Let's have a discussion and speculate on the possible origin of consciousness and sentience.

At the great risk of contradicting my atheistic world view,It may seem, again from my viewpoint, that consciousness, whether individual, collective or universal, may be the driving impetus for life and survival.
In other words, for the sake of this discussion, I am agreeing with you that there is an underlying consciousness, though impersonal, that seem to guide life.

As a theist, I already know that you would see consciousness as the divine gift of an omni omni super duper creator god.
And I know that you are quite capable of eloquently waxing philosophical to buttress this view.

So, I wish you would agree with me that no matter how sweet and eloquent it makes you feel, your notions are, at best,a good sounding hypothesis and nothing more.

If we can agree that god is a hypothesis, then it behoves us to look further and speculate further on the possible origins of consciousness .

Firstly, what exactly is your take on evolution?.
In other words, what do you understand about evolution, and its role, if any at all, in existence?

N.B:
I would love to hear from others too, especially N.Nwankwo too, if he is reading this post.

You have very many sincere questions begging for truthful answers, but to know, a man has to listen, be teachable and accept facts. I will be back when am able to, so we can discuss on Consciousness as the precursor of evolution.

Consciousness is NOT divine, but scientific, but religion being so dysfunctional, has attributed Consciousness to Divinity. I will need to be grateful to Religion for taking man out of the woods, but man has evolved beyond the tangents that has bearings with religion. Consciousness is purely para-scientific affair.

Billyonaire: Consciousness is NOT divine, but scientific, but religion being so dysfunctional, has attributed Consciousness to Divinity. I will need to be grateful to Religion for taking man out of the woods, but man has evolved beyond the tangents that has bearings with religion. Consciousness is purely para-scientific affair.

What do you mean that consciousness is scientific and How did you arrive at the conclusion?

plaetton:
As a theist, I already know that you would see consciousness as the divine gift of an omni omni super duper creator god.

First of all, The above assumption is silly(actually st.upid ). I am a theist and I don't think this way. Consciousness CANNOT be a gift; How can you give a gift to an inanimate object, incapable of consciousness(unless you are a mad man)?? So for there to be a gift, the recipient must first be conscious in order to appreciate this gift. Fail!!!

As a theist, I believe God gives a gift of righteousness, salvation and eternal life. Not consciousness.

So Revise!! your mindset, then perhaps we can rub minds(No homo ).

Billyonaire: Consciousness is NOT divine, but scientific, but religion being so dysfunctional, has attributed Consciousness to Divinity. I will need to be grateful to Religion for taking man out of the woods, but man has evolved beyond the tangents that has bearings with religion. Consciousness is purely para-scientific affair.

Da'Foq are you talking about? Consciousness is scientific?? You mean consciousness was created by science or is absolutely observable by science?? Of course the answer to both is NO!!!

@okeyxyz.
So that this discussion may go further than this, we are for now, treating god as a hypothesis, rather than a proven fact.
By divine gift, I meant of divine origins.

plaetton:
@okeyxyz.
By divine gift, I meant of divine origins.

Okay. I believe consciousness is of divine origins since there no other explanations/demonstration of it's origin. Consciousness is the life itself. Evolution is an assumption rather than a science, since science is an observational method/process. Nobody has yet observed evolution in whatever shape or form or facet. It is simply assumed. You see two things that look alike then you assume one evolved into the other or that they both evolved from a common ancestor, Or in this case, you assume that life began from some inanimate elements, under some inanimate conditions. But this process of transformation has never been observed, thus unscientific.

And I'm not asking for an observation of this evolution over millions of years, but show me an evolution demonstrated in any lab, of the origins of the most basic units of life(ie DNA) from these inanimate elements. You don't need years to observe them but seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.

I don't accept the current theory of evolution. My understanding of the topic is intermediate. Now to a summary of my knowledge. All I'll write subsequently is off my head.

