Outside of Space and Time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I haven't read them all so I'm not qualified to state which is the best.
However, I would recomend the following two books to get you started.
First book to start off with - "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
Richard the scientist authors this book rather than Richard the anti-theist/anti-creationist, so you shouldn't find any stabs or snide remarks against creationists in this book.
The reason I recommend this book is because it focusses on intuition and going by your posts it appears to me that your own intuition is a significant guide to you.

Second book - "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.

I will purchase Dawkins' book when he is man enough to accept William Lane Craig's challenge to a debate on some of these very issues that we've been discussing.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's fine, but your objections have been with regards to the blind and random chance aspect of evolution's ability to construct the complex human body. Evolution focusses on how the human body can emerge from a natural process without the foresight of design or purpose. Purpose and ultimate destiny is a completely different topic.

Where the HELL is the evidence that the human body emerged from natural processes??

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In the science class people are being taught scientific knowledge. Science is the quest for discovering natural causes to natural events. They focus on natural causes because those can be objectively observed, measured, recreated and potentially falsified.

Overall, they are being taught scientific knowledge...it is just once the question of origins arise, that is when they are being brainwashed into a naturalistic religion.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In science class people are taught the best natural explaination to events within the observable universe.

And?

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you believe that some events are caused by supernatural causes and in particular a specific god then you can go to church and learn about the religious explaination.

If you want to believe that life can arise from nonlife with no scientific evidence supporting it, then that worldview needs to be teached at a private school and not funded by tax payers dollars.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Personally I think there is value in trying to understand both sides of the story and make up your own mind rather than to mimic memes.
I have read and tried to understand the objections presented in many anti-evolution books.

Well, let me refer you to a book..."The case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel...you may be familiar with him and his book...in this book, Lee interviews some of the leading apologists in the fields of evolution, philosophy, physics, biology, cosmology, astrophysics.

Lee acts and plays as the "devil's advocate" while interviewing these guys, by asking them the tough question that most critics will ask, and the guys give brilliant responses and objections to the various atheistic/naturalistic viewpoints...all related to the subjects they are discussing.

And, it is also worth mentioning, that these guys are William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyer, J.P Moreland (on the subject of mind/body dualism), Johnathen Wells, amongst others.

A damn good book, and that is just one of many books he has along with The case for the Christ...The case for the real Jesus...The case for Faith, etc.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you have some understanding then you will be able to intelligently discuss your concerns regarding evolution with other people. Your conception that evolution is blind random luck is off the mark with the important process of natural selection. A basic understanding of evolution will make this apparent to you.

My basic understanding of evolution is that a mindless and blind process created practically everything. Take away all of the technical mumbo jumbo bullshit and all of the bio-babble, and that is what it all comes down to.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You could view it that way, but there aren't any human bones, dinosaur bones, horse bones, dog bones, whale bones within the Cambrian fossils. This all supports evolution.

But there aren't any transitional fossils, period. We should find hundreds of thousands of them, if evolution is true. We don't have any.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't believe in right or wrong.
All I know is that people using force against me is a threat to me. I find their aggression to be dangerous to me. If it is important enough I will aggressively fight back, so I will become dangerous to them as a result of their aggression towards me.

Ok...so objective morality is out of the window with you...no biggie.

(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then how did the energy within our universe come to be?

He used the energy that was/is eternally in his possession, and created the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will purchase Dawkins' book when he is man enough to accept William Lane Craig's challenge to a debate on some of these very issues that we've been discussing.
I'm not suggesting to you to purchase his book. You could simply borrow it from the library. It's a very good book if you want to understand evolution.
If, however, you find it distasteful to read anything that Dawkins wrote. Perhaps you could try reading a book from Kennith Miller (a scientist who is also a Catholic)
"Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul"
This book isn't the greatest explaination of evolution but it does address the topic of evolution and the efforts of the Creationsist and this is presented from a Christian's perspective.

