Well this was actually a response (slightly edited) to Plaetton's thread asking if consciousness cannot be explained by evolution only, without the need for some Divine attribution. However I think that these questions merit a discussion of their own; and I believe that they are cardinal questions.

To be clear: these posers seek to show that current scientific explanation for existence as we know it alone and by itself - from the big b.ang through to evolution and mankind, does not and cannot account for life as we know it.

To be further clear: I actually believe in evolution. There must have been evolution of some sort. However I do not believe that it was blind or unguided. I believe in an evolutionary universe and an evolutionary process guided by a definite and intelligent hand.

________________________________
I have tried to adumbrate the argument against the idea that Evolution accounts for consciousness; particularly sapient and knowing consciousness of the human kind.

That which is set forth by current scientific thinking - starting with the Big B.ang and all the way through to evolution and humanity, does not account for the existence of life and consciousness as we know it today.

Perhaps I may expand on each of the points in further posts: However, I leave them in all their bare simplicity below for you and others to reflect closely on.

These are the fundamental pillars of reasoning whereat I say that current scientific thinking, from the Big Bang through to evolution, cannot, and does not account for consciousness as we know it.

The reasons are reduced to these very simple posers:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on the Big B.ang:

1. The Theory of the Big B.ang proceeds with an expansion from the point of a singularity. It does not, and cannot, address whence the singularity derives from, or why it exists at all. It does not address the question: why something instead of nothing.

2. The Theory of the Big B.ang offers no answers as to what exactly triggered the expansion from the singularity: the question as to why that event occurred is not addressed at all.

3. The Theory of the Big B.ang asserts that space began to exist with the expansion from the singularity. This fails to address the question: into what is the universe expanding, if not already existent space?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posers on The Theory of Evolution:

1. The Theory of Evolution does not account for first life. The origin of first life remains unknown. It is often repeated that the Theory of Evolution is not meant to address first life at all. That is understood: however - if that is the case, then the Theory of Evolution is not an explanation for life in the first place. It is absurd to try to explain the existence of life with a Theory which does not touch on the origin of life at all.

2. Since the Theory of Evolution does not explain first life, it is and remains inchoate as far as explaining our existence is concerned: for it leaves a huge gap in the overall story: to wit: the origin of life.

3. Assuming that bare matter somehow, miraculously, unguided and magically combined, and brought a living thing into existence - the first unicellular living thing/s: the principles of evolution do not account for the diversification into less successful multicellular living things. This is because evolutionary impetus works towards the extinction of less successful organisms and the propagation of more successful organisms. As such, unicellular organisms being the most successful organisms at all times, would simply and logically lack any evolutionary impetus for evolution into less successful multi-cellular organisms.

4. Assuming again, that notwithstanding the foregoing, multicellular organisms came to exist by some improbable evolutionary quirk. There remains the question of how such organisms would develop towards consciousness - with attributes such as optical, olfactory, auditory senses and senses of taste, and the like. Not to speak of the capacity for thought - and very advanced thought.

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment, and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer. This leads us to see that we are beings: and not simply the agglomeration of physical parts: for which evolution would have had no need or impetus in the first place.

Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

7. Organs such as the eye and the brain will eternally befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever. The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists. It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

11. Evolution cannot account for the many pre programmed faculties we take for granted in our lives. It cannot account for how babies of mammals know to seek a b.reast and derive milk therein - as soon as they emerge from the womb into a world they have never known before. It does not account for how baby turtles know to head for the sea as soon as they break from their eggs. It does not account for how or why the body does not just keep growing throughout life, but stops at an age. These are pre set programs amongst billions of pre set programs obvious in life which are undeniable and which evolution alone can never account for.

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

14. The age of the Earth cannot accommodate the time span required for evolution from unicellular organism to mankind.

When one really thinks about it, one realizes just how stupendously and shockingly presumptuous and thoughtlessly shallow the position of the atheist is. It is a position of the deepest ignorance and the most breath-taking st.upidity. Most of all, it simply betrays a lack of thought: and worst of all: a lack of perception of the most basic factors of existence known to every human being instinctually from their childhood. The reasons I listed up there are but the tip of the ice berg as far as this matter is concerned, and when taken together with the preceding questions behind the big b.ang, evince the only logical conclusion that human beings of all ages have instinctively and logically known: namely the existence of a pre existent intelligence beyond ours, which is called, in a million different human languages: God.