Evolution can be defined as: the change in the frequency of allekes in a population OR the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestral species. The most cited mechanisms are (random) mutations and (non-random) natural selection. Lesser known mevhanisms are sexual selection, kin selection, genetic drift and (probably_having problems recalling) gene flow. It supposedly has nothing to do with the origin of life but evolutionary mechanisms are invoked to explain how proto-lifeforms became the first living things. It is meant to be a unifying explanation as to how life is diversified. The evidence for evolution comes from: homology, embryology, fossils, vestigial organs, genetic similarity (and its match with predictions and data from homology), bio-geographical distribution of species.

Uyi Iredia: I don't accept the current theory of evolution. My understanding of the topic is intermediate. Now to a summary of my knowledge. All I'll write subsequently is off my head.

Evolution can be defined as: the change in the frequency of allekes in a population OR the common descent of all organisms from a single ancestral species. The most cited mechanisms are (random) mutations and (non-random) natural selection. Lesser known mevhanisms are sexual selection, kin selection, genetic drift and (probably_having problems recalling) gene flow. It supposedly has nothing to do with the origin of life but evolutionary mechanisms are invoked to explain how proto-lifeforms became the first living things. It is meant to be a unifying explanation as to how life is diversified. The evidence for evolution comes from: homology, embryology, fossils, vestigial organs, genetic similarity (and its match with predictions and data from homology), bio-geographical distribution of species.

So, basically, are you saying that you do not know enough to make an informed position on evolution, or that you do not accept the much that you do know about the evolution.

Secondly, Notice that I deliberately wrote evolution, without particular reference to biological evolution.
The point I am trying to make is that if you do not accept biological evolution, then are you proposing that all biological life forms instantaneously appeared on earth at a certain point in the past?
In other words, are you a 7-day creationist?

okeyxyz:

Okay. I believe consciousness is of divine origins since there no other explanations/demonstration of it's origin. Consciousness is the life itself. Evolution is an assumption rather than a science, since science is an observational method/process. Nobody has yet observed evolution in whatever shape or form or facet. It is simply assumed. You see two things that look alike then you assume one evolved into the other or that they both evolved from a common ancestor, Or in this case, you assume that life began from some inanimate elements, under some inanimate conditions. But this process of transformation has never been observed, thus unscientific.

And I'm not asking for an observation of this evolution over millions of years, but show me an evolution demonstrated in any lab, of the origins of the most basic units of life(ie DNA) from these inanimate elements. You don't need years to observe them but seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.

Again, it is quite obvious that you do not have the optimum level of knowledge on the theory of evolution.

You have tried to make the case that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain origin and diversity of life.
But how does insufficiency of knowledge or evidence in one theory automatically lead you accept another ,that in it's self, also has absolutely no supporting scientific evidence?
You have not made any case for the substitution of the theory of evolution with divine provenance.

In other words, kindly make a case for divine provenance for life and consciousness.

plaetton:
Again, it is quite obvious that you do not have the optimum level of knowledge on the theory of evolution.

You have tried to make the case that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain origin and diversity of life.

Okay, Perhaps you can explain to me: Is this theory of evolution as an origin of life observable(ie scientific) or is it assumed??

But how does insufficiency of knowledge or evidence in one theory automatically lead you accept another, that in it's self, also has absolutely no supporting scientific evidence?
You have not made any case for the substitution of the theory of evolution with divine provenance.

In other words, kindly make a case for divine provenance for life and consciousness.

This line of inquiry is flawed; First of all: Spirituality or religion never claimed to be all encompassed within science(though it respects science), rather it claims to be based on faith that transcends science, So it is illogical for you to ask it to proof it's claims scientifically. You CANNOT prove or disprove a claim that was never made in the first place.

On the other hand: It is evolution itself that claims to be absolutely scientific, therefore it must be held to scientific tests and proofs. The moment evolution delves into unobservable assumptions, then it seizes to be scientific and becomes faith. Again I challenge you: can you provide any scientific document of evolution originating life?

Anony has been debunked on this issue, Plaetton.....(check the soul threads)

Consciousness is a function of the brain+nervous system............remove the brain and there is no consciousness.

Simple and short. Consciousness is evolutionary

plaetton:

So, basically, are you saying that you do not know enough to make an informed position on evolution, or that you do not accept the much that you do know about the evolution.