(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Where the HELL is the evidence that the human body emerged from natural processes??
There is a lot of evidence showing that we evolved from a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Lots of evidence to show that we evolved from common ancestor to all the great apes, lots of evidence to show that we evolved from common ancestor to all the mammals.


(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Overall, they are being taught scientific knowledge...it is just once the question of origins arise, that is when they are being brainwashed into a naturalistic religion.
Not having attended American school, I don't know what they actually teach. If they are teaching about Abiogenesis then hopefully they are saying that there is no concrete evidence to suggest how this happened.

(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you want to believe that life can arise from nonlife with no scientific evidence supporting it, then that worldview needs to be teached at a private school and not funded by tax payers dollars.
Agreed, scientifically Abiogenesis is a mystery, an active area ripe for discovery. Little is known about it, therefore it doesn't make sense to teach it in secondary schools.

(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, let me refer you to a book..."The case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel...you may be familiar with him and his book...in this book, Lee interviews some of the leading apologists in the fields of evolution, philosophy, physics, biology, cosmology, astrophysics.

Lee acts and plays as the "devil's advocate" while interviewing these guys, by asking them the tough question that most critics will ask, and the guys give brilliant responses and objections to the various atheistic/naturalistic viewpoints...all related to the subjects they are discussing.

And, it is also worth mentioning, that these guys are William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyer, J.P Moreland (on the subject of mind/body dualism), Johnathen Wells, amongst others.
I've read "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.
WLC isn't qualified to speak on topics such as evolution, astronomy, physics, biology, cosmology.
I haven't read anything by Strobel. What are his qualifications regarding these topics?


(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  My basic understanding of evolution is that a mindless and blind process created practically everything.
Evolution talks only of the diversity of biological life forms. It speaks nothing of the first life from non life and it speaks nothing outside of biological life forms.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "blind". Evolution isn't blind from the perspective of natural selection. This is a filtering process and it is reliant on the current state of an organism. e.g. the slow antelope get eaten but the fast ones avoid the cheetas.

(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But there aren't any transitional fossils, period. We should find hundreds of thousands of them, if evolution is true. We don't have any.
Not sure what you mean by "transitional" fossils.
All species are transitioning all the time. All fossils can be considered transitional. Evolution is an ongoing, never ending process.

(02-04-2015 07:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then how did the energy within our universe come to be?

He used the energy that was/is eternally in his possession, and created the universe.
If god has energy eternally in his position then time and space are eternal. Time and space are a consequence of the existence of energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 07:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 05:13 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  Dell doesn't claim to be omniscient, omnipotent, have unlimited time and resources, or be able to build any type of computer at any time just by 'willing' it into existence.

Well, according to the narrative, after creation, God saw that the creation was "good", not perfect. Now, maybe your definition of "good" and God's definition of "good" is different, apparently. But that doesn't change the fact that it was obviously designed.
Which would indicate either....
God chose not to build creation perfectly, so our fall was inevitable, and therefore not really our fault.
Or, he can't build creation perfectly, which would mean he is not omnipotent, and his deity status would have to come under serious question.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-04-2015 06:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Which would indicate either....
God chose not to build creation perfectly, so our fall was inevitable, and therefore not really our fault.

The fall was made right with the Resurrection...the fall is old news, we are beyond that right now...now, we are into the Resurrection business, which just so happens to be two days from now Yes

(03-04-2015 06:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Or, he can't build creation perfectly, which would mean he is not omnipotent, and his deity status would have to come under serious question.

Who said he can't? You?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not suggesting to you to purchase his book. You could simply borrow it from the library. It's a very good book if you want to understand evolution.

Well, since abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, then a book on evolution is unnecessary.

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If, however, you find it distasteful to read anything that Dawkins wrote. Perhaps you could try reading a book from Kennith Miller (a scientist who is also a Catholic)
"Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul"
This book isn't the greatest explaination of evolution but it does address the topic of evolution and the efforts of the Creationsist and this is presented from a Christian's perspective.