Although all the posers above are cardinal, I would particularly like the strict materialist big b.ang exponents to give answers to the posers on the big bang, and for the strict materialist evolutionists, the posers on Evolution, Nos 1, 3, 10 and 14 above.

But please do address yourself still to all posers.

This sounds more like a legal summation for a jury rather than a simple coherent argument against the theory of evolution.

Ironically, in the process you did indict yourself and weaken whatever point you were trying to make.

Since you believe in some kind of evolution, kindly offer us a little bit of detail how you think it works, that way, we can see how your own idea of evolutionary change dovetails with or contradicts all that you have written above.

plaetton: This sounds more like a legal summation for a jury rather than a simple coherent argument against the theory of evolution.

Ironically, in the process you did indict yourself and weaken whatever point you were trying to make.

Since you believe in some kind of evolution, kindly offer us a little bit of detail how you think it works, that way, we can see how your own idea of evolutionary change dovetails with or contradicts all that you have written above.

No sir. No escapism. There are serious posers in there. Address them.

And o, they are also very simple and logical.

Along this line of discussion, here is an intriguing and timely scientific , and for me mind blowing, article on possible origins of consciousness.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/intriguing-consciousness-theory-skeptics-want-evidence-6C10486211


An intriguing consciousness theory, but skeptics want evidence


Tanya Lewis, LiveScience,

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
GooglePlus
Email

June 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM ET

Brain
NBC News

NEW YORK — The idea that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical phenomena in the brain is intriguing, yet lacks evidence, scientists say.


Physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona propose that the brain acts as a quantum computer — a computational machine that makes use of quantum mechanical phenomena (like the ability of particles to be in two places at once) to perform complex calculations. In the brain, fibers inside neurons could form the basic units of quantum computation, Penrose and Hameroff explained at the Global Future 2045 International Congress, a futuristic conference held here June 15-16.

The idea is appealing, because neuroscience, so far, has no satisfactory explanation for consciousness — the state of being self-aware and having sensory experiences and thoughts. But many scientists are skeptical, citing a lack of experimental evidence for the idea. [Consciousness to Sleep: Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind]

The Orch OR model
Penrose and Hameroff developed their ideas independently, but collaborated in the early 1990s to develop what they call the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model.


Penrose's work rests on an interpretation of the mathematician Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem, which states that certain results cannot be proven by a computer algorithm. Penrose argues that human mathematicians are capable of proving so-called "Godel-unprovable" results, and therefore human brains cannot be described as typical computers. Instead, he says, to achieve these higher abilities, brain processes must rely on quantum mechanics.

But Penrose's theory didn't explain how this quantum computing occurred inside actual brains, just that the phenomenon would be needed to solve certain mathematical equations. Hameroff read Penrose's work and suggested small fibrous structures that give cells their structural support — known as microtubules — might be capable of carrying out quantum computations.

Microtubules are made up of units of the protein tubulin, which contains regions where electrons are swirling around very close to each other. Hameroff proposed that these electrons could become "quantum entangled," a state in which two particles retain a connection, and an action performed on one affects the other, even when the two are separated by a distance.

In the Orch OR model, the mathematical probabilities that describe the quantum states of these entangled electrons in microtubules become unstable in space-time. These mathematical probabilities are called wave functions, and in this scenario they collapse, moving from a state of probability to a specific actuality. In this state, the microtubules in one neuron could be linked to those in other neurons via electrical connections known as gap junctions. These junctions would allow the electrons to "tunnel" to other regions of the brain, resulting in waves of neural activity that are perceived as conscious experience.

"Penrose had a mechanism for consciousness, and I had a structure," Hameroff told LiveScience.

Problems with the model
Interesting as it sounds, the Orch OR model has not been tested experimentally, and many scientists reject it.