Sir, how old are you ? Are you a dunce ? I PROPERLY defined evolution and listed its mechanisms and you're spouting silly questions about not knowing or not knowing enough to make an informed position on evolution. In any case, I do know enough to make an informed position.

plaetton:
Secondly, Notice that I deliberately wrote evolution, without particular reference to biological evolution.
The point I am trying to make is that if you do not accept biological evolution, then are you proposing that all biological life forms instantaneously appeared on earth at a certain point in the past?
In other words, are you a 7-day creationist?

No, I'm not. I once defined myself as a YEC/ID'st. I have abandoned YEC and have ID sympathies. The theory of evolution should stand on merits alone and not on the availability of alternatives.

Uyi Iredia:
I once defined myself as a YEC/ID'st. I have abandoned YEC and have ID sympathies. The theory of evolution shoyldnstand on merits alone and not on the availability of alternatives.

which one be YEC/ID'st again

okeyxyz:

which one be YEC/ID'st again

YEC - Young Earth Creationists. Christians who disbelieve evolution, insist the earth has a much younger age of 6000-10000 years and fully believe that Genesis 1 & 2 is a historical account of how life began.

ID'st - ID theorist. Maintains that life is similar to complex systems built by humans via their intelligence and that intelligence is necessary to the origin of life. The ID theory commonly mistaken by evolutionists to make claims about 'the designer'.

plaetton: Let's have a discussion and speculate on the possible origin of consciousness and sentience.

I thank you immensely for raising this subject: for it is a subject I have been dwelling ever more on in recent times. Indeed, I have intended to open a thread on same, but never had the words to describe my feelings on the matter to our many very unseeing atheists.

I will seize this thread as an opportunity to do so.

At the great risk of contradicting my atheistic world view,It may seem, again from my viewpoint, that consciousness, whether individual, collective or universal, may be the driving impetus for life and survival.
In other words, for the sake of this discussion, I am agreeing with you that there is an underlying consciousness, though impersonal, that seem to guide life.

As a theist, I already know that you would see consciousness as the divine gift of an omni omni super duper creator god.
And I know that you are quite capable of eloquently waxing philosophical to buttress this view.

So, I wish you would agree with me that no matter how sweet and eloquent it makes you feel, your notions are, at best,a good sounding hypothesis and nothing more.

If we can agree that god is a hypothesis, then it behoves us to look further and speculate further on the possible origins of consciousness

No, my dear: this is no matter of a "good sounding hypothesis" - it is rather a matter of what is very very real - it is the very core of what we are as conscious beings. Consciousness is such a self-evident proof of not only the existence, but the very nature of that origin of origins that is GOD.

In all seriousness, it amazes me that any thinking conscious being, could fail to see that: and could fail to see what he is, and what that means for what God is.

In this regard I recently asked an atheist on this forum a very subtle question, for which he gave me a most disappointing answer. I asked him if he could see himself; and if anyone else could see him. The answer to this question is very telling, and it reveals to the clear-minded the simple truth about what beings we are and as such what the origin of all life is. But I will come to this in a further post.

Firstly, what exactly is your take on evolution?.

There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things, but I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance.

okeyxyz:

Okay. I believe consciousness is of divine origins since there no other explanations/demonstration of it's origin. Consciousness is the life itself. Evolution is an assumption rather than a science, since science is an observational method/process. Nobody has yet observed evolution in whatever shape or form or facet. It is simply assumed. You see two things that look alike then you assume one evolved into the other or that they both evolved from a common ancestor, Or in this case, you assume that life began from some inanimate elements, under some inanimate conditions. But this process of transformation has never been observed, thus unscientific.

And I'm not asking for an observation of this evolution over millions of years, but show me an evolution demonstrated in any lab, of the origins of the most basic units of life(ie DNA) from these inanimate elements. You don't need years to observe them but seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.

Evolution of bacteria and fungi?

Uyi Iredia:

Sir, how old are you ? Are you a dunce ? I PROPERLY defined evolution and listed its mechanisms and you're spouting silly questions about not knowing or not knowing enough to make an informed position on evolution. In any case, I do know enough to make an informed position.



No, I'm not. I once defined myself as a YEC/ID'st. I have abandoned YEC and have ID sympathies. The theory of evolution should stand on merits alone and not on the availability of alternatives.

