something evolutionists can not explain

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans
...
[SNIP]

Because they are part of SCIENCE class, don't you remember school at all? Science class is a overall general class of different sciences. Biology is one type of science, and Astronomy is another. The are all part of science which overall goal is to better understand the world around us. Religion is a failed hypothesis.


you have been indoctrinated very well by the state. evolution is the failed hypothesis, but scientists are fired if they disagree with evolution (watch "expelled"), so that the youth of our nation can be indoctrinated such as you have been.

Mod Edit: Removed nested quote.
Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Simply because the soul exists, does not mean it comes from God
yes it does. your wrong. period.in fact that is the most wrong thing
anyone can say.it's stupid. the soul dosn't come from God! think
about that. it's just stupid. good thread .s&f.





[edit on 20-8-2009 by randyvs]


If there's no god or gods, then there's no soul.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Simply because the soul exists, does not mean it comes from God
yes it does. your wrong. period.in fact that is the most wrong thing
anyone can say.it's stupid. the soul dosn't come from God! think
about that. it's just stupid. good thread .s&f.





[edit on 20-8-2009 by randyvs]


If there's no god or gods, then there's no soul.


if there is no soul there would be no consciousness, just unconscious physical motion.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Reply to post by FantasmaTaans
 


and human compassion is???? Just a flood of serotonin in the brain or what?

I do agree with you on pain. That is however a negative feeling, and flesh is a negative thing. Where do the positive feelings come from?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I'm a F-16 crew chief in the USAF not a biologist, so don't quote me on this, it's possible it's a by-product of our mind during our evolution from apes. At least that's what I've read. It is obvious though that our feelings are biological though and one example showing this is blind people. A person his whole life would be blind. He smiles still when he's happy, not knowing what is a happy expression in the human face. Smiling is a human response to happiness or similar feelings. Or something like that.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritfilled

[removed nested quote(s)]

even several millions of years into the future, even with all the computer technology possible (biotechnollegy also), a computer will not be able to feel pain, because it is simply a lifeless collection of protons and neutrons.


Who are you to say that though? How can you say it's impossible for a machine to not feel pain? (Mix of philosophy here.) I don't mean to bring up the fictional world of Battlestar Galactica, but it's very relevant in our technology today. How can you say that it's impossible for a robot to do that, and by what definition are you trying to characterize life? Trees aren't animals, but they're still living organisms. How can we say that it's not possible to create machines who are alive?


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans

[Removed nested quote(s)]

Who are you to say that though? How can you say it's impossible for a machine to not feel pain? (Mix of philosophy here.) I don't mean to bring up the fictional world of Battlestar Galactica, but it's very relevant in our technology today. How can you say that it's impossible for a robot to do that, and by what definition are you trying to characterize life? Trees aren't animals, but they're still living organisms. How can we say that it's not possible to create machines who are alive?


trees are not as alive as we are because they are not conscious (at least i don't think they are
) they exist at a far lower level of life than animals.


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritfilled


you have been indoctrinated very well by the state. evolution is the failed hypothesis, but scientists are fired if they disagree with evolution (watch "expelled"), so that the youth of our nation can be indoctrinated such as you have been.


Wow Expelled is the biggest part of propaganda I've ever seen. Numerous quote mining and mind-numbing stupidity. I'm not indoctrinated, I'm taught. I learned through little experiments in biology class, which you can test out biology in front your face. You discuss and you learn. Evolution is testable and has been tested for over 150 years and proven. The reason why the consensus of scientist agree with the theory of evolution is because they saw the result of test. You obviously don't know too much about science. As soon as hypothesis becomes theory, it is put on EXTREME scrutiny. Scientist eat their own, they will want to be the one to disprove a theory first, and when they find that the certain theory is able to be retested in a different laboratory with the same results, it's a theory.

Indoctrination is used to the religious organization to keep a society or group of people in line.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritfilled

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Simply because the soul exists, does not mean it comes from God
yes it does. your wrong. period.in fact that is the most wrong thing
anyone can say.it's stupid. the soul dosn't come from God! think
about that. it's just stupid. good thread .s&f.





[edit on 20-8-2009 by randyvs]


If there's no god or gods, then there's no soul.


if there is no soul there would be no consciousness, just unconscious physical motion.


Fail, our brain contains our consciousness.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritfilled

[Removed nested quote(s)]


trees are not as alive as we are because they are not conscious (at least i don't think they are
) they exist at a far lower level of life than animals.


EPIC FAIL!: You do know there is no set definition of life, but life is described by characteristics. You can't say I'm more alive than you! The fact is if a object falls into one of those characteristics then it's alive. It's stupid to say that you are more alive than a chipmunk in a park simply because you have cognitive thinking skills (which you aren't using very much). I'm just saying. There is no life scale, but you're referring to the food chain. Pick up a biology book or something buddy.

