Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 49
18
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


If consciousness is only senses and electric signals to the brain, are robots who can see, and move around and environment, and grab things, and have memory, conscious?




posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


If consciousness is only senses and electric signals to the brain, are robots who can see, and move around and environment, and grab things, and have memory, conscious?


Ask that in another 10 years dont think youll get an easy answer were all ready blurring the line. We now have robots creating robots its a science experiment i read about. Bottom line is the robots are starting to design other robots the only thing researcher does is plug in batteries. And he was saying in the article with new printers they will do that too. I can guarantee if we make a computer smart enough they will become self aware. Now will it be the same who knows and im betting will have a hard time telling the difference.
edit on 7/4/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


I'll see your bet and raise you this:

Looks designed doesn't it? Technically it was designed. The primary factors are time, wind erosion and water erosion. There is no intelligence required to appear designed. Appearances can be deceiving, as we all know.
edit on 3-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Nice try, but no, that's just a well designed straw man.



How is that a straw man? My point was that APPEARANCE of design does not indicate design and I demonstrated it perfectly.


originally posted by Spy66
I think we look at the equation of design in a wrong perspective. There is no way people would recognize if there is a design in a finite existence that works as a unit. The only way we would know if all of finite existence is a design is if we know how our finite existence was formed. You cant just pick a finite item and argue if it is designed or not, because scientifically we can prove that the item is a part of a process.


Bingo. Somebody gets it. Looking at something and trying to figure if it looks designed is silly because it all boils down to personal perspective.


Hmm... no, doesn't look designed to me. There's a difference between natural selection and evolution, and erosion and weathering.

Note the bold. It boils down to personal opinion. What I think looks designed may not be the same as another person. Just like your picture. To me, that does not look designed, so your point is moot.
edit on 4-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
You make no sense evolution is the act of improving or advancement thats what it does. In fact that is all it does things start out simple and through processes become more complicated. Doesn't need or require any kind of intelligence i suugest go look at evolution again you really dont understand it. my first suggestion is to look up the definition of evolve.


Hey, we're supposed to be on the same side here.


Increased complexity is NOT a requirement of evolution. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but there are plenty of species that haven't advanced themselves in millions of years. I am referring to biological evolution of course. I'm not talking simple change over time. Evolution is about adapting to environments. Sometimes the more complex creatures die because of an environmental change that they aren't well suited for. Increased complexity or improvement isn't a guarantee. In fact the term improvement itself can be relative, because in one environment it could greatly improve survival chances, while in another it could make it worse.


Ask that in another 10 years dont think youll get an easy answer were all ready blurring the line. We now have robots creating robots its a science experiment i read about. Bottom line is the robots are starting to design other robots the only thing researcher does is plug in batteries. And he was saying in the article with new printers they will do that too. I can guarantee if we make a computer smart enough they will become self aware. Now will it be the same who knows and im betting will have a hard time telling the difference.

I think man is destined to become part cybernetic. Nano technology is just a decade or 2 away as well. It could be the universal solution to all illnesses. I'm definitely not against the idea of a conscious android type robot. But then again, how could this robot prove he is conscious?

edit on 4-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


If consciousness is only senses and electric signals to the brain, are robots who can see, and move around and environment, and grab things, and have memory, conscious?


It depends what consciousness is or if it even exists. These are questions we cannot possibly answer without more knowledge.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


If consciousness is only senses and electric signals to the brain, are robots who can see, and move around and environment, and grab things, and have memory, conscious?


It depends what consciousness is or if it even exists. These are questions we cannot possibly answer without more knowledge.


Please, please stop.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Of course consciousness exists. Consciousness is how I am alive right now, awake, thinking, moving, choosing, doing. Consciousness is the fact that I am controlling my body and thoughts right now, if even to a not complete extent, I make some of the calls, and my ability to make decisions and have control is due to my consciousness.

