Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 184 discussions (1304 posts)

77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Again this is just like claim of "evolution prediction", only difference is with word "could be". Nice one this time.

You're taking advantage of gaps in evolution and showing it as self-serving design and the point is if it were that self-corrective/serving that it should be obvious with at least few parameters but it's not as evolution of species is dependent on environment and some factors which are completely random. Don't believe in evolution if you didn't get randomness and complexity of it. To be honest, you need to advocate "intelligent design" instead of "evolution".

Now this sounds like RAELian-intelligent-design stuff. heard of it?
reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Darwin removed the randomness by adding concept of "sexual selection" in the "natural selection theory" which was first proposed by Empedocles. And hey, just because darwin said or dawkins said doesn't make it true unless some evidence backed up with it.

There are many factors which are not taken care of in design which you "design & patter" people are claiming. Survival among species and resources, environmental factors contribute for evolution of species, is it happening by design ? Prove it.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dependency.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think dependency is design in itself. If everything were independent, then all would be random and not have patterns.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not everything is independent, but that doesn't rule out randomness and independent things. If any design which takes only dependent parameters into account, then it is in no way self-serving/corrective as it discards independence/randomness and that makes it a design without any prediction & more of less self-corrective.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, sort of like 'dependency injection' (DI)... So, your proclaimed "designer" uses javascript per se a program, like a website designer. Hmm, at least it is an interesting thought. Now..., I can understand those terms, but why did I create my own metaphor, when you should have did this, to start with? Ha!
  I have thought many times, that we could be an "experiment" to something greater, but I have no proof. I still think it is a waste of time trying to unravel something that can't be unraveled. I also, still think you have self-inflicted brain trauma due to your discombobulated ways - with deranged thought processes, but I'm trying to be nice today, since it is Friday! Party time! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it is logically possible we could be an experiment, but like you I have no proof. It is not a waste of time discussing ideas of the unknown, it's the ideas of the unknown that lead to the known. You don't know that it can't be unraveled, this is an assumption. Why not assume it can be unraveled and then it would have a better chance of being possible.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well now we are actually going forward.
  
  In each ice age, organism becomes increasingly and increasingly complex, until the last one produced human beings with large brains. Said to have been because humans needed to adapt to the harsh environment. I'm not too worried of the gaps. Mutations can happen when the conditions are very different, so you can have offspring that suddenly are smaller or has the facility for foresight. The brain is plastic and the thoughts that we think rearranges it. It seems to me we are creating our next stage of evolution based on our choices. the organisms also chose their adaptive styles such that the genes learned it. (as in the case of the mice's offspring that could go through the maze faster.) So, right there, consciousness is already guiding evolution as a response to the environment.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think consciousness is what separates us, maybe partly. I think mostly it's the awareness of our consciousness that separates us from other animals. Maybe the awareness is just a higher consciousness that no other animals have reached, or they could have reached it, but not to the same extent as us. I understand the mutations happeneing, my question is whether they are dependent or independent. It seems when most to all things are dependent on something else for change or survival, this gives design and reason to existence beyond the consciousness of existence.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  consciousness does not separate us. I'm a little confused with this response.
  EGO does. We have a specific part in our brain that gives a sense of identity. It's the R-complex. But the medial frontal cortex generates the understanding of our one-ness. Hence within our consciousness are two forces, the "I" consciousness and the "we" consciousness. The balance of these two forces help us negotiate our personal needs in relation to our social needs.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Reptilian Complex governs our primitive instinct for survival and often produces irrational behavior, anger and violence. Is this the 'sense of identity' you refer?
  
  Really...
  
  Actually, the medial frontal cortex's role is to route through the brain complex social interactions that require not only what we know of others and ourselves, but also what others may think about us.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry I promised myself I won't be like you anymore.
  
