Please don't.I can go on & on....
You've quite sufficiently demonstrated that you subscribe to woo and have little idea of what you're talking about.
Please don't.I can go on & on....
No, that isn't how science works. If you deliberately "neglect other evidence" somebody else will point it out and you will be discredited. Unlike a court of law, science is not an adversarial system where you can "win" an argument. Science keeps trying the case over and over again, getting closer and closer to "the truth". There is never a final "winner".
No, there isn't.There is growing physics evidence of psychokinesis.
And if it's not then you have no argument. IF is not a basis for such claims as you are making. (BTW ghost in the machine doesn't mean what you apparently think it does).• If consciousness is primary (as Max Plank & his mates thought plus all mystics...Henry Stapp) then causation is fundamentally top down therefore an intelligence acts from ‘above’. (ghost in the machine)
See above with regard to the initial premise. And... WHICH second law? Newton's? Thermodynamics? What makes you think it's "opposite" to that law?• It follows that intelligence grows or evolves in an involution like manner i.e. the higher teaches or helps the lower to become more intelligent or more aware or more conscious which implies a never ending hierarchy of intelligence. (opposite of 2nd law)
Or where the "lower intelligence" works at finding out for itself without any previously written record. And "Akashic records" are unmitigated bullsh*t. Unless you can show that they actually exist[1] it's pointless bringing them into a discussion.• An indirect process would be where the ‘lower’ teaches themselves in a similar way that we learn by using a textbook or computer being analogous to an automatic or unconscious program (akashic records) previously written by the higher. This can been seen as a ‘ladder’
Do you mean a virtual reality as a teaching/ learning environment (i.e. replacing the classroom)? If not then you're probably talking nonsense.Ultimately we have a virtual reality constructed by the professor or parent etc. to help the student or child etc. to evolve as efficiently as possible.
Unless someone applies their intelligence to learn for themselves. (One of the ways that's done is called "science": you may have heard of it).this results in reality being fundamentally unknowable ie how can you know what the teacher knows until you have been taught.
Please provide a link to ANY Lancet study that even postulates "higher realities".this implies higher realities.... (see NDEs in Lancet journals....)
Some of us do.The bottom line is we get smarter
Nope.AS ABOVE SO BELOW + all space is here + all time is now + all things are one. mind is non local...so many arrows point to this.
This is exactly that sort of thing that makes me identify Christians with dishonesty. You are being extremely dishonest.Look we are talking on living organism evolution , don't bring other things , we can have other time for planets
Beside I am speaking about Genesis # 1 don't bring other chapter into discussion .
Based on your post @ 108 You really have not readed lately and if you have read it 50 years ago you just don't remember it and you are brainwashed with atheism .
This is exactly that sort of thing that makes me identify Christians with dishonesty. You are being extremely dishonest.
And yet "Sorry, you don't know me " is no such admission.It is not hard for me to admit if I act dishonestly.
Why do you even bother posting your belief (or anything pertaining to it) on a science site when you should be fully aware that science contradicts or outright refutes many of the claims in the Bible?The other thing is If I believe in something , I will defend my position , I will not be persuaded by someone using the word science as a banner to persuade me .
And now you're being dishonest again - on at least two counts.example see post # 123, I have seen many of those .
What?You have to keep in mind. Science is here for millions of years
And your point here is... what?Man study science , means what have been and the behavior of natural living organisms and molecular interaction.
I do not need to know you to see your blatant dishonesty. Perhaps you do not know yourself. I know you well enough to see that you have a cartoon understanding of religion and a worse understanding of science. However, you do not let your obvious ignorance stand in the way of insulting the work of people who actuall take the time to learn a little about both. You would determine how people are allowed to act without actually taking the time to find out anything about their lives or about the world they live in.Sorry, you don't know me .
Humans study science, but you clearly do not. You take a few examples of fraud and apply that with a broad brush to all of science without any understanding of context. The fraud you pointed to were not long-standing articles that had undergone extensive review and use.It is not hard for me to admit if I act dishonestly. The other thing is If I believe in something , I will defend my position , I will not be persuaded by someone using the word science as a banner to persuade me . example see post # 123, I have seen many of those . You have to keep in mind. Science is here for millions of years Man study science , means what have been and the behavior of natural living organisms and molecular interaction.
With all my respect to you, Because if your emotional excitement to discredit the information in the bible .
You have ignored that the Jews were an organised state before the Greeks and the Romans and they were literate be before Greeks and Roman.
You have presented no evidence that either the Bible, either partially or as a whole, is a reliable source of empirical fact, or that the chapter marks are meaningful, so both your insistence on the first Genesis story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and denial of the second Genesis story (Genesis 2:4-2:25) have been presented without communicable, let alone rational, basis.
Also see this written policy: http://sciforums.com/posts/3272569 You have been warned for behavior contrary to this policy on multiple occasions.
Are you really demanding we ignore part of the Bible? If so, fair enough. I demand you ignore Genesis 1 because I have decided it's incorrect.Beside I am speaking about Genesis # 1 don't bring other chapter into discussion .
I studied it for four years and he's pretty much spot-on.Based on your post @ 108 You really have not readed lately and if you have read it 50 years ago you just don't remember it and you are brainwashed with atheism .
Great! It's always a plus if you can admit you're wrong about something. I look forward to seeing you do so.It is not hard for me to admit if I act dishonestly.