You said I have to prove consciousness exists. I just tried (I think therefore I am), so now I will ask you; if what I am is not consciousness, and consciousness is not responsible for the things I mentioned above, what is?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Of course consciousness exists. Consciousness is how I am alive right now, awake, thinking, moving, choosing, doing. Consciousness is the fact that I am controlling my body and thoughts right now, if even to a not complete extent, I make some of the calls, and my ability to make decisions and have control is due to my consciousness.

You said I have to prove consciousness exists. I just tried (I think therefore I am), so now I will ask you; if what I am is not consciousness, and consciousness is not responsible for the things I mentioned above, what is?


electricity and chemicals, duh.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


You are mocking but I think it obviously does have something to do with electricity and chemicals, as does most all things we know to exist do. The mystery is; What is the nature of the fundamental energy of the universe, that it has the potential to create consciousness? From the physicists stand point; first there was a bunch of energy; if we stop right there and ask, why and how could this energy ever come alive? Besides the point, it is able to... If we create conscious robots with chemicals and electricity, that means the universe created us as conscious robots, chemicals, electricity, and the mechanics of materials. I wonder how many different ways consciousness can exist; is there an absolute standard, or is there leeway (is all the conscious life we know of from animals to insects depend on synapses and nerve endings and electric signals in a brain like chamber?).?

Also something to think about is anesthesia; this is chemicals that 'turn off' consciousness for an extended period of time and then I guess the chemicals wear off and consciousness can work again. I think even for professionals it is a bit of a mystery what is going on or how it works.
edit on 4-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Of course consciousness exists. Consciousness is how I am alive right now, awake, thinking, moving, choosing, doing. Consciousness is the fact that I am controlling my body and thoughts right now, if even to a not complete extent, I make some of the calls, and my ability to make decisions and have control is due to my consciousness.

You said I have to prove consciousness exists. I just tried (I think therefore I am), so now I will ask you; if what I am is not consciousness, and consciousness is not responsible for the things I mentioned above, what is?


The brain is responsible for all of that. Every function you listed is a result of the brain. The only questionable aspect is you controlling all of it, which is something you can't prove. You can tell me you are conscious or that you control your thoughts and actions, but can you really prove that? Being self aware does not make you special and also consciousness isn't simply being awake or asleep. That definition is much different than the one you all are invoking to suggest that it requires something external. You are really talking about awareness although many folks refer to it as consciousness. Consciousness/awareness does not come close to proving Intelligent Design, either way so it's a big red herring in this argument. I shouldn't have even entertained it I should have dismissed it. So that's my fault. We are going more and more off topic with every response we make about this.


Please, please stop.

Great response. Thanks for the in depth analysis you totally proved me wrong.

edit on 5-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Yeah i backed off when they didnt understand why science cant answer the question consciousness.They were not understanding because they think they are but have no evidence to prove something which cant even be identified. To any physicist were just energy no different from the rest of the galaxy and that cannot be proved wrong. As they say were made of star stuff at some point every element in our body was created in a sun.We can be looked at as children of a star if you will. Guys there is no point of debating if were different philosophy has been doing this for centuries and guess what no answer.Trying to use it to prove some point is well utterly silly.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

The brain is responsible for all of that. Every function you listed is a result of the brain. The only questionable aspect is you controlling all of it, which is something you can't prove. You can tell me you are conscious or that you control your thoughts and actions, but can you really prove that? Being self aware does not make you special and also consciousness isn't simply being awake or asleep. That definition is much different than the one you all are invoking to suggest that it requires something external. You are really talking about awareness although many folks refer to it as consciousness. Consciousness/awareness does not come close to proving Intelligent Design, either way so it's a big red herring in this argument. I shouldn't have even entertained it I should have dismissed it. So that's my fault. We are going more and more off topic with every response we make about this.