Sir,You said that your knowledge of the topic was intermediate.

To me, intermediate means half knowledge. It means that you do not have the full grasp of the topic, and that you still have a lot to learn on the subject. Not so?

Also, giving a definition does not mean that you have full grasp of the subject.
That is why I asked you whether your rejection of the evolution is based on full or insufficient knowledge. You have already answered the question.
Thank you.
It would interest you to know that a lot of anti-evolutionists on this forum have far less than intermediate knowledge of the subject.

So, in summary, you reject evolution because of insufficient knowledge on the subject,you used to be a 7-day creationist, and now you are for Intelligent design.
Unfortunately for you sir, you have unknowingly put yourself in a quagmire.
Intelligent design without evolution is an oxymoron- a contradiction in terms.
Intelligent design is the notion that life indicate evidence of intelligent design, it does not in any way explain how anything came to be, which is what evolution tries to do.
So if you discard the theory of evolution, your intelligent design theory, even if plausible, has nothing to stand on.
What propels a design and what are the processes that it must pass through in order to manifest in reality?

Hint: Could evolution be the process through which intelligent design is manifest?
Think about it.

I notice that people reject the theory of evolution even without understanding the full breath of it, simply because they see it as an affront against 7-days creation myths that they have accepted by faith.

All Consciousness is God. Separateness of conscious beings is an illusion. A trick God plays on himself in order to experience reality in multiple ways and dimensions.

okeyxyz:

Okay, Perhaps you can explain to me: Is this theory of evolution as an origin of life observable(ie scientific) or is it assumed??


This line of inquiry is flawed; First of all: Spirituality or religion never claimed to be all encompassed within science(though it respects science), rather it claims to be based on faith that transcends science, So it is illogical for you to ask it to proof it's claims scientifically. You CANNOT prove or disprove a claim that was never made in the first place.

On the other hand: It is evolution itself that claims to be absolutely scientific, therefore it must be held to scientific tests and proofs. The moment evolution delves into unobservable assumptions, then it seizes to be scientific and becomes faith. Again I challenge you: can you provide any scientific document of evolution originating life?

You make me laugh.
It seems that you have many false assumptions about the meaning of science. You have proven time and time again, that you are not well acquainted with the scientific method.
If you claim that religion/spirituality are not in the same realm as science, then why would you be clinging to religious beliefs in an attempt to disprove or reject scientifically valid notions?

I must say that I find some of your claims and questions a bit childish. However, I do admire your courage to come out in public to defend ignorance.

Rossikk: All Consciousness is God. Separateness of conscious beings is an illusion. A trick God plays on himself in order to experience reality in multiple ways and dimensions.

That's easy to say. Give all the credit to god, and then Blame everything on the devil. lol.
What is god?

Deep Sight:

I thank you immensely for raising this subject: for it is a subject I have been dwelling ever more on in recent times. Indeed, I have intended to open a thread on same, but never had the words to describe my feelings on the matter to our many very unseeing atheists.

I will seize this thread as an opportunity to do so.





No, my dear: this is no matter of a "good sounding hypothesis" - it is rather a matter of what is very very real - it is the very core of what we are as conscious beings. Consciousness is such a self-evident proof of not only the existence, but the very nature of that origin of origins that is GOD.

In all seriousness, it amazes me that any thinking conscious being, could fail to see that: and could fail to see what he is, and what that means for what God is.

In this regard I recently asked an atheist on this forum a very subtle question, for which he gave me a most disappointing answer. I asked him if he could see himself; and if anyone else could see him. The answer to this question is very telling, and it reveals to the clear-minded the simple truth about what beings we are and as such what the origin of all life is. But I will come to this in a further post.



There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things, but I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance.

For this early stage, the bolded is what I am keenly interested in.
Please elaborate further what you mean by "some form of evolution".
This is extremely important for this discussion.

plaetton:
That's easy to say. Give all the credit to god, and then Blame everything on the devil. lol.
What is god?

There is no 'devil'. God is all there is.

From my little understanding, everything proceeded from one undifferentiated singularity.