Quantum computers — computers that take advantage of quantum mechanical effects to achieve extremely speedy calculations — have been theorized, but only one (built by the company D-Wave) is commercially available, and whether it's a true quantum computer is debated. Such computers would be extremely sensitive to perturbations in a system, which scientists refer to as "noise." In order to minimize noise, it's important to isolate the system and keep it very cold (because heat causes particles to speed up and generate noise).

Building quantum computers is challenging even under carefully controlled conditions. "This paints a desolate picture for quantum computation inside the wet and warm brain,” Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp of the University of Zurich Switzerland, wrote in an essay published in 2006 in the journal Nature.

Another problem with the model has to do with the timescales involved in the quantum computation. MIT physicist Max Tegmark has done calculations of quantum effects in the brain, finding that quantum states in the brain last far too short a time to lead to meaningful brain processing. Tegmark called the Orch OR model vague, saying the only numbers he’s seen for more concrete models are way off.

"Many people seem to feel that consciousness is a mystery and quantum mechanics is a mystery, so they must be related," Tegmark told LiveScience.

The Orch OR model draws criticism from neuroscientists as well. The model holds that quantum fluctuations inside microtubules produce consciousness. But microtubules are also found in plant cells, said theoretical neuroscientist Bernard Baars, chief executive officer of the nonprofit Society for Mind-Brain Sciences in Falls Church, Va., who added, "plants, to the best of our knowledge, are not conscious."

These criticisms do not rule out quantum consciousness in principle, but without experimental evidence, many scientists remain unconvinced.

"If somebody comes up with just one single experiment" to demonstrate quantum consciousness, Baars said, "I will drop all my skepticism."

Were there some expletives in your post? How come its been hidden?

STOP HIDING POSTS! We are adults. We can handle it.

To op, nice write-up. I agree with you except on the last paragraph where you attacked atheists.

I once started a thread about the absurdity of the Big Bang Theory and was attacked by the atheists here. I was going to start one on evolution but you did a great job here. There's still more to be added.

I once saw a program on the television about the human eye. I learnt that a few hours old baby's eye (with the brain)can in one second analyse data that would take all the computers in existence working together, thousands of years to analyse. It is really amazing.

However, they, evolution and big bang, no matter how absurd, explain things. A lot of things. Which is more than you can say about the notion of God which explains nothing.

@op, you didn't add the huge genetic information(software of life) in our DNA molecule, why?

I always wonder why evolutionist who doesn't know the origin of life know much about LIFE itself.

My question is, how do they sure that only a single cell started it all since they don't know how, where, when of life?

Evolutionist believe that cell is LIFE but natural death has proved it wrong because during natural death the person will first undergo what we know as CLINICAL death where the heartbeat, breathing and circulation of blood stoped, 4-6minutes later the brain cells will begin to die due to lack of oxygen. Moreover if someone died a natural death within some few hours (before decomposition begins) all the cells are still there like normal living being but what we notice is the same trillions of cells lying down with absent of LIFE. Where does this immaterial LIFE come from? Nobody knows!

Why can't atheist just agree that the big bang and evolution are plausible explanations for what we see around. . .The dogmatic approach that some atheist hold about these explanations is mind boggling. . .Big bang, evolution seem very plausible and actually explain a lot with some evidence to back them up. . . .But we do not know them to be facts, do we?. . .

WOW deepsight... This right up right here deserves an award... World class BRO.
Simply spectacular...
I began thinking on Number 9,10,11 a year ago. and i figured... Those things cant happen naturally..
I feel like kissing you now.. #NoHomo bro.

mazaje: Why can't atheist just agree that the big bang and evolution are plausible explanations for what we see around. . .The dogmatic approach that some atheist hold about these explanations is mind boggling. . .Big bang, evolution seem very plausible and actually explain a lot with some evidence to back them up. . . .But we do not know them to be facts, do we?. . .

Keep deluding yourself

12. Most of all, evolution does not account for the mind, which is the most amazing thing of all, and the wellspring of our consciousness.

13. Evolution cannot explain the phenomenon of death, and it summarily renders meaningless every human life as it refers in total to the sum of material parts forming a purposeless whole which ends in death: meaningless, purposeless walking corpses in effect.

Op... You are on point! Everything on earth is just too precise and perfect for us to effectively ignore the presence of a supernatural being!