I never said it requires something external though it does. The environment. I never said it wasnt the brain. I never said I controlled all of it, if you can read you would notice I wrote " Consciousness is the fact that I am controlling my body and thoughts right now, if even to a not complete extent, I make some of the calls, and my ability to make decisions and have control is due to my consciousness." but I guess it wasnt your fault you missed that, it was your brains. Are you trying to deny free will right now? Are you saying everything youve done in your life has been an uncontrollable chemical reaction determined by the laws of physics?

Yes I do believe I am conscious, (Maybe you should define this term). Can I prove I control my thoughts and actions, yes. Tell me to raise my hand, I can then raise my hand if I want. Tell me to think of a poem, out of all the words I know I can string some together in a logical fashion to create a poem, are you trying to say I am not really making these choices, but evolution programed me? Are you trying to say I am nothing more then a clever bot?

Being self aware does not make me special, compared to what? I know its more then asleep or awake, where in all my replies, have I stressed the notion of the importance of consciousness having to do with being asleep or awake?

You are out of your mind, I havent been thinking of trying to discuss or prove Intelligent design, for a few posts now, for I thought we had begun discussing consciousness. You seem very defensive now that we are diving in to scientifically uncharted territory, maybe you even made some conclusions that scare you. Im looking forward to you mainly replying to this last paragraph and ignoring what I wrote above, because in reality, I dont want you to reply to this at all, only the meaningful part of the discussion, which is above... I mean its not like I dont want you to, my brain doesnt want you to.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


wow, you stumbled upon your ignorance. What dont I understand about sciences problem with not being able to answer the question of consciousness?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


This is why I did not want to get involved in the philosophical argument of consciousness.
Science seeks predominantly to explain how things are the way they are.
While philosophy seems to be a discipline all about why things are the way they are.

The current science states that consciousness may just be an advanced form of information processing and could simply be down to the physical architecture of our brain.

Knowing that this does not sit well with religious people and similarly, philosophers views continue to collide with scientific views on many topics, plus I'm not convinced either way and not in position to sway anybody's beliefs on the subject.

The difference in mindset when it comes to a philosophical analysis and a scientific makes it a hopeless debate till more is understood and agreed upon about consciousness.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
^I agree completely. It's one of those arguments that doesn't really suggest one thing or another, it just appeals to what we do not yet know. Sometimes it's fun to discuss, but yeah it's pure philosophy.

Fungi, I'm not sure what you meant by that last paragraph. I'm guessing this is the part you wanted a response to below. I'm just curious, if you're not making an argument for ID, why did you bring up consciousness? The thread topic is an intelligent first cause.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
Can I prove I control my thoughts and actions, yes. Tell me to raise my hand, I can then raise my hand if I want. Tell me to think of a poem, out of all the words I know I can string some together in a logical fashion to create a poem, are you trying to say I am not really making these choices, but evolution programed me? Are you trying to say I am nothing more then a clever bot?
I'm saying that it's possible that you are just a figment of my imagination/programming and that I am the only conscious being. I can only prove my own consciousness to myself because I can say that "I am me" and I am aware right now. But if you say "I am me", how could it possibly be true since I am me. You raising or not raising your hand does not prove that there is a consciousness controlling your actions.The brain is responsible for making decisions and weighing out the consequences. Are you saying that without consciousness, a creature could not make such decisions? What would be the purpose of a brain, in such a creature? How does the whole thing work? It raises way too many questions. None of us can even define what it is beyond listing brain functions.

Consciousness itself may be a really good topic for another thread, I just feel it may take this thread OT. I didn't mean any offense by that at all I was just looking to follow the topic. I don't mind discussing it, though.

edit on 5-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


In this threads discussion somehow we came to begin discussing consciousness. I remember I mentioned how I thought consciousness (or the ability for a mass of material to control itself and its environment to some extent) is the most important and meaningful thing that could ever exist. So its interesting that it does exist and in much quantity. Does this prove that the universe 'knows' how special and important consciousness and life is? I wouldnt say so (even though the universe in the form of lifeforms, does seem to realize this, given the fact that all life forms dont just lay down and die, they strive to further exist, improve themselves and their family, there seems to be value in owning material as your own, and being a self). Does this prove that the universe 'wanted' life to exist? I wouldnt know how to go about answering that.

I dont think discussing consciousness is off topic, because one would think in order for an intelligence to cause a universe that intelligence must be conscious. So the nature of consciousness and intelligence appears to be relevant. The reason you dont think biology is intelligently designed, is because you dont think nature was conscious, or aware of the designs it was producing, and it doesnt appear to your reason that there is a good chance an intelligent or an awareness choose to order the universe in a manner to allow the designs of biologic life to come about. Consciousness really comes down to the existence of choice, and control. You dont think the molecules involved in making the first cells, and ordering the pairs in DNA had choices, And you dont think the complex organisms that then lived with DNA and cells, 'controlled' what happened to their DNA, at least not with intent or full awareness; they had the choice to move right or left each moment, and travel from one environment to another, and stalk its prey successfully, but they perhaps werent aware of the fact that if they stayed in that spot in the sun too long they may receive a mutation, or have a mutation during reproduction.

I am aware of this ignorance of animals. An animal doesnt know of molecules, and blood, and electrical synapses. So this to me, is even more intriguing, that the structured system of an organism, is more complex, intricate, with ingenious engineering and mechanical faculties, then the organism itself could be capable or realize. This is kind of the crux of my struggle. A cat is the organism that possess the fruits of billions of years of natures labor, and the cat is ignorant to all of that. A cat could not fathom of designing and eye and a brain, what is the source of the eye and the brains design. How can stupidity and accidents achieve such perfection and intricacy? Such careful detail and craft.

I do agree with the way you most likely see it and I do think there is a large chance it is correct, though still full of mystery and ignorance. Something like; There is a massive quantity of material, all of differing quality, and these quanta of material can only interact with one another in perfect discrete mathematical values, and so these mathematical relationships by default, create patterns and structure. And given all the variables of planet earth, and the massive quantity of biological potential, the computation of material interaction over time = the extreme variety of potential organisms that have existed, and exist.

oh and about the figment of imagination thing, that is the silliest position and argument. It has 0 validity. This isnt me speaking out of fear you are correct, but out of thorough (not necessary really) thought on the philosophic drivel of solipsism first heard when I was 13.
edit on 5-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I agree with a lot of what you say, and when I sit back and ponder about it, I arrive at the belief that there IS some kind of underlying property of the universe that causes awareness. I look at the universe as similar to one giant collective "organism" (really pool of linked energy) and what I see is constant change over time. Natural forces and evolution have enabled the universe to become self aware. From pure raw energy to conscious beings that can think critically. I believe we ARE the universe and the universe is us. You are me and I am you. The only problem is there isn't really any evidence of this view, much like ID and plenty of others. I'm on a quest to find that evidence one way or another which is why I'm so critical about those views (including my own), and why I end up reverting to science and demanding evidence 90% of the time.

Now with your example of the cat; would you say that cats have consciousness? You mentioned that they don't fully understand the "big" picture as we do. What does that indicate about their consciousness? I'd argue that they are indeed conscious and self aware (despite failing the mirror test). If you think they are not conscious, I'm interested in the differences that make humans conscious and cats not conscious. Afterall, cats DO make decisions and control actions.

You say "stupidity and accidents", I say natural forces. Terms like that are poor descriptors when we know the causes of many of these events.


oh and about the figment of imagination thing, that is the silliest position and argument. It has 0 validity. This isnt me speaking out of fear you are correct, but out of thorough (not necessary really) thought on the philosophic drivel of solipsism first heard when I was 13.

If I was correct, technically you wouldn't fear me at all, because you wouldn't exist
It doesn't matter if you think it's silly. You cannot prove that you have consciousness to anybody but yourself and that is a fact. I'm not saying I believe that everyone is imaginary, I'm just going based what people can prove about consciousness (pretty much nothing at this point in time).
edit on 6-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Now with your example of the cat; would you say that cats have consciousness? You mentioned that they don't fully understand the "big" picture as we do. What does that indicate about their consciousness? I'd argue that they are indeed conscious and self aware (despite failing the mirror test). If you think they are not conscious, I'm interested in the differences that make humans conscious and cats not conscious. Afterall, cats DO make decisions and control actions.


Yes I would say cats have consciousness. It gets tricky distinguishing between different types of life and consciousness. When you get down to micro organisms, insects and then to plants. This is the mysterious nature and ability to exist that is consciousness, it is what gives us our being. You are in charge of your body, you are you. You are aware of your thoughts and movements and environment. (though some make the claim plants have some form of consciousness), looking at nature we see the evolution from inanimate, and biology controlled by chemical and physical reactions, to the point of creating an organ in a mass of biological matter, that can control chemical and physical reactions.

I would say a cat and insect are conscious in the sense that, you have to wake up in the morning, you look through your eyes, and move your legs, and (maybe) seek a mate or have one, you are hungry and you have desires. I think a cat is aware of its bodily states and urges, and acts on them with its will. This is the interesting part. Is there such thing as a 'being' controlling the cat, or is the totality of cat, light a plant, like a molecule, in that it is a conglomerate of chemicals, that react according to laws? This I believe is deemed instinct. So would you say there is no conscious entity of the cat, there is no central intelligence agency in the mind, perceiving information, and personally reacting, but that given the physical circumstances of said cat, what ever occurs in the environment, there are limited probabilities of how that cat will react, and it is really the chemical reactions driving the cat, not some self rationally controllable chemical reaction called consciousness. Is this perhaps the route you were getting at with humans? When you were saying consciousness may not exist? That would mean everything every human has ever done, from inventions and engineering to art has only been the environment causing natural chemical reactions to occur?

This seems like an argument of free will, and if there is free will, then there is an agent making the choices free will grants. I believe in free will. Right now your body is limited in the directions it can move by laws. But given those limitations, there are no physical or chemical laws that will force you to move your body in any given way in any given order right now. If you wanted to you could dance in any number of random movements, and you would be expressing the fact that something about 'you', is controlling you. I believe in a subtler manner cats make their own choices, I have two cats who are brothers with very differing personalities. They seem to do what they want when they want, as if they were aware they existed as an entity with a body and needs and emotions.



You say "stupidity and accidents", I say natural forces. Terms like that are poor descriptors when we know the causes of many of these events.


I say that in attempt to express what I think the opposite of intelligence or intelligent design would be. Stupid accidents. I think this is one of the cruxes of the problems, the nature of intelligence, the nature of math and order, patterns. Intelligence is just a sophisticated algorithm, pattern recognition and reconfiguring program, as the laws of nature are semi sophisticated algorithms and patterns. The repetition of natural laws beating down on biological material for much time, imprinting the patterns and regularities, and life seems to be the call back, the response to natures call and laws, or just a fractal singularity, where all the big and small, and regular, boil down to the left over digits of some irrational number, and that is life.




If I was correct, technically you wouldn't fear me at all, because you wouldn't exist
It doesn't matter if you think it's silly. You cannot prove that you have consciousness to anybody but yourself and that is a fact. I'm not saying I believe that everyone is imaginary, I'm just going based what people can prove about consciousness (pretty much nothing at this point in time).


Hm, you arent correct, you cant be. Because me and every other person can say the same thing, and then the logical conclusion would be that we are all existing people, in a similar situation.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Free will is a misnomer. There's no reason whatsoever that any creature is limited to the point where it can't control it's own actions. Every creature has that, no need for "free will". That's more a religious term because folks believe god gave them free will, rather than it always existing. Creatures may be highly limited based on their intellect or lack thereof, but all life will do whatever it wants.

Stupid & accidents are both terms that only apply to creatures with brains that make decisions. Stupid is not the opposite of intelligence. Stupid is a property of intelligence. With no intelligence there is no stupid. With no intelligence there are no accidents, because an accident is a mistake or an event that is undesirable that wasn't intended to be. Intelligence is required for both terms. Terms like that show immediate bias. The proper terminology is natural forces.


Hm, you arent correct, you cant be. Because me and every other person can say the same thing, and then the logical conclusion would be that we are all existing people, in a similar situation.

That's what you believe, but you can't prove that all existing people are in the same situation. They might claim it, but they could be lying or it could just be a programmed response. It's unprovable. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Consciousness cannot be measured in an way shape or form.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Free will is a misnomer. There's no reason whatsoever that any creature is limited to the point where it can't control it's own actions. Every creature has that, no need for "free will". That's more a religious term because folks believe god gave them free will, rather than it always existing. Creatures may be highly limited based on their intellect or lack thereof, but all life will do whatever it wants.


Ok so does that prove consciousness? There must be some 'beingness' of organisms for them to do what they want, and be a self? This is whats refereed to as consciousness, how did nature do that, create selves that can control them self? What allows a self, or consciousness to exist and how does it exist? How do constant chemical and electrical reactions cause a stream of being/awareness/consciousness?

The term free will is totally relevant. A rock does not have free will. An insect has some free will compared to a rock and a tree. But a human has more free will compared to an insect. there are aspects of human existence where humans have no choice or control over a situation, and in those instances we can say the opposite of free will is true, determinism. This is the sense I was using those terms in, I will never attempt to use a term appealing to any religious tone. I only believe in logic and truth. ( you may hear me unfearfully discuss the potential of god and ID, but my arguments have nothing to do with religion).

What do you think the simplest organism with 'consciousness/awareness/free will/self control' is?



Stupid & accidents are both terms that only apply to creatures with brains that make decisions. Stupid is not the opposite of intelligence. Stupid is a property of intelligence. With no intelligence there is no stupid. With no intelligence there are no accidents, because an accident is a mistake or an event that is undesirable that wasn't intended to be. Intelligence is required for both terms. Terms like that show immediate bias. The proper terminology is natural forces.


Have you defined intelligence yet? Intelligence is a natural force *trollface*



That's what you believe, but you can't prove that all existing people are in the same situation. They might claim it, but they could be lying or it could just be a programmed response. It's unprovable. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Consciousness cannot be measured in an way shape or form.


Is there a truth to the matter beyond our beliefs, perceptions, biases and opinions? Using logic, reason, science, rationale and probability which is the most likely scenario? Yea im not buying the argument, its not about me not liking it, its about it being flawed. You exist, and you think your awareness is all that exists, I exist and I think my awareness is all that exists. I can see and experience you and your word of your awareness, you can experience me and my word of my awareness. We can conclude that we both exist and are aware. And then anyone else who falls in the same category would be in similar situations as we find ourselves in. Also it required two aware beings, your parents for you to exist, or are you suggesting the universe was created when you were born? And photography and videos from before you were born were created by aliens or the matrix? I can say with supreme confidence that if your belief is that you are the only thing that is real, and aware, you are 100% wrong. The chance you are correct is so miniscule I would be offending the probable truth and my reason by giving you 99% chance of being wrong.

And now what, we will lead down the path of 'nothing is provable'. I agree semily. In the same way you cant prove to me what the contents of the center of the earth are. Doesnt mean science, rationale, reason, and logic cant bring us closest to the truth and probable nature without 'absolute proof' (whatever that would theoretically and hypothetically be). And it doesnt mean there are equal chances of the center of the earth being filled with jelly beans and angel farts as there is to what science predicts.
edit on 7-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
18
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join