It's really not difficult 'understanding' the nature of God. On a sub-atomic level, there's really no place where your áss ends and the chair you are sitting on begins.


It was the profound realization of this oneness of all being that made Jesus say things like: "I and the Father are one", "If you've seen me, you've seen the father", "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there" (Gospel of Thomas), “...before Abraham was born, I am.”

God is the one-life, the one consciousness, continually segmenting and experiencing itself in form.


I love this beautiful paragraph from The Science of Getting Rich by Wallace Wattles:

"He wants all these things because it is himself that enjoys and appreciates them; they are his creation. It is God who wants to play, and sing, and enjoy beauty, and proclaim truth, and wear fine clothes, and eat good foods. “It is God that worketh in you to will and to do,” said the apostle Paul."


Einstein once said:

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

^^^
Delectable eloquence indeed.
But are we not simply jumping to conclusion on a subject for which there is little evidence for critical analysis?

How is god more than just an idea?
And what are your thoughts on evolution?

plaetton:

Deep Sight:

There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things, but I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance.

For this early stage, the bolded is what I am keenly interested in.
Please elaborate further what you mean by "some form of evolution".
This is extremely important for this discussion.

@ Plaetton

1.) For the "...I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance." part (of Deep Sight's post):

I'll have to quote Mr Einstein again (at least you hold him as an authority, more than you would the Bible or the Koran ).


He said: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects."


You are a very brilliant man Mr Plaetton, I always read your posts with interest. I know that you are very much aware that there is so much order and unmistakable precision in the physical world.


Now, what are the mathematical odds of the known universe blindly and randomly floundering into it's present state? Let's just say that is several times greater than the chance of a monkey on a typewriter randomly producing the works of Shakespeare (lol pardon the cliché).

I believe our point of contention should rather be whether all this was brought about by the Christain God or Allah or Sango or even Aliens .


Einstein again: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

-- "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

-- "The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."



2.) For the "There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things," part (of Deep Sight's post):

From my current limited understanding, God doesn't instantly will things into form. There appears to be a process of progressive, guided, evolutionary refinement towards fuller functioning.


In the Genesis account of creation, the very second verse has something very interesting:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved (literally brooding) upon the face of the waters."

Brooding means to incubate. This denotes a non-instant materialization process.

One could strongly argue that the prehistoric dinosaurs were our 'experimental' prototypes/progenitors.


Low Battery...

Richfella:


@ Plaetton

1.) For the "...I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance." part (of Deep Sight's post):

I'll have to quote Mr Einstein again (at least you hold him as an authority, more than you would the Bible or the Koran ).


He said: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects."


You are a very brilliant man Mr Plaetton, I always read your posts with interest. I know that you are very much aware that there is so much order and unmistakable precision in the physical world.

.[/i]

Thank you sir.
It does appear that we are drinking from the same fountain of knowledge.
I agree wholehearted with Einstein's feelings.
They are, nevertheless, just his personal feelings, and were, by no means, scientific propositions.

To be frank, I , and am sure, most people who study science feel the same way at a certain times.
I loved and embraced science because I felt that religion was an insult to god, and that science showcased the blue prints and wonder of god in creation, and was therefore the only true religion.
I felt, and to some extent, still feel that scientific study, and by extension the study of self, was the best homage to god, if indeed god exists.

However, in a later phase of my life as I delved deeper into science I began to question the necessity for god in the universe. Did and does the universe really need a god? what is god? Is god not just a convenient creation to bridge the wide gaps in our knowledge, the very same ways that primitive men, who did not weather patterns, sacrificed animals and even humans to in order appease supposedly angry gods from thunderstorms and other inclement weather?

Richfella:


2.) For the "There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things," part (of Deep Sight's post):

From my current limited understanding, God doesn't instantly will things into form. There appears to be a process of progressive, guided, evolutionary refinement towards fuller functioning.

[/i]

This is profound.
However, I am waiting for most or all contributors to hopefully arrive at this point or somewhere near, before I can begin proper to articulate my own views.
If we can have a harmonised view of what evolution is or does, then this thread will get a lot more interesting,.. for me at least.

