Question to Creationists: What's the Mechanism?

[Jose Fly]

Are you saying it's not binary, there is semi consciousness? Well I'm defining in a way, any amount of the ghost in the machine (1% awareness let's say), is good enough to be called consciousness.

I am asserting it will never go from o to 1% or 0.000001% consciousness by any mutation. It's off and on thing. Too vastly different, any level of it, from no level of it.

That's not a useful or meaningful definition of consciousness. Care to try again?

 

[Link]

Maybe you should let Behe know.

Also, you didn't answer my earlier questions about your background with this subject. Again....how much have you studied evolutionary biology? Have you taken any college level courses in it? Do you regularly read relevant professional journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums? Do you discuss evolutionary biology with qualified scientists?

No I don't. I'm trying to finish my computer science degree. Don't have time to become that much of an expert, but there are experts on both sides (creationism and evolutionists) and I've dabbled in some books from both sides and seen debates.

 

[Link]

That's not a useful or meaningful definition of consciousness. Care to try again?

It's useful enough, I'm saying any level of awareness no matter how little is good enough be called consciousness, any ghostness at all in the machine. If you have a point, can you make it?

I think you are trying to muddy the issue, when the argument I put forth is clear proof of design.

 

[Jose Fly]

No I don't. I'm trying to finish my computer science degree. Don't have time to become that much of an expert, but there are experts on both sides (creationism and evolutionists) and I've dabbled in some books from both sides and seen debates.

I appreciate your honesty.

It's useful enough, I'm saying any level of awareness no matter how little is good enough be called consciousness, any ghostness at all in the machine. If you have a point, can you make it?

I think you are trying to muddy the issue, when the argument I put forth is clear proof of design.

If you're going to center your case around consciousness, then you should probably have a decent useful definition for it.

For example, do chimps have awareness? They can recognize themselves in a mirror, build and use tools, have complex societies, wage war against other tribes, mourn their dead, and seem to exhibit a type of awe in some circumstances.

 

[Link]

Can there be a definition that would not make it IC and binary? If you can give it yourself since you seem to be the expert.

 

[Link]

I'm talking about mind. I'm not talking about large self-awareness, this is not what I mean. I mean any ghost at all in the machine.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry @Link you've completely lost me. I don't know what you mean by "ghost in the machine". Earlier you mentioned awareness, but like I said chimps (and other organisms) have self-awareness as well as awareness of other individuals around them. But now it seems awareness isn't important anymore, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[firedragon]

I do not make the claims

Ah. So you made a claim about all creationists without having much of knowledge about anything other than the Bible. Nice.

 

[firedragon]

That's not a useful or meaningful definition of consciousness. Care to try again?

What is your definition of consciousness?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So, you agree that we, and pigs, have a common ancestor?

ciao

- viole

To be honest, I do believe God created animals as one form and hunans as a different form of being. And we evolve according to Gods law. But I can not know how God did it.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not saying increased rate of mutations in a natural way. I'm saying the type of mutations (the amount of changes) and rate it's done, is supernaturally done and not natural.

73 answers in and finally someone dares to give an answer, even if the answer is "magic".
So we now have a competing hypothesis. Common descent with modification acted upon by natural selection on the one side and magic on the other.
Do we agree that magic is not a scientific explanation?

 

[blü 2]

By using his powers.

Since you don't know, just say so.

 

[viole]

Ah. So you made a claim about all creationists without having much of knowledge about anything other than the Bible. Nice.

Of course. It is the claimer who has to show evidence. It is like with paranormal claims: it is the claimer that has to show at least one instance of a paranormal event (there is even a price of 1 million if you do), otherwise general skepticism about the whole set of claims is perfectly justified.

So, all you have to do is to show me evidence of a creation account that would pass the first scientific test. I don't know, something trivial that even kids today know, like: "God created the sun, and the earth, and the latter is a sphere that rotates around the former", would be simple enough also for goat herders, and impressive.

Why don't you show me what your Scripture, whatever that is, says about the creation of the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Of course. It is the claimer who has to show evidence.

Exactly. So you made the claim. So show from every religion and their scripture in the world what you claimed.

 

[viole]

Exactly. So you made the claim. So show from every religion and their scripture in the world what you claimed.

Well, i think we would know by now if some ancient Scriptures show knowledge that vastly surpasses what was known by some goat or camel herders.

It would be like discovering an electronic computer which is 2000 years old.

Don’t you think?



Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

So which scientist with what research found out there is no free will like you said? Please do provide the information. Otherwise your statement was just false.

All our physical theories are unitarian. Ergo they preserve information.
Therefore, if I use my will to kick that ball, the final position of that ball was contained in the information of the Universe millions of years before my birth. I could not, but kick that ball.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Well, i think we would know by now if some ancient Scriptures show knowledge that vastly surpasses what was known by some goat or camel herders.

It would be like discovering an electronic computer which is 2000 years old.

Don’t you think?



Ciao

- viole

When you dont know the scripture, how could you make such claims? YOU have to have such profound, universal knowledge because you made a universal claim.

Also, this was not about "Profound knowledge". It was your claim that the Old Earthers are inconsistent with their own scriptures while the young earthers were. You dont even know the Hindu scripture. Its just one of the biggest religions in the world, the most stable religion who always remained in almost the same number in the world. So with what do you make such claim?

 

[firedragon]

All our physical theories are unitarian. Ergo they preserve information.
Therefore, if I use my will to kick that ball, the final position of that ball was contained in the information of the Universe millions of years before my birth. I could not, but kick that ball.

Ciao

- viole

See, I was not asking for your rhetoric or preaching. It was a specific question to someone who made a specific claim. Since you seem to like to answer for others, let me cut and paste the question once more.

So which scientist with what research found out there is no free will like you said? Please do provide the information. Otherwise your statement was just false.

 

[viole]

When you dont know the scripture, how could you make such claims? YOU have to have such profound, universal knowledge because you made a universal claim.

Also, this was not about "Profound knowledge". It was your claim that the Old Earthers are inconsistent with their own scriptures while the young earthers were. You dont even know the Hindu scripture. Its just one of the biggest religions in the world, the most stable religion who always remained in almost the same number in the world. So with what do you make such claim?

SImple, if we knew that some of those Scriptures show sign of advanced knowledge (more advanced than what was available at that time), we would know by now. In the same we would know immediately if we found advanced technology which several thousands years old. And it does not need much: some thing as simple as "the earth is round and rotates around the sun" would suffice.

Alas, we never heard of that. Ergo, no Scripture shows signs of being other than mythology. aka, human creations.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

See, I was not asking for your rhetoric or preaching. It was a specific question to someone who made a specific claim. Since you seem to like to answer for others, let me cut and paste the question once more.

So which scientist with what research found out there is no free will like you said? Please do provide the information. Otherwise your statement was just false.

Since this is a debate forum, I feel entitled to post whenever I want. And you are losing your cool

Well, it is a direct consequence of our scientific theories. Usually scientists do not write papers depicting the obvious. I am sure it will also be difficult to find research that shows that apples fall from trees also in general relativity.

Ciao

- viole