Posted on 05/23/2002 11:05:49 AM PDT by F16Fighter
Can Atheists and supporters of the theo-pseudo-scientific theory of evolution, and of the random cosmic creation of the very first molecule, atom, planet, and cell kindly explain the dervivation and chemical composition of the human conscience?
Furthermore, even if we accelerate the timeline from sheer nothingness to beginning our baseline for life as a rock asteroid or gaseous matter, just how can science explain in all intellectual honesty any mega-quantum leap into life conscienceness, much less a human conscience?
Ya think? ;-)
A philosophical question it is not; The point of the question posed as to the "chemical composition of human consciousness" is unquantifiable and unanswerable by science.
I guess I have trouble with the principle of the God of the Unknown, where we venerate our own ignorance by attributing it to God. The problem with that is that every time we acquire more scientific understanding God gets a little smaller.
The evidence suggests there has been a larger constituency from the scientific community who have been backed into a corner to conclude quite the contrary. ...
When the dynamics of even a single living cell are broken down into its enzymic, reproductive, and functional properties, the processes appear to be more complicated than a Pentium 10.
The question then becomes: Designed from a "Creator" or merely random cosmic quirk? They can "do the math" if they are intellectually honest.
Through this simple equation, "scientific understanding" only underscores the proof of God's infinite omnipotence, and man's inability to "prove" everything.
I haven't seen any verifiable evidence that natural selection doesn't happen. To look at the end result and claim "God" works for you, so fine. Your perspective is based on wonderment at the unlikelihood that complexity can spring up randomly. It is like playing poker, getting a two, a four, a jack, an ace, and a joker, then claiming "God" because the odds of getting that exact hand are so unbelievably small.
My question to you is this: Do you reject the concept of natural selection because it offends your idea of God's omnipotence or because it has demonstrably no scientific validity? Your reflexive rejection of the idea indicates to me that the former is true, therefore we can drop the pretense of science and pseudo-scientific "You can't show me the chemical composition of consiousness therefore God created the universe in 6 days."
Multiple scientific disciplines - Biology, Geology, Astronomy, etc. all started making sense when someone figured out Continental Drift theory and realized the world is older than 12K years. You seem pretty prepared to toss it all into the can to suit your limitations on God's activity, method, and timeframe.
I suspect that I have as much awe at the complexity of living things as you do. Natural selection isn't really random in the sense that you seem to think. It actually is highly ordered and favorable to more efficiently competing creatures. So much so that you would almost think they were designed that way.
Well, I didn't actually intend to spend this much time on this threadbare topic, so the last word is yours.
The evidence suggests there has been a larger constituency from the scientific community who have been backed into a corner to conclude quite the contrary. ...
If by "Backed into a corner" you mean "hoarse from trying to explain things to Creationists" I have to agree.
The question then becomes: Designed from a "Creator" or merely random cosmic quirk? They can "do the math" if they are intellectually honest.
I don't equate looking at observable phenomenae and looking deeper than "God did it so stop questioning" to be inellectually dishonest.
Through this simple equation, "scientific understanding" only underscores the proof of God's infinite omnipotence, and man's inability to "prove" everything.
"God did it - presto chango" is not remotely a scientific assertion so you can't expect it to be refutable by science, or provable with science. It makes more sense to say "I have divine inspiration via the Bible on creation, and my proof is bigger than your limited, so-called 'science' so I win". Then you could dispense with your reductio ad absurdum equations and strawmen.
Before we even address "natural selection", don't we first have to address the cosmos random "seeding" of primordial life and the mathematic impossibility of the one-billion-trillion-to-one odds genesis of that afore mentioned single-cell?
In addressing the presumed age of planet earth, let's put it this way: If one buys the premise that an omnipotent, infinite "Creator" can master the simple task of creating something (matter) out of nothing, than how difficult would manipulating and accelerating the appearance (older timeline of the Continental Drift) of an older earth be?
To bad we can't go to the videotape, eh? ;-)
Hehe, ok. I will concede. That brings up a follow-on question. Why did God decide to hide his work so effectively that it is indistinguishable from evolution?
If one buys the premise that an omnipotent, infinite "Creator" can master the simple task of creating something (matter) out of nothing, than how difficult would manipulating and accelerating the appearance (older timeline of the Continental Drift) of an older earth be?
With that wrecking ball of an arguement, there is no point in presenting other ideas or evidence. That is why I concede.
You’re using the wrong discipline. Chemistry can not explain consciousness. Check into Zero Point Fields if you are looking to explain consciousness scientifically. You might want to bone up on your superstring theory first.
This is about the conscience, not consciousness. Where did the relation between mass and time come from, BTW?
Somehow stochasticism got bound up with the principle of evolution. Evolution is not stochastic, but organic.
Be careful. We are on the verge of disproving the idea of mass and time is pretty much in the trash. These words are only used to describe a fuzzy blipping of our conscious observation of a universe we have been taught to believe is separate from our being.
Oh, so it is. But apparently time does not exist for consciousness, and there are only 30+ posts. This would explain a few things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.