It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
go do something constructive
Yes, really. Changes in your brain cause changes in your conscious experience, and changes in conscious experience can always be explained by changes in the brain. The mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain. People with brain damage have mental dysfunction. You can predict brain damage if you observe mental dysfunction. You can take psychoactive drugs which alter your brain chemistry and your conscious experience will change. Every state of consciousness can be directly mapped to a neurobiological state. The relationship is one to one, as far as we know. We haven't completed the mapping process, but so far it's one to one. Functionally identical. It just looks different when you are the brain in question then when you observe it from the outside.
Do you suppose that this perfectly exact one to one mapping of brain state to consciousness state is a coincidence? If you damage your hippocampus, you won't be able to form memories. If you damage your optic nerve, your won't have visual experiences of sense perceptions. If you excite your pleasure centers, you will feel pleasure. How can any rational person refuse to accept that the brain causes conscious experience when these relationships can be - and have been - demonstrated experimentally? You can hold your breath right now until you pass out. You know why? Because your brain is starved of oxygen so it stops working, and since it causes consciousness, you cease to be conscious. You can test it right now and prove which one of us is right. Go ahead.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Terapin
1The Bible states that Eagles carry their young on their wings, which is factually incorrect and scientifically impossible.
Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat
2 Does this say bats are birds to you. Why do you insist on ambarassiing yourself.
3 Who is the one who was tasked with naming every animal?
It was Adam.
[edit on 29-3-2010 by randyvs]
“Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”
“the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”
“In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”
see you do this alot someone will tell you what something is and you say something along the lines of "nuhuh your dumb" as for the brain arguement we had earlier sink your optical nerves into this (i found this on another thread about science explaining NDE's)
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ashanu90
see you do this alot someone will tell you what something is and you say something along the lines of "nuhuh your dumb" as for the brain arguement we had earlier sink your optical nerves into this (i found this on another thread about science explaining NDE's)
Your funny. You think you have to explain scientific explanations to me.
Your like some one who is full of shizzle, you keep putting words in my mouth. It's also very childish to repeat my use of the moderate term," zip
it" back to me. Everyone knows science has explanations. You've already told the world you don't believe you have a soul. You don't believe in
God, magic NDEs. The list you wil find as I said before will have to grow. Life to you is a space between two nothings.
Nothing could be more illogical.
Just a little something to chew on banana boy. In the very near future when we are both dead and gone. I promise not to say I told you so.
There is an endless ocean of things science can't explain. Granted we have
learned many things through science. Science can not tell us ever, what
ought to be done.
When we do solve the great mystery. I know at the very least, I will be as happy as you are.
The fool has said there is no God. Then comes death, then JUDGEMENT.
This retort does not require a response. Have a nice day.
Oh you are right about one thing though.
Putting me on your list of foes.
Originally posted by ashanu90
1nowhere is this design more evident that in DNA which is something scientists are still trying to figure out.
1says who? perry stone? ignorance.
2"scientists" especially of the kind like dr.dawkins refuse
2.taht is your speculation that he ignores this.
it is apparent that he knows differently, and he is well versed in many religions but he is still an atheist i think he has done his homework quite well
and creotionism has no backing other than the bible and many christians will say that the fact the bible exists proves everything about god, angels and, creation.
3completely unsubstantiated statement.
3ive actually heard people say this
4the bible is supported by scientific accurancy, historical accuracy, attempts to destroy the bible, attempts to change the bible and even prophecy that is specific. the exact reason the bible is so hotly contested is because it DOES have alot of evidence to support it. even the fact we are debating this now is evidence that the bible is no normal book.
4.a bible can be destroyed easily theres a thing called fire you know
and the bible is only partially historically correct i still am not convinced of the genesis account
5the bible only said that they were slaves. it said nothing about pyramids so im not sure were you are getting this conclusion.
5.if jews were slaves do you honestly think the pharoh would let the jews lie around while the egyptians busted their asses building the pyramids? LOGIC!!
6wrong. infact it is the opposite. scientists are amazing that moses got it right. the problem is how you are reading it.
6. mioses didn't write the bible i doubt he even existed.
emporer constantine wrote the biblle to control his subjects
7the creation account is written from the point of view of a person standing on the earth.
7. and why do you say that?
Your god must love you.
I never stated that Evolution proves that god does not exist. This is a discussion about those who believe that evolution does not exist. There are those who believe that everything exists in the state that god created it in, and that nothing ever changes. That things do not evolve. This is rubbish as we have seen things evolve in our lifetimes. Take the flu virus for example, it evolves at a rapid pace.
- btw, sorry to disappoint you but I’m not offering myself.
The Bible is a social guide, not a book of science. It is full of scientifically inaccurate concepts, and also full of good moral guidance. I am disappointed as I thought you had more to offer than self imposed blindness.
I particularly like where the Bible talks about giants, unicorns, dragons and other animals well known to science, such as the cockatrice which the Bible mentions.
I have another book that talks about unicorns and giants and dragons, but alas it is not used by a religious power structure to control the masses and to keep them away from understanding. Ignorance is a sin and promoting ignorance is doubly so.
Originally posted by Terapin
Yes the Bible is indeed accurate in all aspects of science. One can see where the Bible refers to bats as "Fowl" (birds) and states that Eagles carry their young on their backs, were the bible frequently mentions that the Earth does not move and is flat, while the Sun revolves around the Earth.
and yet not aware of the simple things about the Bible is very questionable. For example we know that the commonly known *English word “Fowl” refers to birds (of the feather). But do you know also that in the Hebrew language the original word is “'ohph” which was derived from the verb “fly” and correctly applied to all WINGED or FLYING creatures as in Gen 1:20-22?
“I have read the Bible, cover to cover and know it well. I do not stick my head in the sand however and ignore reality. [edit on 23/3/10 by Terapin]”