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Hey spiritfilled, thanks for debating with me and letting me prove you wrong multiple times, been a while since I proved creationist wrong many times, and it's still good to know I still got it
, but I have to get ready to go to baseball game. So I'm going to get ready now for it, and let you be. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

STAY LOGICAL PEOPLE I'LL BE BACK LATER!!!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a tree is a vastly different type of life than an animal/human. a tree is in the same category as bacteria: unconscious reproductive and growing entity. it is indeed a much lower type of life than a human.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
How do you know matter is not conscious? Are you God? Are you all knowing?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thirty3
matter as y0u think does not exist...we are pure conciousness.


Unfortunately most here are incapable of grasping that idea.
They filter it out.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
There's only one more thing to say to the uneducated and ignorant OP of this thread:




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiritfilled
a tree is a vastly different type of life than an animal/human. a tree is in the same category as bacteria: unconscious reproductive and growing entity. it is indeed a much lower type of life than a human.


Wow, what a crappy thing to say, one life is more important to another life.

Life is life.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
New to ATS and couldn't stand back long enough to check if this has alredy be said, so I'm sorry if it has.

Anyways, hasn't science already noted that there is a photon or neutron (I'm sorry it's late and I can't remember where I read it.) that acts differently when observed by people, thus it probably has some form of conciousness!?! If I can remember where I found that info I'll post it.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


OMG just spat a ghost pop out of my nose,sir you made my day with that.

@ The OP

Just that I can get on topic here are we discussing the black Jesus here or the white one? The one with curly hair and dark skin or the blonde hair girly looking one?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
please people, try to evaluate this rationally rather than assuming that evolution is an unshakable fact regardless of evidence. some of the most fervent christians began as athiests, but then let the facts guide them, rather than there high school indoctrination.

if you believe that lifeless protons and electrons can magically become conscious simply from arranging them in a certain pattern, you probably havent judged that facts with an open mind which would lead you to truth.

i perceive the illuminati has been quite successful in the indoctrination of our youth. youth have very mallable minds, which is why they are targeted most excessively.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Spiritfilled]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiritfilled
 


This thread is funny. The premise is that matter cannot become conscious which is a rather odd thing to say. It's funny because there is a one word solution....

Emergence!






The other thing is that to say that consciousness couldn't occur naturally, i.e. materialistically is to give a very strict definition to the word. In reality, consciousness is very poorly defined, science has no official definition of it yet so the dictionary will only gist at a meaning - a 'popular belief' kind of meaning.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiritfilled
 


Define: consciousness.

Consciousness, requires energy, be it physical, or spiritual.
The physical universe is made up of energy, vibrating at certain frequencies to coalesce into matter.
The spirit is the well spring from which our consciousness flows.
The spirit is also known as our source, or our energy.
Energy can be encoded with information.
A simple stone is made up of structured molecules, which are atoms aligned with one another, which in turn are made of energy, which have certain patterns of frequency.
In other words, they have an informational blueprint inherent in their existance.
The same can be said of all matter in the universe, as well as the varying frequencies of energy.

If everything is made from the same stuff, they then share a common trait, even if it is only at the quantum level.

Consciousness can be interpreted as biological, electrical and chemical messages sent back and forth throughout the brain.
All of these stimuli have one inherrant trait. They convey informational energy to the array of tissues that give us awareness.
The energy is the same a mentioned before as is the matter of the brain.
Consciousness, while difficult to accurately explain in terms that everyone can completely understand, it is not lost to anyone.
We are, therefore we think.
if one were to believe in a creator, one would have to rationalize the fact that that creator gave us the wonderful gift of free will.
Free will coincides with thought, as it allows our mind to conceptualize, anything it can.............conceptualize.
The inherent flaw, as adequately describes by so many, is that our consciousness is limited, by societal, and religious controls, that encourage nothing more than blind faith and the reduction of free will.
It is also admitted, by religious influences, that the "creator" gave us free will, yet all of the religions of the world seek to inhibit that gift as much as possible.
I wonder, what precisely the motivation for that could be?
It is certainly not to increase our spirituality.
Scientifically, all conclusions must be reached by leaps of faith. Once discovered, true or otherwise, answers become the questions.
On a personal note.
I yield my beliefs to no one. If I am to believe anything, it is because I discovered it for myself. No one, and I mean no one has the right to try and make me believe anything.
Which is why I say to anyone reading this, don't take my word for it. Discover the answers for yourself, as I can only "show" you mine.




[edit on 8/21/2009 by reticledc]





top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join