  So check out the work of JOHN RATEY and NORMAN DOIGE for a clearer user friendly idea of the workings and nature of the brain. the brain parts have multiple functions. SO the ones you mentioned are also true but they are not the full scope of their functions.
  
  Altruism is found in the PFC and self in the context of self preservation is in the lower brain. It is very old established knowledge. You can check the library for archives on a study on altruism. Time Magazine made it their cover around 8 years ago.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I recognize that you like plain data without interpretation. You really have to go to Nature for that. Susan Blackmore has something about this. A strange sense of self, from the work of author of "I AM A STRANGE LOOP"
  
  i really recommend
  http://www.amazon.com/Psychophysiology- … 0393705447
  
  but the author has a buddhist perspective....oh well buddhist don't believe in Gd so maybe you can consider it.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
skyfireposted 4 hours agoin reply to this
Not everything is independent, but that doesn't rule out randomness and independent things. If any design which takes only dependent parameters into account, then it is in no way self-serving/corrective as it discards independence/randomness and that makes it a design without any prediction & more of less self-corrective.

I don't know if anything is truly independent. Maybe the only things we know as independent or random are the things who's dependency is undiscovered.
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sufi was right.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
We're not actually, we can't even fight simple H1N1 and with environmental changes it affected a lot to humans. Not all organism are changing their adaptive style unless there is change and we can't adapt unless we see change and consciousness that guides evolution knows about this change ?Nope. If it knows then how much we've evolved from last 100 years ? Accept it that there are random changes in environment and many random factors applied to species survival.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is hard to disagree with examples like that. I agree, many things are unpredictable due to randomness. It could also be guided by consciousness, it seems if we have awareness of the consciousness, we could eventually design the evolution of the consciousness. There are many random factors applied for survival, there are more designed factors applied for survival. I don't think there is high percentage for an event to kill every living organism on earth, maybe humans, but not all life.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well the problem is the paradigm, as I have been suggesting a paradigm shift is called for.
  
  I will try to explain. (but hopefully the hecklers don't come back to distract from the issue until is a conversation of apes who can talk, not to desparage the apges..okay apes from rival tribes)
  
  'WE CAN'T EVEN FIGHT SIMPLE H1N1"
  
  The fact is we can adapt, we are still adapting. We adapted by creating civilization, industry and now technology. The adaptation begins with choices. Then choices spread out through memes and then genes.
  
  The thing is when you Skyfire gets a mutated flu virus without knowing it, then you see your girlfriend and have a romantic night together, then she calls you a month later to say she's pregnant, she contracts the virus, survives...you for instance do not. Some will say, skyfire did not survive the mutation (which is also an adaptation of the flu virus to survive). But your genes did through your offspring.
  
  According to dawkins, human life is meaningless to the genes. It only wants to further itself. In other words once you've done your contributions to the meme machine and the gene machine, you are disposable, feel free to die.
  
  But we don't die as soon as we get someone pregnant because the consciousness has learned that this is not very practical. The same individual can make other babies and learn more things and inspire memes.
  
  The WE you speak of are humans now. But think in terms of genes. Change your we from HUMANS to cells with GENES.
  
  Instead of we the people, think WE the GENES.
  
  Our biochemistry has changed tremendously because we adapted to the harsh living conditions with civilzation and technology that is now, we find later not doing us any good in the long-term. It's a downward spiral. We are searching for better ways of survival.
  
  but WE BEHAVE EXACTLY IN THE WAY OUR CELLS DO.
  WE LEARN, WE REPRODUCE, WE DIE.
  
