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.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
Sort of what Skull said.
To add just a bit of elaboration. The use of the term 'evolution' with regards to stellar bodies or the universe is to use it metaphorically.
Evolution relates solely to biological organisms that reproduce.
If it doesn't reproduce, it doesn't evolve.
Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary discs. If met with ideal conditions on the new planets' surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins.
Originally posted by kykweer
I am not a physicist, but as an engineer I too consider naturals laws of physics, I'm not implying that science is fake or anything, I'm also not implying that my beliefs are fact and provable.
I simply can't explain it (the theory I have in my head)
for if the big bang was absolute fact there would be no LHC.
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by TruthAboveIgnorance
So I'm right that the idea of mind has not been proven empirically, for an Atheist who rejects the idea of a creator solely due to the absense of empirical evidence and then believe in mind with the absense of empirical evidence is insane
and my argument that medics avoid the term insanity still stands. The word is immensely vague.
Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
It uses the term mind because it is a dictionary directed towards the general population. To most people brain and mind are interchangeable words. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that the editors of the dictionary are any more up to date on current psychological research than anyone else outside the field.
The reason why the word insanity is not used by the medical profession is because it has always been a legal term. Every profession has their own jargon and insanity is legal jargon. Not to mention that the term insanity has a stigma associated with it and has taken on a pejorative context. Therefore, if you are in a profession devoted to easing psychological suffering you are not going to insult your patient.
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SaturnFX
Why can't you just accept you are wrong.
Mind hasn't been proven empirically
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism
Thus Mind and Brain are not separate entities. Instead, the Mind is a function of the Brain.
As for insanity. All words have multiple meanings. Are we now going to state that all words are vague? The fact of the matter is you are nitpicking over semantics because you don't have a leg to stand on. As for that definition of insanity, it is actually very hard to label someone as insane. In this case however, impeding a child's learning by presenting falsehoods during a critical period could be seen as a form of child abuse, especially if it has a negative impact on the child's life. Now that we have identified the crime, we have to look at the defendant, in this case the ones teaching that Creationism is a valid branch of science. As I have stated previously, they show no remorse or acknowledge the fact that they are presenting an unfalsifiable religious belief as empirical science, and that it could potentially harm the child's development. Therefore, we just have to determine whether or not there is mental defect or disease.
after all Evolution is just a Theory too.. it is not proven fact and requires faith from the individual.
Originally posted by oozyism
Keeping in mind that this is something new, hinting that Creationism is a sign of insanity, is something new, and therefore needs clarification regarding what definition of insanity it is using, so there can be a proper debate.