15 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI mean, when I make a choice, do have any choice over which choice I choose? I read an article recently - not too sure if it was Scientific American or New Scientist or possibly elsewhere - that had some pretty strong evidence that a choice is made significantly prior to the subject actually making the decision. The implication as I understood it being that consciousness is a mechanism for rationalising the decisions rather than making them.
mmm, it depends what you mean volition? do you mean like a wilful kind of predisposition to one view or another?
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI'm sorry. I thought since you were discussing god that you were suggesting some kind of religious beliefs. I have made a note to self that god has nothing to do with religion. Thanks for the insight. 😀
Who mentioned religion? your response is pointless.
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by caissad4I made no refernce to God except in response to 667joe. What you name this hypothetical creator of man is your buisness, i prefer to name him/her/it/them "the hypothetical creator"...if you want to restrict your thinking to your perception of a creator i applaud your linear thinking....well done you.
I'm sorry. I thought since you were discussing god that you were suggesting some kind of religious beliefs. I have made a note to self that god has nothing to do with religion. Thanks for the insight. 😀
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundPossible, yes, plausible...not so much.
Science has proven that it is possible to create life. We have cloned existing life, we have grown parts of one creature on another, there is even a guy who has made an organism from scratch. So, the act of creating a creature from what is already here (let's accept that animals are indigenous) such as us is plausible for a species who have attained ...[text shortened]... if that description was retold over 1500 years what would the description transform into?
We are struggling to find signs of any life out there, let alone a vastly advanced one (which would supposedly be seeding planets with many thousands of years ago).
Also, evolution is a phenomenon complex enough that it would be virtually impossible that some entity planting a unicellular organism on Earth could predict that evolution after millions of years would lead to man. So even if some advanced extraterrestrial form somehow planted unicellular life on Earth, I hardly think they qualify as a "creator".
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by Palynka500 years ago they were saying the same things about travelling in space as you just said about " finding any signs of any life out there".
Possible, yes, plausible...not so much.
We are struggling to find signs of any life out there, let alone a vastly advanced one (which would supposedly be seeding planets with many thousands of years ago).
Also, evolution is a phenomenon complex enough that it would be virtually impossible that some entity planting a unicellular organism on Earth could ...[text shortened]... al form somehow planted unicellular life on Earth, I hardly think they qualify as a "creator".
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of a species...i'm not talking about a creator creating a unicellular organism, i'm talking about a creator that created man. Was there life on the planet before the creation of man ? I'm open to both options. If the earth was an unwashed petri dish, thn animals could've been an earlier experiment...or a reason for man's creation in the first place.
16 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundLike I said, only contradictory statements are impossible. So it's possible that there was a creator and it's possible to one day prove (as much as one can prove anything) there wasn't one. So possibility means almost nothing. For example, it's possible that the world has 100 million unicorns and nobody ever saw one. It's just very, very, very improbable.
500 years ago they were saying the same things about travelling in space as you just said about " finding any signs of any life out there".
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of a species...i'm not talking about a creator creating a unicellular organism, i'm talking about a creator that created man. Was there life on the planet before could've been an earlier experiment...or a reason for man's creation in the first place.
You can speculate all you want, but if history has told us anything is that we're lousy predictors of the future. If you look at how people in the 50s thought the world would be in 2000 you would see how they have missed the mark completely. Retro-futurism is a trend that gets its kicks out of this.
What we can talk about is present day scientific views. And the fact is that present day biologists are extremely consensual in supporting mankind's evolution. And that we have no evidence of any remotely close (in space terms) intelligent life form.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNo "hard evidence" , no (of intelligent life). But plenty of eyewitness evidence. And since the subject matter is spiritual, 3-d evidence would probably be pointing in the wrong direction anyway..
Like I said, only contradictory statements are impossible. So it's possible that there was a creator and it's possible to one day prove (as much as one can prove anything) there wasn't one. So possibility means almost nothing. For example, it's possible that the world has 100 million unicorns and nobody ever saw one. It's just very, very, very improbable.
...[text shortened]... nd that we have no evidence of any remotely close (in space terms) intelligent life form.
17 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe subject matter isn't spiritual (in the metaphysic sense), it's about empirical "proof" or scientific evidence. huck repeated that several times.
No "hard evidence" , no (of intelligent life). But plenty of eyewitness evidence. And since the subject matter is spiritual, 3-d evidence would probably be pointing in the wrong direction anyway..
As for the eyewitnesses, well, there are also witnesses that saw Yetis, Bigfoots, Loch Ness monsters, etc. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not replicable then it's not (scientific) evidence.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaSo we've agreed the feasibility of a creator, it's just the plausibility we are stuck on, right?
The subject matter isn't spiritual (in the metaphysic sense), it's about empirical "proof" or scientific evidence. huck repeated that several times.
As for the eyewitnesses, well, there are also witnesses that saw Yetis, Bigfoots, Loch Ness monsters, etc. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not replicable then it's not (scientific) evidence.
Plausibility that can't be disproven with any information at hand.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundBut do we agree that agreeing on feasibility means very little (see my 100 million unicorn example)?
So we've agreed the feasibility of a creator, it's just the plausibility we are stuck on, right?
Plausibility that can't be disproven with any information at hand.
I don't know how one would go about proving or disproving plausibility. What I'm saying is that the current scientific paradigm accepts that man evolved from a single cell organism.
I'm just saying that if you're looking for scientific support for it then you won't find much. But I'm not here to attack belief in God, I think science is a pretty good way to obtain new knowledge, but it's not the only one.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaCurrent scientific theories on evolution are no more fact than any religious (though not all) theories - facts held together with supposition.
But do we agree that agreeing on feasibility means very little (see my 100 million unicorn example)?
I don't know how one would go about proving or disproving plausibility. What I'm saying is that the current scientific paradigm accepts that man evolved from a single cell organism.
I'm just saying that if you're looking for scientific support for it th ...[text shortened]... I think science is a pretty good way to obtain new knowledge, but it's not the only one.