Until Science has a perfect solution to no. 13 and an explanation for no. 12......

I.Joan:


Op... You are on point! Everything on earth is just too precise and perfect for us to effectively ignore the presence of a supernatural being!

Until Science has a perfect solution to no. 13 and an explanation for no. 12......

things are not so perfect and precise anymore. Creation has been corrupted and ravaged by death. But things will soon get better.

mazaje: Why can't atheist just agree that the big bang and evolution are plausible explanations for what we see around. . .The dogmatic approach that some atheist hold about these explanations is mind boggling. . .Big bang, evolution seem very plausible and actually explain a lot with some evidence to back them up. . . .But we do not know them to be facts, do we?. . .

Oh Please.....I don't expect to hear you say this.

Its downright questioning of your atheism.

I am asking just so to be clear and for clear scholastic purposes only.....Is there an explanation of life?

mazaje: Why can't atheist just agree that the big bang and evolution are plausible explanations for what we see around. . .The dogmatic approach that some atheist hold about these explanations is mind boggling. . .Big bang, evolution seem very plausible and actually explain a lot with some evidence to back them up. . . .But we do not know them to be facts, do we?. . .

We should indulge the sheer, illogical nonsense spouted on these boards, why? Being open minded does not equate to being foolish or tossing out critical thinking

Evolution occurs, that is undeniable. Unless you want to claim vestigial don't exist, mutations don't occur, etc, as well. In which case I, or frankly anyone else (except maybe imaginary friends), can help you. The only valid questions (and only to some even) are related how, ie only in some scenarios. The same, and with blurrier lines, for abiogenesis. Now, are you going to go with the evidence and look for/complete the natural solutions or are you going to claim spirits are responsible for disease or something similar?

As for bb, it is even more complicated, but I'd like to see this dogmatism you speak off. It is the best theory available atm, based on the evidence. Here, again, unless you want to claim cbr, expanding universe and relativity, entropy etc don't exist, then I fail to see the problem. If you have a better explanation, please supply it, we're all ears. Indeed, last I checked bb was not the only viable model available, it is though the most popular and the one with the most support. Also, very logical and well backed with evidence.

But nobody says any of these are perfect, and that's how science works. Refinement.

I.Joan:


Op... You are on point! Everything on earth is just too precise and perfect for us to effectively ignore the presence of a supernatural being!

Until Science has a perfect solution to no. 13 and an explanation for no. 12......

Right, lets do a little experiment. If you can get hold of a microscope, bring two identical test dish (or test surface or anything similar); one should be bone dry and the other wet or moist. Observe both for a while and see what happens. There will be hardly any activity on the dry one and in a short while, number two will be full of activity. Now the question is, How did the condition of both test dish influence the resulting activity/inactivity?. Keep in mind you are just an observer and have had no input to this test.

The point coming out of this is simple. We are here because the condition is right for us to be here (if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here) and not the other way around. Nothing was made perfect for us, rather we live in a habitable lump of rock. This will be made clearer when scientist get evidence of life on other planets and I can assure you we wont have to wait long.

nteresting how nobody is bothering to even attempt any of the several posers raised?

mkmyers45: I am asking just so to be clear and for clear scholastic purposes only.....Is there an explanation of life?

There must be. We are still searching. We may never find, but all ideas and theories and fairy tales advocated so far are either wanting or pure balooney.

plaetton: Along this line of discussion, here is an intriguing and timely scientific , and for me mind blowing, article on possible origins of consciousness.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/intriguing-consciousness-theory-skeptics-want-evidence-6C10486211


An intriguing consciousness theory, but skeptics want evidence


Tanya Lewis, LiveScience,

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
GooglePlus
Email

June 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM ET

Brain
NBC News

NEW YORK — The idea that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical phenomena in the brain is intriguing, yet lacks evidence, scientists say.


Physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona propose that the brain acts as a quantum computer — a computational machine that makes use of quantum mechanical phenomena (like the ability of particles to be in two places at once) to perform complex calculations. In the brain, fibers inside neurons could form the basic units of quantum computation, Penrose and Hameroff explained at the Global Future 2045 International Congress, a futuristic conference held here June 15-16.