  but what we learned lives on. Our consciousness lives on, through machinery of the memes and the genes.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your reference to "apes" brought me here...invoked, if you will. Ha! Caveman speaks:
  When you (ceciliabeltran) typed in this statement in a deformed 'Caps Locked' fashion, "but WE BEHAVE EXACTLY IN THE WAY OUR CELLS DO. WE LEARN, WE REPRODUCE, WE DIE " ... I can't help but think how counter-productive these thoughts are.
  Not only do you sound like someone who doesn't even understand life, you sound lost in direction. It is like you fell for the systematic nature of things and forgot what living was. Today's version of "caveman/apes" would simply call you an idiot. I'm not going to be that candid about it, so I'll be nice. Get a life...
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I apologize for any buttons I pushed. But of course life has more meaning than that. By we, I meant life in general.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're such a sweet gal; I appreciate it!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and you are not sweet at all.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, sarcasm applied... LOL! Actually, I don't know if you are or not. Nobody can truly tell through electronic means of conversation and/or behind these glowing contraptions.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know why you would call me an idiot. Kindly don't be nice and explain. I'm sure it doesn't take that much time. So much anger over an internet forum.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The common outward outtake of thought often equals an 'idiot' when it comes to actual insight of one's own life...as opposed to looking from within to find realization of awareness - from the core. The greatest inhibition is awareness of one's own self; don't think; feel.
  Hence forth the idea, that you over-analyzed things that you can't even see, sort of like a scope set too high...you missed so much; idiot! But, you're still learning, so praise be!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well you know that would be off-tangent to the discussion. But things you can't even see has archetypal counterparts on the things you can see. As the jewish mystics say, "you must peel the darkness from the light to reveal a greater light, the light of the Shekina that fragmented upon the moment of creation."
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
I've to admit here that the way many people think of evolution as design is because of "reactive nature". I've not got into depth of it personally but in my opinion, the pattern of reactive nature and as it is passed seems to be like design and many are taking this as sign of intelligence.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you are right. The main thing I consider intelligence is awareness of consciousness. This is also dependent.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
I'm not much into biology but does this adaption applied to all species or we humans show this adaptive nature much more than any other species ? I feel that it's both. And about altruism, my view is that it contributes to species survival point ( i can't give it a thought in terms of design here seriously).
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if anyone can answer the first question. My opinion is that humans are far ahead in adaptation for survival. I think this is shown in the fact that we are the only species with awareness and level of consciousness to experiment and explore in learning how life came to exist. I think further proof of our adaptation is our exploration of space and life on other planets. I think this is adaptation in the fact that we are adapting to the possibility to living on other planets if our planet one day becomes inhabitable. I think altruism can be seen as a design, take a Marine jumping on a grenade as an example. The individual Marine would be blown to shreads in his sacrifice while saving a higher number of Marines from dying. Not an intelligent design on an individual basis, but intelligent in survival of the group.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The adaptation was first observed on uni-cellular organisms, even when the genes where taken out. Hence the conclusion that we learn from the tissue of the cell and photocopy from our genes. The mutations happen from the sensors and is repeated to the next generation of cells.
  
  Bruce Lipton's BIOLOGY OF BELIEF. The belief in the environment inspires the adaptation technique.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Our cells are designed to learn. And cells are pretty much made of PUFA chains-- proteins which are chemicals made of a combination of molecules made up elements that came from the stars...I don't know if this doesn't seal the case that consciousness drives evolution, hence I sincerely think there is intelligence in design.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The quackery that is Bruce Lipton:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iCcnDuY6-4
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bruce Lipton's work is a just the ice on top of 100 years of studies on the behavior of cells and genes. So it will take more than googling to get you through the neanderthal stage. You have to use your medial prefrontal cortex more often before it recedes to oblivion.
  
  Glad to have you back Q. it was beginning to sound like real science discussions. Now I feel as if I'm in SNL again.
  reply report
3. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ALTRUISM is a set of behaviors that overrides sense of self for the survival of larger populations. Is in a sign that a breakthrough was made in our evolution following a breakthrough of the mind, that if one sacrifices himself for the good of others, more people will live. This adaptation was spread through a meme. Showing that it is not just self-preservation life is interested in, but the preservation of ALL LIFE.
  