A theist who believes in evolution is alright with me. It is the "evolution without God" stuff...that is what I object to.

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There is a lot of evidence showing that we evolved from a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Lots of evidence to show that we evolved from common ancestor to all the great apes, lots of evidence to show that we evolved from common ancestor to all the mammals.

What is the single best evidence you can provide for evolution. Just give me the single best one...don't post any links either...just tell me.

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not having attended American school, I don't know what they actually teach. If they are teaching about Abiogenesis then hopefully they are saying that there is no concrete evidence to suggest how this happened.

I admire your honesty Yes

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Agreed, scientifically Abiogenesis is a mystery, an active area ripe for discovery. Little is known about it, therefore it doesn't make sense to teach it in secondary schools.

Again, I admire your honesty.

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've read "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

So that should be enough to tell you not all biologists believe in what you call, "the evidence".

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  WLC isn't qualified to speak on topics such as evolution, astronomy, physics, biology, cosmology.

Then none of you people are qualified to speak on topics such as evolution/biology. I doubt any of you have a degree in the scientific field of biology, yet you come on here and speak as if you are experts in the field.

And btw, WLC isn't a cosmologist, but he has MORE THAN SHOWN to be able to handle himself in debates against some of the most prominent atheists in the fields of physics and cosmology...some of these include Victor Stenger, Lawrence Krauss, and most recently Sean Carrol...all of whom are atheist physicists.

Not only that, but WLC also have shown to be able to handle himself by lecturing an audience on certain cosmological models, and even had a Q&A session during this lecture where the audience fired questions at him, and he answered each one as brilliantly as any cosmologist could.

Here is the video of the Q&A session here, beginning with part 1..





(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I haven't read anything by Strobel. What are his qualifications regarding these topics?

He has qualifications as a journalist, and it is as a journalist that he is conducting interviews with these gentlemen regarding these topics.

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Evolution talks only of the diversity of biological life forms. It speaks nothing of the first life from non life and it speaks nothing outside of biological life forms.

If you cant demonstrate how life could arise from nonliving material, you can't conclude that evolution is a 100% brute fact now, can you?

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "blind". Evolution isn't blind from the perspective of natural selection. This is a filtering process and it is reliant on the current state of an organism. e.g. the slow antelope get eaten but the fast ones avoid the cheetas.

How can natural selection give you a consciousness to go with the brain?

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not sure what you mean by "transitional" fossils.
All species are transitioning all the time. All fossils can be considered transitional. Evolution is an ongoing, never ending process.

Transitioning to what?

(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If god has energy eternally in his position then time and space are eternal. Time and space are a consequence of the existence of energy.

Only after a timeless first cause began the creation of a four dimensional space-time realm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, since abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, then a book on evolution is unnecessary.
Scientists have discovered many facts about reproduction, descent, genetics, genetic defects, epigenetics, adaptation, bio-diversity. Evolution ties this altogether. Abiogenesis is a different topic entirely.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A theist who believes in evolution is alright with me. It is the "evolution without God" stuff...that is what I object to.
So you accept that evolution might be true?
Just because nature can do it without god it doesn't mean that your god doesn't put his hand to it if he chooses to.
Nature produces lakes, but humans also make man-made lakes. Just because nature can do it, it doesn't mean that humans can't choose to do it too.

You can accept evolution and still believe in gods.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What is the single best evidence you can provide for evolution. Just give me the single best one...don't post any links either...just tell me.
Personally, I think the most compelling evidence is DNA and understanding the tree of life "phylogenetic tree"

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've read "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells.

So that should be enough to tell you not all biologists believe in what you call, "the evidence".
Yes I accept that there are some Christian scientists who don't accept evolution. However these scientists stop participating in science, they move to pseudo-science and then are unable to get their works published in reputable scientific journals.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  WLC isn't qualified to speak on topics such as evolution, astronomy, physics, biology, cosmology.