If you will not be persuaded by science, you might want to reconsider posting on a science forum, and find a Christian religious forum instead.The other thing is If I believe in something , I will defend my position , I will not be persuaded by someone using the word science as a banner to persuade me
No. It was intended to disparage evolution without engaging with it intellectually. The OP was certainly happy to revisit dated creationist talking points about evolution, but did not seek to evaluate any idea other than a cartoonish misunderstanding of evolution. Only the inferred motive was religion (or possibly visions). Posts #94 and #95 were the last posts made on the Religion forum in a comprehensive reply to the OP's posts and there was no reason to leave the thread there.In fairness, this thread was originally begun in the Religion forum. While the original thread-starter seemed incoherent to me, the intent was clearly to start a creationism vs evolution discussion.
Are you really demanding we ignore part of the Bible?
Oh, I have no problem with people doing that. I _do_ have a problem with people insisting that one portion of the Bible is absolutely inerrant, while another part can be safely ignored. That's not a self-consistent belief.Sure, why not?Are you really demanding we ignore part of the Bible?
But a rational discussion might want to consider where the first creation story ends. If the discussion were a religious one, we might want to talk about the lessons taught in the first and second creation stories. But since the literal content of the two stories are at odds with one another, and with biological history and cosmology, there is no a priori reason to suspect either is a reliable factual account. Evaluation of evidence is part and parcel of rational discussion, and if timojin wishes to evade that burden, then he is proselytizing, speaking without listening, regardless of which forum is being used.I may or may not understand timojin's point, but he seems to be arguing that the order of creation in Genesis 1 represents some kind of proto-evolutionary account. Not Genesis 2 or any other Bible passage. Genesis 1.
But a rational discussion might want to consider where the first creation story ends.
If the discussion were a religious one, we might want to talk about the lessons taught in the first and second creation stories.
But since the literal content of the two stories are at odds with one another, and with biological history and cosmology, there is no a priori reason to suspect either is a reliable factual account.
Evaluation of evidence is part and parcel of rational discussion, and if timojin wishes to evade that burden, then he is proselytizing, speaking without listening, regardless of which forum is being used.
But that's off-topic for this thread
which is about the misunderstandings of evolution that bearer_of_truth wanted correction on.
Then you agree with me that we cannot read the whole of the first story without including part of chapter two. This particular chapter mark has no basis in the narrative.Genesis 2:3?
You are saying that the God of Genesis 1:1-2:3 did nothing to demonstrate mastery over time's arrow, which I think we can all agree on. And that you feel free to interpret "evolution" as simply "change over time" and not necessarily the biological senses of "change of populations over time" or "a scientific theory of the predictable elements of change of populations over time" even including the antique sense of "change of a biological individual over time" which is typically defined as "development" today. The latter is straying far from where the OP positioned this thread.I think that it's indisputable that the 'days' of Genesis 1 are an evolutionary account of a minimal sort. 'Evolution' basically means 'change over time'. (As in the evolution of a physical system.) It needn't mean 'biological evolution' and certainly not 'evolution by natural selection'. (Stars evolve along the 'main sequence'.) If there was an observer other than God observing the Earth as the 'days' passed and the Genesis 1 creation proceeded, things would definitely have been changing as time passed.
I disagree. It violated science's methodological empiricism, which renders it as a model of history which cannot be meaningfully communicated on the merits of factual observation. It has zero explanatory power to the layout of the fossil record and such biological change in populations which have happened in human history. It's not a communicable framework for making precise predictions. If it has a domain of applicability, that lies strictly in the past. It's a story. One might as well take "Hansel and Gretel" as a textbook for behavior of Black Forest witches in the Middle Ages.it violates science's methodological naturalism.
If it has a domain of applicability, that lies strictly in the past. Based on methodological empiricism, it is indistinguishable from a made-up story with no bearing on actual, as opposed to claimed, facts.The evolution of the early Earth system in Genesis 1 isn't the result of physical principles immanent in its own nature, but the result of creative supernatural actions coming from outside.
That is a thread for human cultures or religion forums, but this is a thread about "The Theory of Evolution." If you want to create a new thread on some other sub-forum, you are welcome to pick some other title and try and establish the parameters of the discussion.I don't think that the interesting questions here are the questions of the literal truth of the various accounts. What's of most interest from an intellectual history perspective is how diverse cultures construct their accounts and how they go about trying to explain things.
It was an ignorant argument-from-incredulity. FAQs written both by scientists and co-coreligionist advocates explicitly call out the deep misunderstanding inherit in such a question.I think that Bearer of Truth's "questions" were rhetorical. He was trying to make an argument against biological evolution of humans from apes or ape-like ancestors, however lame his argument was. (It was basically just an argument-from-incredulity.) He didn't want correction, he wanted to correct us.
On a scale of 0 to 10, how inexplicable is it?Then one of the moderators, for some inexplicable reason, moved the thread to the Biology and Genetics forum.
Which was what? Please be specific and show your work with appropriate citations.Which effectively excludes any discussion of the original thread topic.
Science thrives on what it can't explain yet.Thanks for the feed back it has been very helpful. Oddly enough it hasn't really changed the picture in my mind it's mostly made me realize my words are extremely crude. All I can say is that the stress in the wire cage trying to hold the 1000's of white crows that don't fit the present sci paradigm is presently beyond the elastic limit.
I.e. mind before matter.