  Altruism is efficient, economical and a good survival tactic. It is an intelligent biproduct of evolution, and definitely a breakthrough by an individual organism that first learned that sometimes...when all else fails, I'll just die so that they will live.
  
  LIFE IS INTELLIGENT, even at the cellular level.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
For known things we can always come up with pattern and then try to form design around it. But design fails when there are variables that affect to it are not considered and with every design there comes few random variables that affect the design, pick any design pattern from software programming and you'll see there is always one point out there it takes design to failure. If it's conscious design then it'll correct itself the moment it notices the flaw, but is there any such case here ? it looks like brute force to me. Besides to even think about we humans evolving into something you've to find flaws in our current living in order to think about our evolution. If i'm not wrong then on psychological aspects i can't think of any more progress of human beings unless there is change in environment and some other social factors that affect human mind growth.
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well the way we create as humans is we try and try what works, something does not, we abandon it. It is the nature of learning. Not all tasks explored for adaption works and so they do no survive, however one that does is explored in various applications, hence the diversity of motile life.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
"For known things we can always come up with pattern and then try to form design around it. But design fails when there are variables that affect to it are not considered and with every design there comes few random variables that affect the design, pick any design pattern from software programming and you'll see there is always one point out there it takes design to failure."

I agree, the predictability of design fails when there is randomness and variables "unless" you find out what the variables and randomness are dependent on or if they are independent. If you can predict how random they are, you can find ways prevent the random affects. If you kept men in space at all times to avoid the possibility of all humanity being destroyed on earth from a random event, you are making a prediction in the randomness of humanity being destroyed. With the computer software, the more dependent you designed it, the less randomness it should have.

"If it's conscious design then it'll correct itself the moment it notices the flaw, but is there any such case here ?"

This is hard to answer. In the case of diseases popping up at random, doctors and science are up to the minute in research in making a conscious effort to understand and limit the disease. The design itself is not self corrective, but the product of the design seems to be self corrective for having consciousness and awareness to limit the randomness.
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  obviously the machinery of the cell itself shows that the answer to that question is a resounding scientific and peer reviewed YES.
  
  But complex structures of cells shows minute changes towards the direction of the adaptation breakthrough. First the behavior changes, then the biochemistry, then the nueral wirin and then the genetic make-up passed on to offspring. Adaptation styles can easily be passed on the next generation as in the case of the mice and maze...that famous study where parental mice learning the maze passed their genes to the offspring that knew how to figure out the maze faster than their parents did.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  the design is self -corrective. the trajectory is a set path.
  
  ITS OPERATION LIVE FOREVER
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  my apologies to the athiests for what may be construed as references to ETERNAL life. I speak in terms of the passing of genes not human life. We could all die out, but our genes....what we learn in our daily life, its contribution to the meme machine...they will live on. for as long as the earth goes around the sun and the atmosphere can support life.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think this is an interesting idea. If all humans died today, how long if possible do you think it would be for the genes to recreate consciousness and awareness to our current levels of language, reading, writing?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i have no idea.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Anyway, these ideas have been around since early 1990s. Lee schmolin published theory that suggests universes go through the same kind of evolution we do that makes them suitable for the existence of life. 25 big ideas robert matthews pg. 177.
  
  so design...there is intent to life. and life has intent to live for as long as it could.
  reply report
3. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My fingers hurt. It was fun. Stretch! Thanks for the entertainment!
  reply report
57
lori_rhodes2004posted 15 years ago
AMEN!!
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Obscure, do you have bipolar? I notice you compliment a person one minute and then insult them the next. Control your impulses, how is that for awareness?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I was being nice, then she told me to explain why I said 'idiot'...so it kind of had to resurface from a prior state of awareness. Bipolar? Ha-ha! I don't have this, but thanks for asking... I'm tired of using insulting adjectives on this topic. I'm reformed, if you will... LOL!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Thank You for the explanation. All of you have had great ideas on the thread whether I agree or disagree. Thanks to you and everyone for your thoughts.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  that's ok, I asked him to explain why he said I was an idiot before he turned human on me. Anyway, if I may end this with Richard Dawkin's new foreword (which thankfully because of this thread I read last night and was surprised to find a reformed man after 30 years since he published his first book)
  