Richfella:


@ Plaetton

1.) For the "...I am certain that it is not mindless, and is certainly not the product of chance." part (of Deep Sight's post):

I'll have to quote Mr Einstein again (at least you hold him as an authority, more than you would the Bible or the Koran ).


He said: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects."


You are a very brilliant man Mr Plaetton, I always read your posts with interest. I know that you are very much aware that there is so much order and unmistakable precision in the physical world.


Now, what are the mathematical odds of the known universe blindly and randomly floundering into it's present state? Let's just say that is several times greater than the chance of a monkey on a typewriter randomly producing the works of Shakespeare (lol pardon the cliché).

I believe our point of contention should rather be whether all this was brought about by the Christain God or Allah or Sango or even Aliens .


Einstein again: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

-- "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

-- "The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."



2.) For the "There is necessarily some form of evolution in all things," part (of Deep Sight's post):

From my current limited understanding, God doesn't instantly will things into form. There appears to be a process of progressive, guided, evolutionary refinement towards fuller functioning.


In the Genesis account of creation, the very second verse has something very interesting:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved (literally brooding) upon the face of the waters."

Brooding means to incubate. This denotes a non-instant materialization process.

One could strongly argue that the prehistoric dinosaurs were our 'experimental' prototypes/progenitors.


Low Battery...

The danger in believing intricate and meticulous character of the Universe naturally warrants a Conscious Being's intelligence, automatically puts the same question before this Conscious Creator.

An infinite regress would result and yet we wouldn't be able to deny that intricacy demands an intelligent maker, unlike the first cause argument.

plaetton:

Sir,You said that your knowledge of the topic was intermediate.

To me, intermediate means half knowledge. It means that you do not have the full grasp of the topic, and that you still have a lot to learn on the subject. Not so?

And I don't need to have a full grasp of the topic. In fact, a beginner's knowledge of the theory is enough to evaluate whether the theory is valid or not. And I know that you don't have a full knowledge of the topic. Let's see. Without using Google (and from the top of your head) state the application of the Hardy-Weinberg formula, state Ohno's 2r hypothesis and tell me the method used in cross-checking gene sequences. Rest assured, these questions are off the top of my head from books I've, at least, skimmed.

plaetton: Also, giving a definition does not mean that you have full grasp of the subject.
That is why I asked you whether your rejection of the evolution is based on full or insufficient knowledge. You have already answered the question.
Thank you.
It would interest you to know that a lot of anti-evolutionists on this forum have far less than intermediate knowledge of the subject.

Giving definitions, mechanisms and lines of evidence indicates adequate knowledge of the theory. I replied my knowledge of evolution was adequate (or sufficient). Your pathetic attempts at implying that intermediate knowledge of the theory isn't sufficient is laughable since many (e.g preteens, high-school teenagers and laymen adults) who accept the theory only have a basic knowledge of the subject (that which they were taught in school). I OTOH read PNAS journals, university textbooks, blogs, essays and popular science reads (e.g The Greatest Show On Earth). On request, I can show you pics of them on my laptop. What have you read on the theory you believe ?

plaetton: So, in summary, you reject evolution because of insufficient knowledge on the subject,you used to be a 7-day creationist, and now you are for Intelligent design.

Certified dunce. This is a very typical response from evolutionists.
Like this piece of $hit.

thehomer: Get back to me when you've shown some seriousness and understanding.

plaetton: Unfortunately for you sir, you have unknowingly put yourself in a quagmire.
Intelligent design without evolution is an oxymoron- a contradiction in terms.

I see. How so ?

plaetton: Intelligent design is the notion that life indicate evidence of intelligent design, it does not in any way explain how anything came to be, which is what evolution tries to do.
So if you discard the theory of evolution, your intelligent design theory, even if plausible, has nothing to stand on.
What propels a design and what are the processes that it must pass through in order to manifest in reality?

True it doesn't. But it states a requirement - intelligence. It's interesting to always note the irony in the words of evolutionists. Evolution is supposed to be the result of a blind, unconscious process yet purpose is always somehow smuggled in. That's why people can uncritically accept the metaphor, Blind Watchmaker, or Dawkin's weasel experiment, or the evidence of evolution from computer simulations. I might not answer the questions you asked.

plaetton: Hint: Could evolution be the process through which intelligent design is manifest?
Think about it.