Then none of you people are qualified to speak on topics such as evolution/biology.
"You people"?
I have suggested you read some books written by the world's leading scientists in the field of evolutionary biology.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And btw, WLC isn't a cosmologist, but he has MORE THAN SHOWN to be able to handle himself in debates against some of the most prominent atheists in the fields of physics and cosmology.
WLC is a philosopher and a professional debater. He is clueless regarding science.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Evolution talks only of the diversity of biological life forms. It speaks nothing of the first life from non life and it speaks nothing outside of biological life forms.

If you cant demonstrate how life could arise from nonliving material, you can't conclude that evolution is a 100% brute fact now, can you?
Evolution is independent of abiogenesis.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  How can natural selection give you a consciousness to go with the brain?
I think you have a different understanding of what consciousness is to what I have.
For me consciousness is an emergent property of life. I don't believe in dualism.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not sure what you mean by "transitional" fossils.
All species are transitioning all the time. All fossils can be considered transitional. Evolution is an ongoing, never ending process.

Transitioning to what?
I think you see a species as a discrete thing with some variable aspects e.g. a black dog, a white dog, a white dog with black spots.

I see it differently.
the "dog" species represents a range of phenotypes which are capable of procreating hence "same species". There is no base set common to all within the species which represents what a dog is. Over millions of generations the gene pools shifts, possibly splits and becomes reproductively incompatible with their distant origins. There is no clear demarcation between close generations so the change between homo erectus and homo sapien is not clearly demarcated. There is no cut off, it is a continuous process.

All species are continually transitioning. They are transitioning onto whatever suits their current environment.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(02-04-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If god has energy eternally in his position then time and space are eternal. Time and space are a consequence of the existence of energy.

Only after a timeless first cause began the creation of a four dimensional space-time realm.
When you have energy you have spacetime. If you insist the energy was eternal then spacetime must be eternal. So what is it that god did? He seems somewhat redundant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
03-04-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, since abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, then a book on evolution is unnecessary.
Scientists have discovered many facts about reproduction, descent, genetics, genetic defects, epigenetics, adaptation, bio-diversity. Evolution ties this altogether. Abiogenesis is a different topic entirely.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A theist who believes in evolution is alright with me. It is the "evolution without God" stuff...that is what I object to.
So you accept that evolution might be true?
Just because nature can do it without god it doesn't mean that your god doesn't put his hand to it if he chooses to.
Nature produces lakes, but humans also make man-made lakes. Just because nature can do it, it doesn't mean that humans can't choose to do it too.

You can accept evolution and still believe in gods.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What is the single best evidence you can provide for evolution. Just give me the single best one...don't post any links either...just tell me.
Personally, I think the most compelling evidence is DNA and understanding the tree of life "phylogenetic tree"

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So that should be enough to tell you not all biologists believe in what you call, "the evidence".
Yes I accept that there are some Christian scientists who don't accept evolution. However these scientists stop participating in science, they move to pseudo-science and then are unable to get their works published in reputable scientific journals.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then none of you people are qualified to speak on topics such as evolution/biology.
"You people"?
I have suggested you read some books written by the world's leading scientists in the field of evolutionary biology.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And btw, WLC isn't a cosmologist, but he has MORE THAN SHOWN to be able to handle himself in debates against some of the most prominent atheists in the fields of physics and cosmology.
WLC is a philosopher and a professional debater. He is clueless regarding science.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you cant demonstrate how life could arise from nonliving material, you can't conclude that evolution is a 100% brute fact now, can you?
Evolution is independent of abiogenesis.

(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  How can natural selection give you a consciousness to go with the brain?
I think you have a different understanding of what consciousness is to what I have.
For me consciousness is an emergent property of life. I don't believe in dualism.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Transitioning to what?
I think you see a species as a discrete thing with some variable aspects e.g. a black dog, a white dog, a white dog with black spots.

