I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Holy shit, Yeal's given us solid proof! ...that he's a retard. Seriously, you're 28? I would give you the benefit of the doubt if you were 14 - this is the kind of shit 14-year-olds come up with - but it's pretty tragic coming from a 28-year-old.

 

I thought I made an example out of the last guy tp think before you post. Why don't YOU tell me where life comes from the, smart one.

The proof is actually there! You just have to give it a little thought.

 

to repeat my previous post: there is no proof in words anywhere. period.

only that words exist by using them.

proof, like fact, is a mythical beast. what exist are repeatable observations and logical speculations based upon them, and the test of those speculations by again, massive quantities of observation.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I can't believe I'm arguing with a 59-year-old. first of all, you're pathetic. Second of all, you're wrong. Go to http://www.answersingenesis.com and click on get answers. then read the article called "where is the proof for creationism" Then you'll see why you'll never find the proof of God in my article. The artucle calls it Presuppositions. I call it ego.

 

this argument cannot be proven either way...its a belief, imo ppl should just leave this as an opinion, not something to argue/debate...y argue about something no one can prove? how r u gonna prove to someone that ur opinion is better just cuz u say so? lol

 

Yeal - Have you actually looked into the scientific viewpoint on the origin of life? Have you done research on it? Without using bible websites as sources?

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Here's why!

1 - Atoms are not sentient. DNA is not sentient. You are the ONLY one claiming that. People are sentient. People with brains. Why is it illogical to think that such a complex flow of electrical and chemical energy through suck complex cells in such a complex organ would produce something like consciousness?

2 - Is consciousness special? Do fish have it? Birds? Mice? Cats? Dogs? If you create a computer that can parse text and respond to meaning, does that computer have consciousness? What makes you answer these questions in the way you do?

3 - What on earth makes you think that life can't come from mere matter? When people get cremated, what is left? Smoke and ashes. The same if you burn a tree. We are mostly carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. What makes you think that there must be a "breath of life" before matter can live?

4 - Your argument rests its entire conclusion on a number of baseless assumptions, which you obviously cannot support. Therefore, your argument does not have the support of logic.

I've read the rest of your posts in this thread, and you consistently fall short of logic in favor of belief. You have made many scientific errors. And I tend to agree with MollyBoston. Your methods are juvenile. Your points are inaccurate. You need to study your arguments and the science behind them if you want to move towards the truth.

 

Plus, you posted this about the human aura in another forum:

"These are all just theories. What you just wrote was a summary of what I would find if I googled "Aura". See, there's no real evidence for auras whatsoever. If there was a shred of evidence that sudggested that auras were real, scientists would be all over them. (I don't count a scientist as someone with an obsessive devotion to "discovering" auras who is trying to prove to himself his life's work was worth it) There would be a plethora of knowledge and mysteries from the aura, and like I said, scientists would be all over them. Auras aren't real. Sorry. :-/"

Now...Why not apply the same principles to god, religion, the soul, etc?

 

You are very immature for a person of your age, don't you know?
Human intelligence is vast that much is true but it's not limitless. Humans are still animals at their core. It would be nearly impossible for a human, an incredibly new species as far as evolution and the earth's chronology go, to be able to trace evolution back even before it began. It's completely irrelevant how life began. All that is relevant is that life exists, humans exist. Humans create concepts such as 'God' and 'Religion' to try to understand how life came to be, without humans the religious concept of God would not exist. No other animals have written a bible, have they? No other animals have religion, or worship a deity. Without humans the religious god would not be able to manifest, God is dependent on humanity,not the other way around as most people would see it.

In many ways humanity is quickly becoming what religious people could define as 'God', that is - all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful. Human intelligence is limited but in comparison to any other species humans are light years ahead in trying to understand the world around them. Humans can see into space, they can see miniscule objects on the earth from outer space with satellites, there are cameras everywhere. Humans can destroy the planet with nuclear weapons, they can make species extinct and they can create new life.

Of course, none of this would be possible if humans weren't self aware. It is consciousness that seperates humanity from other animals. Humans are the most self aware of all creatures. That is why we inhabit the bodies of humanity. You are consciousness, you are the self awareness that resides inside the head, not the head itself. We are all consciousness, collectively super consciousness, made manifest into the body of humanity,the most evolved animal. I am not the name given to my body upon it's birth, nor are you. I am not the personality my body assumed during it's upbringing, nor are you. We are the infinite self awareness that resides inside every human being, and it is this that is the true origin of all that is. Without self awareness, human 'reality' as we know it would cease to be. We would still exist, as consciousness can never be destroyed, but we would manifest into a less evolved animal, and thus we would be trapped forever and not aware of our self, we would assume the natural instincts and identity of the particular animal and reality would become something different. I have realised all of this, and because of that I have awakened inside of the body. I have stripped away the identity that I had assumed since birth and can assume any identity for my body that I wish, I no longer fear anything, not even death, because they are all constraints suffered by the body in which I reside, not the consciousness itself.

My body is only 19 , and now that I am self aware I have unlocked so much more potential had I not been. I can achieve things that I could never have dreamed of had I not been aware of my true self.

People look to the heavens for answers, but 'the heavens' is a part of human reality which is created by consciousness. People should look inside for the answers, for that is where our true selves, consciousness, resides.

 

here yeal, about half way in is some pretty good stuff on biology and the nature of existence in general regarding me, okie, and freaker.


http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290439



go learn how to talk to ppl.

 

I told you your age shows, yeal, you're not really fooling anyone.

 

Yes I have! There are only theories, just as this is a theory. I also never used the Bible as a source. Ever. Again, think before you write. And now, You telling me why I don't know what I'm talking about! Excellant.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Here's why!