Couldn't be. The reason is because no naturally-occuring phenomena (eg river flow, wind, tornadoes, soil creep, lava flow, geuser bursts, hydrothermal busts etc) has been observed to give rise to the kind of complexity in living organisms. The kind of complexity they make is limited (e.g snowflakes, diamonds, stalactites etc)

plaetton: I notice that people reject the theory of evolution even without understanding the full breath of it, simply because they see it as an affront against 7-days creation myths that they have accepted by faith.

Some do. But some people irrationaly think all skeptics of the evolutionary theory are religiously motivated.

^^^
Ok let me put in another way.
I am still not sure if you acknowledge the evolutionary process or not. If you do at all, how do you think it works, if not, how did the universe go from design to the complex reality that we see today?.

How old do think the universe and the earth are? Is the universe static or is there change?
If there is change, what is the agent for such change and what are the processes for such changes.

Just your own simple understanding, no academic papers, wiki or google required.

let me remind you that my purpose of this thread is mainly to speculate and discuss, and not really about pushing our dogmatic positions, which are already well known to each other.
So pipe down a bit.

plaetton: ^^^
Ok let me put in another way.
I am still not sure if you acknowledge the evolutionary process or not. If you do at all, how do you think it works, if not, how did the universe go from design to the complex reality that we see today?.

How old do think the universe and the earth are? Is the universe static or is there change?
If there is change, what is the agent for such change and what are the processes for such changes.

Just your own simple understanding, no academic papers, wiki or google required.

let me remind you that my purpose of this thread is mainly to speculate and discuss, and not really about pushing our dogmatic positions, which are already well known to each other.
So pipe down a bit.

I properly defined evolution and listed its mechanisms. Note that. That said I can't state (in adequate detail) how species were created. The reason is that this happened in the past and as such what I would present are speculations. What I can confidently say (and the evolutionist would agree) is that creation of organisms would involve the organisation of elements into complex structures. The strength of design is in its null hypothesis (I consider its positive case to be quite weak). This null hypothesis is that: natural phenomena have never been observed to make the kind of (functionally specified) complexity found in living things.
Sure natural phenomena produce complexity as in ocean waves, diamonds, snowflakes, stalactites etc but NEVER a system involving a functional interrelation of parts. Now to the positive case, you are aware Intelligent Design proponents theorize that life was designed. The basis is in the observed fact that humans design systems complex in a manner similar to life and incorporate novelties found in Nature in their technologies (e.g Philip Emagiali's supercomputer was inspired by the efficiency of a bee's honeycomb structure). The problem in the inference from that to design is the fact that intelligence is a product of DNA. This makes it appear circular to me. ID people don't see this, evolutionists imply this but I haven't seen a case where this is clearly stated (save in a certain exchange on Perry Marshall's blog). In any case, I can still ignore evolutionary claims on the sttength of the null hypothesis.

I don't know the earth's age. I have not read sufficiently on that to form a conclusion. However, from what I've read from old-earth deniers I'm skeptical of an old age. I no longer believe in YEC ages either. Bottom line: I haven't reached a conclusion on the earth's age. I think there is evident change in the universe. Stars form and die, comets come and go, planets are deviating from their orbit, albeit slightly. We also see this in Nature, new variations in species, earthquakes etc. You ask about the agents and processes of such change but I wonder how to tackle the question. Are asking me how such changes occur because if that's the case I don't know how its accomplished in all cases I stated (save for planet orbits, earthquakes and variation in species). Should I continue ?

I think in any case positions will be stated. That's inevitable.

WHAT is Consciousness?

An awareness of self/ sense of selfhood. An intuitive truth; likened to a mirror. All conscious experiences flow and are understood through channel of the self. Inspite of the fact, that Consciousness is possibly shared by many, it is strictly a property of the individual; revolves around the idea of self and cannot be isolated from such individual. Because it would lose all sense and meaning.

Constructing an abstract of collective Consciousness in my belief, must also revolve round a collective self, just as Spinoza's God.