  "I should have gone for [the title] The Immortal Gene. The Altruistic Vehicle would have been a possibility." -The Selfish Gene- 30th anniversary edition.
  
  which goes to show that people, including the staunch poster child himself of evolution being mindless,(this is a long sentence)can evolve within his lifetime to see order in an apparently complex and chaotic universe.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOL
  
  No - really - LOLOLOLOL
  
  Dis you get what that means? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  
  Should I add some more? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  Immortal = order and mindful.
  
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  Do you understand that I am laughing at you for what you said?
  
  A reformed man?
  
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  Aww sweetie - do it again. That was the best LOLOLOLOL yet.
  
  Dear me. I am wiping a tear from my eye. Does he say which creator he now LOLOLOLOLO believes in? LOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  What is it with you guys that you cannot stick to agreed meanings of words? Odd really. Sad as well, but mostly annoying.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This reply made me dizzy, with all the LOLs and such. LOL! I agree with Mark, as this is some funny-ass stuff. I almost feel psychic, since I mentioned, in a joking way, the term 'reformed' before she (ceciliabeltran) screwed it all up for Mark - by saying "Richard Dawkin" was now reformed. Ha-ha!
  Hey Mark, you have a talent for the L's & O's; keep spreading the love. Damn, you almost sound as sweet & nice as me, Ha-ha! Oops, I meant LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL!!! I like seeing other people that are as relentless as myself. Yeah, tell her...
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well - it was rather funny and I was actually laughing out loud.
  
  You think I overdid it?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hell no; I liked it!!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To prove that I thought your "laughing out loud" was funny, you inspired a silly hub that I wrote today.
  Check it out:
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Health-Benefits … t-Loud-LOL
  
  Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mark, love your recipes. Bored with your heckling though. It's not even mildly irritating.
  
  Q, what can I say, you're still the best loser in this thread. (sigh)
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you had actually read the introduction to that book, you'd have realized that's not at all what Dawkins was referring. Your spin on it just goes to demonstrate your dishonesty.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You must remember "Q", some people are scientifically "challenged"...in more ways than one. Maybe she'll reply back to you; who knows? Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well well, the bonobos are back, with nothing more than hoo hoo haaa haaa hoo hoo haa haa.
  
  I can't say I didn't miss the flattering insults that show you guys have nothing better to say.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's why it's a waste of time correcting your baloney, woo-woos won't listen to anyone and will consider those corrections insults and will happily and blissfully continue to slice and serve up more baloney.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yeah don't bother. It will take up your entire day, researching.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well q, i read the book 8 years ago. so when buying another copy to replace a brownish one, would I read it again unless I have to? Sorry I just saw this now and realized this has to be answered. Youdunnit again Q. I so love the fact that your mesmerizing pettiness inspires me to be like you.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
You guys are acting like a pack of dogs on a piece of meat. People including yourselves make mistakes and have contradicted themselves before on here, doesn't mean everything they write is wrong or loses credibility. If that was the case, nothing or no one would ever be right on anything.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Piece of meat? You make me hungry! Since you mention it, I'll take a 16 oz. ribeye steak for $6.99 a pound - or under; I want it marinated for 2 hours in worcestershire sauce & italian dressing...and then, stove-top fried until medium-rare! Thanks, in advance...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol You want to pay me for my meat? I don't think my wife would like that.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nice innuendo, but I was actually talking about cow meat via slab of fine steak. Ha-ha-ha! I had to settle for fried catfish today, but sometimes, I like a little more blood...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol oh. I don't put my tongue to anything bleeding. I had a fast food diet today.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for the defense marine. I don't really care, but you're appreciated.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
What are the biggest unknowns in evolution?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's about time you've asked a good question. Unfortunately, I'm running out of time today; I got to go to damn work tonight, which sucks...
  Anyway, I'm sure or at least I hope, you'll get some decent responses from this way overdue, valid question/query of yours. I'll see ya around the galactic fabric of confusion, at a later date... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright. What kind of night work do you do? Your not a serial killer are you?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shhhhhhhhhh! You're blowing my fu*kin' cover! I'm trying to sharpen my damn axe, geez! LOL!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Does it pay pretty good? I am looking for a job change.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, and by what I read on your profile, I bet you would do an excellent job. In fact, you probably wouldn't even need the axe. I suppose, one could always use a dull machete, for fun!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Chainsaws have a higher fear factor plus I like the sound of them.
  It would be a good warm up. I'm jk. The only think I kill now is termites. But I kill them slowly.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To Obscure: *yawn*
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How lame of you, but what's new? I was just trying to encourage new responses from Marine's recent question, but I forgot people like you lack imagination and are usually as shallow as the text they misconstrue.
  