You're right Atoms aren't sentient. Neither is DNA. The point of the thread is based on the assumption that atoms and DNA aren't sentient! So your wrong right off the bat, champ. My thoughts on why it is illogical to think a complex flow of energy...would produce consciousness are so huge I could write a book. I've sucessfully diminished your first point, moving on..

Very good question, expecially about the computer. First of all, yes consciousness is special. Second, the rest of the post is a thinking question. I'll get back to you on it.

I'm talking about the origin of life. Not just life.

My argument rests it's logic on the assumption that atoms and DNA AREN'T conscious. An assumption that you actually agreed with. Again, think BEFORE you post, please.

If that's your opinion, so be it. Back yourself up then. Show me some scientific evidence I got wrong. If you can't back yourself up or show evidence, your opinion is worth nothing.

 

The point is that throughout history people have always used God as the answer for whatever they didn't know. Of course nobody knows how life started! The answer is either God, or science that we don't have yet. No one has real evidence either way.

In the olden days they thought the planets were set in crystal spheres, set in motion by God. Their motion was seen as proof of God. They didn't understand, so they said the answer must be God. Turns out it was something else - it was science we didn't have yet.

Today the origin of life is a mystery, but that doesn't prove God either. It just means we don't know all the answers.

And that's why you're an idiot, sweetie: you don't realize that you're just one in a long line of people who've said exactly the same thing you've said.

 

lol.

 

"Go to http://www.answersingenesis.com and click on get answers. then read the article called "where is the proof for creationism" Then you'll see why you'll never find the proof of God in my article. The artucle calls it Presuppositions. I call it ego."

I didn't say the bible. I said bible websites. Sure, they are theories. We can't know what happened in the past, because we weren't there. Obviously. But you want to accept a divine explanation over a natural one. Why is that? Why would you go so far to assume the presence of an all-powerful creating intelligence, which would undoubtedly have to be unbelievably complex, instead of looking for an explanation that follows physical laws? You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Begging the question, if you will.

Oh yes, yes. First point diminished. Except you claimed in you very first post that a non-divine explanation for consciousness requires believing that atoms are sentient. Which is clearly not something anyone is asserting. And you really haven't explained anything. Please, indulge me with your thoughts on consciousness. At least a sample. Otherwise it just appears like another assumption.

Prove it. At least give evidence for it. Don't just assume consciousness is special. If you can't support your assumptions, your argument loses traction.

Please do.

What's the difference. Think of it like this: All you need for life, evolution, and everything, is a material that can self-replicate, make mistakes once in a while, and have those replicate as well. If amino acids can form abiotically (which they can), I don't think it's unreasonable, given suitable numbers and a lot of time (both present) for a simple replicating compound or conglomeration to form. And if you drop the consciousness argument for a moment, what are we besides just that? Self-replicating masses of chemicals with built-in adaptations to keep us alive and replicating.

Your argument rests on a lot more than that. Don't avoid the point.

 

hmm..

so advancements in a species is chalked up as a biological mistake?

 

Actually, neodude...sometimes, yes. Evolution, in some ways (SOME!), is a collection of thousands of years worth of accumulated, random mistakes. That's one of the reasons why it's so hard for scientists to, say, recreate spider silk: there's so much weird stuff going on there and some of it's not even relevant. It's a massively complicated process.

So if a mutation happens to be beneficial for an animal, maybe it'll eventually make its way into the species - that's natural selection. That's why there's such an amazing variety of life here; if evolution happened less accidentally, maybe we'd all find the same solutions to problems. We'd all end up...oh, probably cockroaches or something, they seem to have it figured out. But instead some of us ended up being able to camouflage ourselves, and some can fly away, and some can dig traps for prey. It's wonderful - and it's due, in some ways, to random chance.

 

It seems very unlikely that one single organism that was born with a beneficial mutation would be able to eventually change his/her own species. very unlikely.

especially considering that w/e trait it happens to possess will not be necessarily handed down, or be dominant.

 

Neo, there's an awful lot of studies on this. I've read a ton about it myself. I know, at first it seems like "No way, that sounds stupid." But a) you gotta remember that this takes thousands - millions, even - of years, and b) you should read about it, man! The information is right there for you.

In fact, you can watch it happen in a lab. Viruses evolve incredibly quickly - that's why you have to get a new flu shot every year. The flu has actually evolved to respond to last year's shot. (Yeah, viruses are fuckin' scary.) So you can see it in action. And that's just one little example out of a whole lot of ways in which we've got hard evidence that this is how it works.

So the thing is, Neo, I don't think you can skip reading the science and just say "Well, that sounds dumb." If you want to know, you should read about it. Once you have the information, of course, you can say "Now I have really educated myself, I understand what they're saying, and...it sounds dumb." Totally your right to say so!

But you understand, to not learn about it, just to dismiss it out of hand without even understanding what you're dismissing...that doesn't make your argument very convincing, does it?

 

Actually, Im a biology major in college, and Im fairly certain I have a pretty good understanding of these theories.

I think like a page back I posted a link in regards to Yeal.

You should read it, as we tackled a lot of this stuff already. You might find it interesting.

 

Oh! Sorry - you didn't sound like you understood it. (Sorry...you didn't, though.) Can I ask what college you went to?

Have you read "Darwin's Black Box"? That's the main book I used to understand the "intelligent design" theory.

I don't really want to go hunting back through stuff - Yeal's amazingly annoying and I don't want to read his drivel anymore - but if you repost the link and it's not total religious propaganda, I'll check it out.