Deep Sight:

Same thing really. You still dont get that you are explaining a thing by referring to its engine, which is what needs to be explained.

Why dont you start by addressing my posers?

Pick one. Lets say the one on sexuality, reproduction and s.exual reproduction?

plaetton:
It's been repeated here many times that one does not need to be a master of science to understand the simple theory of evolution, nor does he require it to easily dismiss religious superstition .
The habit of asking atheists to this, that or else... is quite silly.
If you don't know something, then educate your self on it.
If you know better, then come and state your positions.

plaetton:
Polarity is not an evolutionary trait. It is part of the process of differentnation.
C'mon Davidilan. Should already know that.
There are billion possible reasons for the billion diverse lifeforms with their diverse traits.

plaetton:
Your posees make little sense to me in terms of debating this issue. Quite frankly am surprised that come from you.
It looks like the kind of little league stuff from the bible schoolers. Lol.
I will find time To put them on the shredder.

Deep Sight: 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.


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.

ooman:
But because we have no observatory answers presently, I think that the logical position of the...

And why life only occur where it can be supported, even on earth. Evolution's position of mutations and adaptation explains those two better.

Again, if the universe was made to support life, then the universe is supposed to be teeming with life. But out there simply means death to any life unprotected. This could only mean the universe was not designed to support life, but life formed when and where it could.

Again, if life was designed by an intelligent designer, why isn't life perfect at its fundamental level of DNA, why mutations in babies? If life was designed, why mutations at all? Things that are designed need not mutate at all because they were made for a specific purpose. The presence of mutation is enough proof against design and the presence or existence of a designer.

This is why atheism and evolution are better explanations to all we see.

plaetton:

Abiogenesis attempts to account for the emergence of life from simple organic molecules.


Abiogenesis – A brief history Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species, some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis. In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that living cells arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions. According to Oparin, gases present in the atmosphere of primitive earth, when induced by lightening or other sources of energy, would react to form simple organic compounds. These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. In their experiment, water boiled into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. - See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm#sthash.SQtMSzwJ.dpuf

Now although the theory of abiogenesis still has many problems and many questions to sort out, it lays the basic scientific idea of how simple living cells may have emerged from chemical reactions billions of years ago.
Infact, for all we know, such a process may have initially taken place in another galaxy several billions years further down the road,and perhaps transported to earth by meteorites or crashing comets.

Now, It is entirely up to you whether you accept or reject it.

Now , on the second issue of consciousness, again scientific thinking is now looking at the possibility that it arises as a result of quantum mechanical processes in the brain cells. In other words, it is possibly a biochemical function that occurs when the conditions are right , and not a divine attribute.
Again, it's either you keep an open mind or you keep your mind closed.

FearGodAndLive:

Anything but God. The desperation to convince one self one has no creator or purpose can drive one to madness. No wonder, the Bible states it blatantly ' a fool says there's no God'

Deep Sight:
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.

[/b][/size]

Deep Sight:


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?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[/b][/size]

Deep Sight:

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?

[/b][/size]

plaetton:
Speaking in tongues, spiritual manifestations, after life?
You are kidding right?

I hope you are not expecting a rebuttal from me.
Sorry, I cannot.
Your thoughts are like anti-matter to my thoughts.
Our minds do not operate in the same universe.
Sorry.

davidylan:

The miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly debunked. It is interesting that serious biologists have condemned it to the thrash can of fantasy while ignorant "pseudo-scientists" bandy it around like some trophy.

mazaje:

My atheism is not based on the big bang or evolution. . .God and Gods as presented or portrayed by all religions are man made as such they do not exist in reality. God and Gods remain ideas humans invented and use to explain things away, organize their society and to give them some spiritual meaning in life. I do not believe in evolution or big bang as factual events, i see them as plausible explanations and my atheism does not depend on them. . .

FearGodAndLive:

Anything but God. The desperation to convince one self one has no creator or purpose can drive one to madness. No wonder, the Bible states it blatantly ' a fool says there's no God'

Chibuebem: then you know nothing about christianity(which is more than a religion btw)

ooman:

why dont you tell us what xtianity is. I was a xtian btw, so dont feel too high.

Chibuebem: i dont think you were a christian sir. I think you were simply a religious person. The only person i suspect was a christian is muskeeto. Religion is very bad. It makes people think christianity is a ritualistic following of a set of rules, I was in that deep trench when God found me. Yes being a Christian is being born again by the POWER of the holy spirit. Its God searching for man, not man inventing a God. Yes sir, the reason i am undaunted is that i KNOW THIS GOD THROUGH CHRIST, AND I HAVE HIS FRUITS AND MANIFESTATIONS IN my life. The beauty of fellowship with a living, loving and powerful God. Thats christianity. By following a set of laid down rules, one can never know God, infact, one can be pushed away from God. God is good. The good news is that Jesus took away our sins, wherever u are, in whatever religion or non-religion, we quickly realize that we are in the bondage of sin, and that religion cant take it away and reunite us to God. Jesus has done that. Once we accept his gift of righteousness and salvation, we're saved and begin to truly KNOW GOD.

ooman:

by Jesus, you mean the white man who was killed for his defiance against the authority? you worship a white man as your savior? now that's pathetic ..

if I may ask, exactly why do you feel the need to be saved, from what are you saved? and does thinking you are saved stop you from sinning?

Chibuebem: see sir? Now you bring up more excuses. I know God and worship him in spirit. Jesus is alive, and we do not know him according to the flesh anymore. We know him as the alive and powerful son of God. Not a white man. Is it not pathetic that you're a racist sir? I dont think i'm saved, i know i'm saved from sin. Yes, sin. This is mans problem. The inability to get above the desires of his flesh and mind. This is the fundamental problem of humanity. We need salvation from the passions of the corrupt flesh, its appetites, and physical desires, and the corrupt mind, with his huge ego, his selfishness and self-consciousness.

plaetton:
Yeah, I suppose the Flying spaghetti monster they told you about in your bible school science.

Alfa Seltzer:

Is that what you were told or did you come up with these all by yourself?

plaetton:
Yeah, I suppose the Flying spaghetti monster they told you about in your bible school science.

plaetton:
Yeah, I suppose the Flying spaghetti monster they told you about in your bible school science.

noblefada:
Nope I was talking about using scientific methods to prove the existence of a divine being. HAVE U HEARD OF THE TORAH CODES?

Chibuebem: its what i learned from Gods word. I know God, and he teaches me his word.

davidylan:

The miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly debunked. It is interesting that serious biologists have condemned it to the thrash can of fantasy while ignorant "pseudo-scientists" bandy it around like some trophy.

Alfa Seltzer:

So someone else told you then?

Chibuebem: smh. God did.

davidylan:

If you dont know, its ok to say so. All Deepsight asked is that you defend your "scientific" position and all you have offered is needless waffling. Shame.

davidylan:

This makes no sense. Amoeba... is unipolar, it has remained so for billions of years. Why hasnt it evolved into a polar organism as you claim?