The idea is appealing, because neuroscience, so far, has no satisfactory explanation for consciousness — the state of being self-aware and having sensory experiences and thoughts. But many scientists are skeptical, citing a lack of experimental evidence for the idea. [Consciousness to Sleep: Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind]

The Orch OR model
Penrose and Hameroff developed their ideas independently, but collaborated in the early 1990s to develop what they call the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model.


Penrose's work rests on an interpretation of the mathematician Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem, which states that certain results cannot be proven by a computer algorithm. Penrose argues that human mathematicians are capable of proving so-called "Godel-unprovable" results, and therefore human brains cannot be described as typical computers. Instead, he says, to achieve these higher abilities, brain processes must rely on quantum mechanics.

But Penrose's theory didn't explain how this quantum computing occurred inside actual brains, just that the phenomenon would be needed to solve certain mathematical equations. Hameroff read Penrose's work and suggested small fibrous structures that give cells their structural support — known as microtubules — might be capable of carrying out quantum computations.

Microtubules are made up of units of the protein tubulin, which contains regions where electrons are swirling around very close to each other. Hameroff proposed that these electrons could become "quantum entangled," a state in which two particles retain a connection, and an action performed on one affects the other, even when the two are separated by a distance.

In the Orch OR model, the mathematical probabilities that describe the quantum states of these entangled electrons in microtubules become unstable in space-time. These mathematical probabilities are called wave functions, and in this scenario they collapse, moving from a state of probability to a specific actuality. In this state, the microtubules in one neuron could be linked to those in other neurons via electrical connections known as gap junctions. These junctions would allow the electrons to "tunnel" to other regions of the brain, resulting in waves of neural activity that are perceived as conscious experience.

"Penrose had a mechanism for consciousness, and I had a structure," Hameroff told LiveScience.

Problems with the model
Interesting as it sounds, the Orch OR model has not been tested experimentally, and many scientists reject it.


Quantum computers — computers that take advantage of quantum mechanical effects to achieve extremely speedy calculations — have been theorized, but only one (built by the company D-Wave) is commercially available, and whether it's a true quantum computer is debated. Such computers would be extremely sensitive to perturbations in a system, which scientists refer to as "noise." In order to minimize noise, it's important to isolate the system and keep it very cold (because heat causes particles to speed up and generate noise).

Building quantum computers is challenging even under carefully controlled conditions. "This paints a desolate picture for quantum computation inside the wet and warm brain,” Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp of the University of Zurich Switzerland, wrote in an essay published in 2006 in the journal Nature.

Another problem with the model has to do with the timescales involved in the quantum computation. MIT physicist Max Tegmark has done calculations of quantum effects in the brain, finding that quantum states in the brain last far too short a time to lead to meaningful brain processing. Tegmark called the Orch OR model vague, saying the only numbers he’s seen for more concrete models are way off.

"Many people seem to feel that consciousness is a mystery and quantum mechanics is a mystery, so they must be related," Tegmark told LiveScience.

The Orch OR model draws criticism from neuroscientists as well. The model holds that quantum fluctuations inside microtubules produce consciousness. But microtubules are also found in plant cells, said theoretical neuroscientist Bernard Baars, chief executive officer of the nonprofit Society for Mind-Brain Sciences in Falls Church, Va., who added, "plants, to the best of our knowledge, are not conscious."

These criticisms do not rule out quantum consciousness in principle, but without experimental evidence, many scientists remain unconvinced.

"If somebody comes up with just one single experiment" to demonstrate quantum consciousness, Baars said, "I will drop all my skepticism."

I really never knew you could be this escapist. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the questions raised in the OP. Tackle the questions head-on if you will.

I have come to the regrettable conclusion that atheists here tend to be far more dogmatic, fanatical, fundamentalist and unreasonable than the theists.

For all the fairy tales that Theists believe, it would appear that the atheists believe in even more astonishing fairy tales.

Alfa Seltzer:

There must be. We are still searching. We may never find, but all ideas and theories and fairy tales advocated so far are either wanting or pure balooney.

ALL ideas?

You sir, are too much. You are obviously the greatest genius to have ever lived: indeed: you are omniscient.

Deep Sight: nteresting how nobody is bothering to even attempt any of the several posers raised?

What exactly do you have against evolution? It's good to point out flaws and shortcomings but are you saying that because of these shortcomings, the whole theory should be put in the bin?

wiegraf:

We should indulge the sheer, illogical nonsense spouted on these boards

Hmm, such as universes that spring suddenly out of a dot without a purpose and thinking beings that emerged from dead rocks.

Clap for the brilliant and oh-so-logical atheist.

Alfa Seltzer:

What exactly do you have against evolution? It's good to point out flaws and shortcomings but are you saying that because of these shortcomings, the whole theory should be put in the bin?

If you read my OP, you would see that I clearly said that I believe in Evolution. So does the Catholic Church, by the way.

Alfa Seltzer:

There must be. We are still searching. We may never find, but all ideas and theories and fairy tales advocated so far are either wanting or pure balooney.

Now you understand why no sane atheist, theist or deist will be busting his head over a question that only be answered with questions? Obviously its open for debate but i bet my two cents that NO atheist can successfully counter all points raised by Deepsight....Including the BB and Evolution crusaders

Deep Sight:

ALL ideas?

You sir, are too much. You are obviously the greatest genius to have ever lived: indeed: you are omniscient.

Deepsight:
I was trying to reply your post and i got banned by the spambot.

I find it very very amusing that you would call me an escapist without even waiting to hear from me.
The irony is that you have recently earned that title over the last several weeks.
You confirmed that by opening this very thread.

I had opened thread a few weeks ago to discuss the possible origin of consciousness, and invited you to participate. But for some reason, you kind of shied away without addressing so many valid points that I put forward on that thread.

I wonder if you opened this particular thread as a backyard way to slam the theory of evolution without having to address my own points put forward on the other thread.

I dont think that is fair to the topic and to the other people who might not be able see this discussion in a broader perspective that includes my own postulations.

Now, you are pretending to put forward posers that demand answers?
Most of you posers have been fully or partially addressed on my various postings on the my previous thread on this topic.
You neither acknowledged nor rebutted them.

Like I said before, your take on this topic on this thread seems more like a legal summation for an uninformed jury , rather than a coherent argument for or against the theory evolution.

mkmyers45:

Now you understand why no sane atheist, theist or deist will be busting his head over a question that only be answered with questions? Obviously its open for debate but i bet my two cents that NO atheist can successfully counter all points raised by Deepsight....Including the BB and Evolution crusaders

The truth is that all the points can be answered in plain language.
The problem I find is that people will not accept what they dont want to accept no matter how you present it to them.

For example, when one goes into deeper aspects of micro-biology to explain certain things, the majority will shut their ears and dismiss it simply because they dont understand micro-biology and have little inclination to do so.
They would rather sit in their comfort zone and hold on to whatever beliefs they have already accepted.

For example, I laid out the processes of how simple organic molecules form chains of complex molecules, and which through several chemical processes self-replicate, and how the processes continue until another complex molecule is formed to store the replicating information, a form of rudimentary intelligence, so to speak.
I went in some detail to show how these repeating processes could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.
But my friend Deepsight turns a deaf ear to that scientific information and is still asking for an explanation as to how life started.
It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation. The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

Area_boy:
The point coming out of this is simple. We are here because the condition is right for us to be here (if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here) and not the other way around.

This point of yours really shows how blind atheist arguement are.

In my thread titled "Amazing Fact about earth that just right for life" 'evilbrain' claims the conditions of earth is not right for life but LIFE itself adapt to meet the conditions it found itself inwhich other atheist endosed. NOW you come here to claim the conditions of earth is right.

If this is your claim then 'natural selection that evolutionist claim is useless'

Nothing was made perfect for us, rather we live in a habitable lump of rock.

It's a pure lie, earth was designed for life.
*Earth rotate 1000 miles per hour at eguator, if it to be rotate lesser than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too long, if is to be rotate higher than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too short.

*If the atmosphere were thinner than at present, millions of meteors which are burned up in the air would fall to earth and cause terrible fires.

*Liquid water, if it exists elsewhere, is rare. Most of the universe consists of flaming gasses or frozen desolation:

For you to ignore earth being designed for life you're wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/1309629/amazing-facts-earth-cant-happen

This will be made clearer when scientist get evidence of life on other planets and I can assure you we wont have to wait long.

We're waiting!

@Deepsight:

If you believe that universal evolution occurs at all levels then I believe all your prior arguments are contradictory and void.
If you believe in evolution, then I have no argument with you.

The onus is now on you to offer reasonable proof that skydaddy is on the wheels of the evolutionary train.

I am asking you for hunredth time to give us your own version or understanding of how evolution works, what it does and what it does not do, and of course, how it is piloted by skydaddy.

So back to you.
And no escapism this time.

Alfa Seltzer:

What exactly do you have against evolution? It's good to point out flaws and shortcomings but are you saying that because of these shortcomings, the whole theory should be put in the bin?

Thank you for that question.

I think the theory of evolution, with it's full implications concerning the origin of consciousness and self-awareness is a great threat to Deepsight's tightly held worldview.
So he is just being human.
That's why he wants to throw away the baby with the bath water.

Deepsight is much more dogmatic in his views than wants to admit.

Deep Sight:

I really never knew you could be this escapist. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the questions raised in the OP. Tackle the questions head-on if you will.

I have come to the regrettable conclusion that atheists here tend to be far more dogmatic, fanatical, fundamentalist and unreasonable than the theists.

For all the fairy tales that Theists believe, it would appear that the atheists believe in even more astonishing fairy tales.

Did you read the article?
It has great bearing on the topic being discussed.
It means that although not experimentally proven, that there is strong scientific basis to consider my personal theory that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical processes in the brain, and is therefore a product of evolution.

And to be brutally frank, one who rejects evolution for religious grounds is quite understandable.

But a person who accepts evolution but has a compelling need to sneak in and substitute the omni omni skydaddy of ancient fairy tales into the process , without any evidence whatsoever, with just simple fantasies, is to me, more ridiculous, more dogmatic, and more fanatical than religious zealots that we are accustomed to.

plaetton:

The truth is that all the points can be answered in plain language.
The problem I find is that people will not accept what they dont want to accept no matter how you present it to them.

I believe something went wrong when you're typing this statement....hummm!

Do you believe the same thing happen when a theist try to explain God in a simple language?

For example, when one goes into deeper aspects of micro-biology to explain certain things, the majority will shut their ears and dismiss it simply because they dont understand micro-biology and have little inclination to do so.
They would rather sit in their comfort zone and hold on to whatever beliefs they have already accepted.

I can smell something here! Don't you believe atheist lack some SPIRITUALITY concept which they fail to verified? The samething apply here.

For example, I laid out the processes of how simple organic molecules form chains of complex molecules, and which through several chemical processes self-replicate, and how the processes continue until another complex molecule is formed to store the replicating information, a form of rudimentary intelligence, so to speak.
I went in some detail to show how these repeating processes could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.
But my friend Deepsight turns a deaf ear to that scientific information and is still asking for an explanation as to how life started.

People are being speaking in tongues, people have provided afterlife expirence, many verses have been quoted from Bible. Yet pleaton still asking for evidence.

It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation.

Wowww.... What do pleaton want again after many simple language about God?....I guess magical explanation......Christians should go to heaven and bring God and present Him to pleaton ritght..

The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

The very complex and powerful manifestation of God is too much for atheist to comprehend...they resorted to NO GOD that's the point.

Deep Sight:

Hmm, such as universes that spring suddenly out of a dot without a purpose and thinking beings that emerged from dead rocks.

Clap for the brilliant and oh-so-logical atheist.

Brilliant, me? I'm honored, but I highly doubt it. Rational? I'll accept that, ty.

You are well free to not indulge my ideas. I don't force people to accept them or demand they marry whom I choose (which could include 9 year olds) as a result. Actually, you don't even indulge my ideas, so what exactly is the problem here? Under the guise of being 'critical' or 'rational', not sure which, no less.

But do note, I have sound, logical reasons for them. Reasons you're quick to run off from when confronted with them. And again, not dogma. I would discard them anytime should I find good reason to, perhaps you have some? Unlike quite a few, I do NOT claim to have all the solutions.