  I don't know, maybe the biggest unknown of evolution is how people like 'ceciliabeltran' can evolve backwards, back to the state of Homo erectus... LOL!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  spend time with bonobos, you become one and I meant that affectionately obscure. you guys hate it when women play the testosterone game with you.
  
  why is that?
  
  bonobos by the way are very altruistic monkeys. I wish you would take the time to explain what I have misconstrued and why. I do sometimes enjoy being proven wrong.
  
  would you do the honors, you seem capable.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  oh and men have been observed to evolve backwards. The Boskops had larger brains than we did but they didn't last. some scientists theorize it was causing more difficulty in childbirth and infant deaths so died out.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, I know a little bit about bonobos. I even included them in my hub that I wrote a few weeks ago:
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Monogamy-Nat … man-Beings
  Although, I did learn, during the time of that hub, that some of them take part in "penis fencing." Which, I found to be interesting. Ha-ha!
  
  You, and everybody else often misconstrue 'human emotion' through these electronic means of conversation. As far as the misinterpretation of text via books, I'll let "Q" & Mark take care of that for ya, as they do a fine job at badgering you. I specialize more in health science, intuition, creative thoughts & writing, grammatical fluency, etc. I don't need to list many more of my fortes within my diverse field of talents, or else, I would sound like I have testosterone overload and male ego issues. Now us cock-strong apes can't do that, now can we? LOL!
  
  I don't think I would pop up as much here, in response to you, if you didn't come off as such a "monkey hater." How can you talk about evolution and bash your own family like that?
  
  I think the funniest thing you have wrote thus far, is when you said, "You guys hate it when women play the testosterone game with you."
  I agree, that this is often true, but not in my case. I think it is all fair game, since no one on Earth will ever be able to unravel the properties of infinity. But by science, since you love it so much, testosterone levels in males have their own cognitive advantages over females, just like females have special traits that triump over us.
  
  I can't help but bring up something you recently said: "LOL...give it up guys. It's getting old, but nice to see nothing's changed. But if you think of something particularly challenging, heckle on. Maybe I'll drop by when I get bored with real people."
  
  LOL! What, did you get bored with your "real people" or something?
  I got a question for you: What is 'real' people???
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  nobody's home...and I've got a ton of things to do I don't want to. I do find it funny that people project all sorts of emotion when we're just prattling along typing whatever comes to mind.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know about the monkey business bonobos,do. I do not think they have a fine job at badgering me. I think my mere existence badgers them. I went to your hubs and found them very diverse. I was looking for something particularly along the lines of the topics discussed here. Can you recommend something. You wrote so much.
  