I see it differently.
the "dog" species represents a range of phenotypes which are capable of procreating hence "same species". There is no base set common to all within the species which represents what a dog is. Over millions of generations the gene pools shifts, possibly splits and becomes reproductively incompatible with their distant origins. There is no clear demarcation between close generations so the change between homo erectus and homo sapien is not clearly demarcated. There is no cut off, it is a continuous process.

All species are continually transitioning. They are transitioning onto whatever suits their current environment.


(03-04-2015 10:20 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Only after a timeless first cause began the creation of a four dimensional space-time realm.
When you have energy you have spacetime. If you insist the energy was eternal then spacetime must be eternal. So what is it that god did? He seems somewhat redundant.

Physics even makes it clear that to have energy, you must have some aspect of time:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass * (units of distance)/(units of time)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
Uh, wow. People are still willing to respond to this asshole after I took him to task for misrepresenting our views into easy to debunk strawmen, and he assented that this was what he was doing by using the thumbs up smiley? Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-04-2015 09:50 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Who said he can't? You?
Sigh.....
You said we were created 'good' not 'perfect'.
So either he chose not to create us perfect or he can't create us perfect.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: Outside of Space and Time
(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Scientists have discovered many facts about reproduction, descent, genetics, genetic defects, epigenetics, adaptation, bio-diversity. Evolution ties this altogether. Abiogenesis is a different topic entirely.

Then you are committing the cart before the horse fallacy.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So you accept that evolution might be true?

It might be true if that is what God choose to create stuff with.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Just because nature can do it without god it doesn't mean that your god doesn't put his hand to it if he chooses to.

Huh

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Nature produces lakes, but humans also make man-made lakes. Just because nature can do it, it doesn't mean that humans can't choose to do it too.

Nature produces lakes, humans make man-made lakes...but GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE

Thanks for telling me what naturally happened AFTER God created the universe Laugh out load

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You can accept evolution and still believe in gods.

If you accept evolution, and still believe in gods, you aren't an atheist, are you?

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Personally, I think the most compelling evidence is DNA and understanding the tree of life "phylogenetic tree"

DNA is a code, and codes have programmers. Programmers are intelligent. They design things.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes I accept that there are some Christian scientists who don't accept evolution. However these scientists stop participating in science, they move to pseudo-science and then are unable to get their works published in reputable scientific journals.

Yeah, Christians will leave the voodoo to the evolutionists.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  "You people"?
I have suggested you read some books written by the world's leading scientists in the field of evolutionary biology.

You told me how unqualified Craig is to speak on cosmology, because he ain't a cosmologist, yet, you people speak on biology/evolution all the time on here, and I doubt anyone on here is a biologist.

So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  WLC is a philosopher and a professional debater. He is clueless regarding science.

People that are unfamiliar with cosmology don't normally give lectures and answers questions from the audiences regarding cosmological models of the universe.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Evolution is independent of abiogenesis.

Not on atheism, it isn't.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think you have a different understanding of what consciousness is to what I have.
For me consciousness is an emergent property of life. I don't believe in dualism.

Consciousness is what makes living things "aware" of reality. I am at a loss as to how inanimate matter can become aware of reality Laugh out load

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think you see a species as a discrete thing with some variable aspects e.g. a black dog, a white dog, a white dog with black spots.

I see it differently.
the "dog" species represents a range of phenotypes which are capable of procreating hence "same species". There is no base set common to all within the species which represents what a dog is. Over millions of generations the gene pools shifts, possibly splits and becomes reproductively incompatible with their distant origins. There is no clear demarcation between close generations so the change between homo erectus and homo sapien is not clearly demarcated. There is no cut off, it is a continuous process.

Bio-babble.

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  All species are continually transitioning. They are transitioning onto whatever suits their current environment.

Eskimo's live in extreme cold temperatures, so I guess in a million years they will have grown fur to suit their environment?

(03-04-2015 03:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  When you have energy you have spacetime. If you insist the energy was eternal then spacetime must be eternal. So what is it that god did? He seems somewhat redundant.

Question: Does a spirit occupy space?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: