The Collapce of the theory of evolution in 20 questions

duendy,

What do you mean by consciousness? Is it dependent on matter and energy or is it independent?

If it is independent then why do we have physical bodies?

The only consciousness we know is that which is dependent on a biological brain, i.e. matter and energy. How could a consciousness be independent?

And if the universe began with a big bang where was all the consciousness? And how did they become seperate so that lifeforms like us could adopt them? And how many consciounesses are there?
 
duendy said:
hmmmmmmm, well that 'might' dont seem right to me. as te Holographic analogy reveals, what is contained in a 'part' shows the WHOLE. so it'd be limiting to assume a universe such as ours was limited to 3 dimensions. also, always keep in mind, i am never just talking about matter-energy on its OWN, for it ALWAYS is with consciousness.
If matter-energy is non-local, consciousness is not-located
ie., that consciousness is the FEELING of matter-energy
all this speaks to me as , boundlessness
Click to expand...

Duendy, I did not say that the universe was limited to 3 dimensions -
according to the ekpyrotic theory , there is 5 dimensions :
1,2,3,4 are in the sub universe that we inhabit (originated from the 5.th dimension at the time of the big bang )
The rest of the total universe consists of dimension 4 and 5 ......
Dimension 1,2 and 3 might be limited , 4 and 5 are both infinite........
(the 4.th dimension is time, which exists in both the total universe and in the little subuniverse we live in )

Think of it like this : the total universe spits out a bit of energy by accident,
thereby forming our little subuniverse out of that bit of energy ......
That little bit of energy was there always - first in the total universe and now in this little subuniverse (which is ofcourse still a part of the total universe) .........

The total universe is infinite in space and time....
The little subuniverse might only have a certain amount of energy , therefore it might have limits in the first 3 dimensions - but that energy has always been, so there is no limits in time (4.th dimension) , though we can make a fixpoint in time, at the time for the big bang - just like we have created a fixpoint in time by using C.E. or the birth of christ to make dates - it will soon be 2006 by C.E. -
so Happy New Year to all of you !!!
 
Last edited:
wtf stil no answers from Esperanza,
damn drive by Muslim fanatics ,makes me feel like Im in Baghdad!
 
Magic,

A few days ago I would have listed the same sources as authoritative arguments for explaining the universe, but no longer. I have spent the day studying plasma cosmology and the vast array of problems that now confront BB theory. I cannot see any longer that BB theory is supportable. The big bang simply never happened.

Here is a good overview of the issues but there is plenty on the web and a definite rising trend towards totally dismissing BB theory, although against overwhlming odds of a seemingly dogmatic scientific community.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319591

Godless Has also posted other relevant links.
 
duendy,

would you say, boundless in all dimensions too?
Click to expand...
I see no reason to assume any dimensions other than 3, and it is doubtful that time could be considered a dimension.
 
The Devil Inside said:
if science is used as a verbal weapon against such "crackpot theories", then science should be the tool used to prove the "crackpottiness" of the theory.

thats fair isnt it?
i see alot of "this is incorrect because science says so" on this forum, but i never see anyone ever admit the falsehoods that science has put forth in the past. im talking about absolute statements like "creation is false."

let me remind you, that i am on your side of this argument. i would like to see however, scientific mindedness, if "science" is quoted.

seems objective enough.
*shrug*
Click to expand...

science didnt make the statment that creation is false, science made the statement that evolution is fact and creationists made the statement that evolution is flawed or incorrect because of absolute statments made by religious texts of dubious origin and never offer any proof to support their claims. science isnt science without empirical data to support a claim. intelligent design is being passed off as science and so scientists say: this is not a scientific theory that can be quantified in any substantial way, so according to scientific standards, its no good.
 
science didnt make the statment that creation is false, science made the statement that evolution is fact and creationists made the statement that evolution is flawed or incorrect because of absolute statments made by religious texts of dubious origin and never offer any proof to support their claims. science isnt science without empirical data to support a claim. intelligent design is being passed off as science and so scientists say: this is not a scientific theory that can be quantified in any substantial way, so according to scientific standards, its no good.
Click to expand...

Well put Charles. :m:


Science is not a weapon, though it's used in debate & arguments to make points, ingnorance of new evidence or newer theories get rehashed, untill we find what is true, science goes through changes, as our epistemology grows, we find new facts, disregard old theories, and move on.

Godless
 
A few days ago I would have listed the same sources as authoritative arguments for explaining the universe, but no longer. I have spent the day studying plasma cosmology and the vast array of problems that now confront BB theory. I cannot see any longer that BB theory is supportable. The big bang simply never happened.
Click to expand...

I remember when I thought of the sycling universe theory was it for me, but as one keeps on learning our theories keep on changing.

I'm not a cosmologiest, but I do like reading about it, and found the websites posted when reading news articles in WRH website, once I read it, and re-read it, I posted it here, and see the feedback.

Welcome to the force! ;)

Godless
 
Cris and Godless ....

The beauty of the latest theories of the origin of the universe is, that they clearly state, that the big bang NEVER HAPPENED as stated in the theory of the big bang .....

It was ANOTHER event, that took a long time to happen - and NOT in a singularity - the expansion problem with red shift; of Lerner is explained ....

And by the way - there is NO problem with parts of the subuniverse beeing 100 of billions of lightyears away, though the subuniverse is only 13.7 - 15 billions years old ........

Cris - did you read all of the source 2 or just the first part of it - the first part is about the BB - BB is VERY different from the cyclic universe .....
 
Cris said:
Magic,
The big bang simply never happened.
Godless Has also posted other relevant links.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point -
The creation ex nihilo of the big bang is VERY far out ......
if you want me to - I will continue at your new thread under science not religion ....
 
Feel free - go ahead. Will need to be more precise there though.
 
I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution

how can you not? If you believe that species have gone extinct then you believe in natural selection. If thats not good enough, we have witnessed evolution in real time. The appearance of drug-resistant bacteria and viruses are a result of evolution. If you want something a little more macroscopic, several experiments have been performed on guppies showing natural selection. Here is one example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVCexperiments.shtml

People who attack evolution usually do not understand it. I say, instead of going to all the other people who know nothing about evolution, go read a biology book.
 
Refreshing post ddovala. Well done. I would change one thing. You say:
ddovala said:
People who attack evolution usually do not understand it..
Click to expand...
I would say:
Many people who attack evolution usually do not want to understand it.
 
ddovala most self proclaimed christians are not as opened minded by scientific facts than you are, in your religion you are part of a minority.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/newsletter/can_a_christian.htm

There are issues that contradict the christian belief and evolutionary science. For instance:

God could have used evolution to form life on earth (theistic evolution) if He had wanted to. But He didn't. If the Bible truly is the revealed Word of God, as Christians believe, then what God tells us in the Bible must be true.

He tells us He created everything in six days — not evolved them over billions of years. He tells us He created all the different kinds of animals and plants “after their kind.” This means He created mature animals and plants ready to reproduce more of their own kind. He tells us He created the first man from the dust of the ground — not from an ape-like creature.

When reporters from newspapers or television stations want to find out what happened, they try to find an eyewitness who can tell them. In the same way, if we want to find out what happened at the beginning of the world, we should find out what the eyewitness says. source

So I take it that you dont believe the bible literally? Or that you will claim a day for god is millions of years of earth years and yada, yada, yada?

Which is it?

Godless
 
You haven't studied much Christian theology, have you Godless? That is an observation. You don't need to respond.

In my experience, within western Europe, the Christians who fully accept evolution are in the overwhelming majority. I shall not attempt to comment on the rest of the planet, other than to note that South America has a large proportion of the world's Catholics and, yes, the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution.

Your compound adjective 'self proclaimed', applied to Christians, has an unpleasant taste to it. Unnecessary, lacking in clarity, emotionally loaded. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Truth is a large subject. The jewish tradition of storytelling (arguably like all story telling) made much use of a variety of literary devices. It is quite plausible that the creation stories in Genesis employ such devices. Indeed, it would be rather remarkable if they did not.
The atoms of which we are composed were once part of the heart of a star. You have heard the poetic observation before, I suspect. We are all made of stardust. And the process of abiogenesis and evolution to man could not be described as making man from the dust of the ground? Hmmm. You haven't studied much poetry either, I suspect.

So I take it that you dont believe the bible literally? Or that you will claim a day for god is millions of years of earth years and yada, yada, yada?
Click to expand...
Cheap debating tricks don't become you Godless. Ditch them.
 
You haven't studied much Christian theology, have you Godless?
Click to expand...

Hmmm Lets see, I've been in three diferent denominations, I had enough of stupidity training yes.

In my experience, within western Europe, the Christians who fully accept evolution are in the overwhelming majority.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps that's a changing trate I have not been familiar, I've been an atheist for over 23 years. So I've been out of the loop of the now accepted way of thinking for these theists, they do change their mind with every new scientific discovery that can't be refuted very well.

Your compound adjective 'self proclaimed', applied to Christians, has an unpleasant taste to it. Unnecessary, lacking in clarity, emotionally loaded. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

You haven't been on these boards very long have you? Havent you seen Christian claim that "not everyone who claims to be christian is a christian?" Self proclaimed then is the correct way to address these people, specially when there's about 33000 different denominations of Christianity.

Truth is a large subject. The jewish tradition of storytelling (arguably like all story telling) made much use of a variety of literary devices. It is quite plausible that the creation stories in Genesis employ such devices. Indeed, it would be rather remarkable if they did not.
Click to expand...

Do tell, these nomads were slaves, illiterate, and most just used stories of other groups to come up with their notions.

The atoms of which we are composed were once part of the heart of a star. You have heard the poetic observation before, I suspect. We are all made of stardust. And the process of abiogenesis and evolution to man could not be described as making man from the dust of the ground? Hmmm. You haven't studied much poetry either, I suspect.
Click to expand...

Even Plato thought of poetry as stupidity.

However these nomads didn't know didly of star dust, the formation of the universe, earth, excetera, and evolutionary theory. So no! these people meant it as they wrote it. Literally.

Cheap debating tricks don't become you Godless. Ditch them.
Click to expand...

Why thank you, however my stand still stands from observation of being here for apx 6 years debating Christians on these boards and many others! Go figure they have claimed that god lives outside of time even.

**yowzas, ophiolite!!
bravo!!**

Lemming!.

Godless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top