realize that this statement is the equivalent of saying you are a computer robot that is simply acting without feeling.

The brain is communicating with your mind.
If your brain was communicating with your brain you would be a robot.

It is ironic that once living creatures become self aware they become obsessed with the mortality of their physical bodies and completely forgot about who "me" really is.

Think about the "aliveness" of plants.
Think about the material of dreams.
Think about the perception of extreme emotions, like pain or hysteria.

When you put the pieces together you realize that nature is the counterpart of consciousness. Your body is more a part of the the world around you than part of YOU. It is simply a point of observation.

BUT YOU AND THE UNIVERSE ARE TWO DISTINCT SEPARATE ENTITIES.

You body exists within the physical Universe, but your mind, your consciousness, your "soul", whatever you want to call YOU exists outside of this world observing it.

Their is absolutely no reason to think YOU cease existing just because this physical world ends.

Originally posted by Welfhard
There is no reason to think it exists beyond death, either.

Death is a way of describing the deterioration of flesh, it has nothing to do with the mind.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus

No one is saying that the brain doesn't have influence over the perception of the observer.

The point is that the brain can not feel.

The third party, separate from the brain, must do the feeling.

You haven't addressed the point at all. The mind, the personality and consciousness that you say is separate from the brain are also separate from sense and perception which can be altered because they are done in the brain. But that which you say is separate from the brain is just as alterable as perception and sense. This cannot be so if the mind and brain are separate.

That is exactly the point of the this whole issue.

Being conscious is different from being a computer...

- Either you are a computer, and the numbers control you, the programming IS your thought.

But you have no proof that a programming cannot be conscious like the mind. Remember that the brain and it's functions have evolved over 3 billion years and we are just now making computers with varying levels of intelligence. The brain evolves structure upon structure. Currently the understanding of the human mind is that it's a mesh of millions of brain functions and a degree of selfawareness (because it is not absolute) emerges (via emergence) from this net function. It works in the same way that from a society emerges a shared social consciousness.

But unlike a synthetic computer our thoughts are not simply bound by programming, that's why we can create, do something different, and learn.

A computer can do those things too.

If you really thought about it you would realize that this statement is the equivalent of saying you are a computer robot that is simply acting without feeling.

Not really. There is no question that the body is a machine, a biological evolved structure made for it's environement. The mind is in some ways like a computer in that thoughts are a product of neurology as 1s and 0s are a product of the computers circuitry. A lot of the time we do simply act on impulse when conscious functions and instinct take over but we certainly 'feel' as well. Atleast we do by any definition of the word, I have read and as an autonomous being, we are capable of that.

You are also failing to grasp that consciousness is a thing of degree, less or more. Some people are more or less than other people, we are more than when we were infants and we are more than when we are asleep or dead.
It's a capacity that the brain develops but cannot sustain constantly. It's no wonder that as we are more conscious than other mammals that our brains require a more significant proportion of the energy that we intake.

Death is a way of describing the deterioration of flesh, it has nothing to do with the mind.

Sure it does. Brain death equals the termination of mind - unless you can prove that something else sustains the mind.

Originally posted by Welfhard
The mind, the personality and consciousness that you say is separate from the brain are also separate from sense and perception which can be altered because they are done in the brain. But that which you say is separate from the brain is just as alterable as perception and sense. This cannot be so if the mind and brain are separate.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting, but this is a complete logical fallacy.

You are trying to "beat me" but you are not trying to understand the point.

Just because the mind can be altered by manipulation of the brain does not in anyway way what so ever mean that the mind is not a completely separate entity.

If you change the binoculars of course it is going to change what you see, but that doesn't mean that you are part of the binoculars, it simply means your mind is going through the binoculars. Just as our minds are being "filtered" through our brains.

In the rest of your post you confuse the difference between mind and brain.

The mind only feels.

The brain is what takes the power source of the soul and transforms it into thought.

The body is what takes the thought and transforms it into action.

The brain is nothing but an intermediary between an eternal soul and the physical body.

When you were talking about the evolution of the mind/brain you were on the right track...

Think about these issues.

The aliveness of plants, and the consciousness of plants.
The way that our bodies and minds react to extreme emotions.
The perception of time, and what aging really is.
The reaction of the mind to brain damage

What you will start to realize is that your mind is a separate entity that is being poured through the amazing vehicle of the brain.

I'm not trying to debate you, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, you obviously are intelligent but you just need to take it a little farther.

The great thing about this issue is that you don't have to "believe" me. Nature and the state of consciousness itself proves this to us at every single instant of our thought.

It is just a matter of realizing it.



[edit on 22-8-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus

The brain is what takes the power source of the soul and transforms it into thought.

But that is just an assumption with no supporting evidence. It's also an assumption that we don't need to make AND logically goes against what is known about the brain.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting, but this is a complete logical fallacy.

Hey it's your idea, buddy.

If the mind uses the brain as a conduit to the world then the world should not be able to alter the mind, only the brain.

However the scientific model where the mind is an emergent property of the brain predicts all the damages that are done to the brain will produce very specific deficits and altering the brain will alter it's properties in kind. It predicts everything that we see including that a mind can be divided in two by cutting the Corpus callosum. If the mind was the soul/spirit and was separate from the body - we can cut it in half. Certain medical treatments involve the cutting of the corpus callosum and what happens is that the hemispheres can't communicate properly so a persons awareness, consciousness, personality, memories and will become hemisphere dependant - they are different.

Can a soul be divided?

Your hypothesis is rendered contradictory by split brain patients.


Look into it: Split Brain

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

Several things that make me instantly very skeptical.
"Edgar Cayce"
"Christianity"
"Jesus Christ"

I didn't read that part, but I am sure they are there on that website. It is unbiased. There are various articles from all over from many people and scientists of different faith or no faith at all.

There are few articles from neuroscientists.

The website is on NDE researches. Nothing biased.