  Well, apes are cool but dolphins are more interesting for me. I was into ape research but then I moved on. The reference to apes in this primitive tone is from carl sagans shadows of forgotten ancestors. it kind of influenced me at the moment since i read it again recently.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For the other Homo sapiens out there:
  http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Ultimate-Qu … n-Theories
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My dear, read Joseph Campbell's work. He kinda beat you to it several decades back and actually made sense of myth. It is not only noteworthy it is actually proof that something continues beyond life that is conscious. Something within us but outside our human life is aware and its telling its stories through the myths that we churn out.
  
  If this is your big eureka, read his work and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes, if I may quote the matrix. Truth is stranger than your fiction, pun intended.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I beat you too it because I didn't read his work. He also beat me to it because he was, most likely, a few decades older than me. I said it was noteworthy, on that other site, since it was the title I created out of my "own" head. Actually, I don't think anyone can say such things as "beat you to it" when it comes to thought. You don't know what I was thinking 5, 10, 15, 150, 200 (Ha-ha!) years ago or whenever. You assume things you cannot prove. But, thanks for the nice compliments.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  my point is, reading his work will complete your "theories" because really you have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes....update update!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, but I'm not gullible enough to fall into insane holes that lead one astray. But, thanks for the recommendation...
  report
2. 56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It might help you to understand that once you understand what is known.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Q, what is known is I stated source, stated factual evidence, and you did nothing but say "baloney" "dishonest" and then implied that you understand more. As for evidence pointing to that, you've got nothing, as usual.
  
  Your predictability is comforting and your lack of real input but reliable display of rudeness is a nice way to end a stressful day. Alas, somebody I could be nasty to and not feel bad about. I thank you for all that you've shared, the good and especially the bad.
  
  I shall miss your sour tone because as much as I'd love to go on, alas it was not meant to be as we've reached the end of this debate.
  
  I mean, it was fun while it lasted but I feel like going for other topics now, maybe see other people, no commitment, you know.
  
  LOL...give it up guys. It's getting old, but nice to see nothing's changed. But if you think of something particularly challenging, heckle on. Maybe I'll drop by when I get bored with real people.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Woo-woos offer baloney and then offer sources that spout more baloney. Baloney is what baloney does. Woo-woos never listen.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  then you think science is boloney, i quoted only the leaders of this field. don't hate me, hate whoever forced you to buy the you'll go to hell propaganda. it is certainly not me.
  
  I really would listen if only you said something other than I'm woo woo and baloney. I mean, there must be a reason why you firmly think you're right and I'm wrong but you are not communicating that. Your agenda is to say there is no Gd. But that is not the discussion we are having. We are talking about whether the facts lead to intelligent design or not.
  
  I defined intelligence and design according to what the books say it is. So I don't know what you're calling baloney. But it really is a flimsy counter argument that is making you look at best,17 years old, a year shy of having a fully grown brain. (last line added for humour).
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, what you offer is baloney and it isn't science.
  
  My baloney meter goes off the scale when I read your posts.
  
  They don't, and no amount of baloney from you will change that.
  
  That's nice. Woo-woos usually say such things.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  define science, q. you're capable of that right. and then define natural law.
  come on, go back to what you learned in college and define them for me.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  While I understand those are unfamiliar concepts to you, it would make more sense that you do your own homework.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  See, I admire the fact that you are skilled in not answering questions that will pin you down. You make pronouncements and you DO NOT BACK THEM UP. For someone who requires a lot of proof and accuracy, you provide none.
  So before you start accusing somebody of not knowing what science is, please define science.
  
  DEFINE SCIENCE AND THEN DEFINE NATURAL LAW. and then after that, point exactly why I am not being scientific. As far as I know all you do is give your biblical opinions, say everything is bullshit, talk about spirituality in a discussion that's obviously not about that.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have been. But, a woo-woo never sees that just like they never see anything else that they themselves don't write.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have been reading your stuff hoping to see something based on anything close to science and all I get is your opinion based on nothing more than old ideas.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hence, you confirm my observation. Thanks.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Q, what is it you understand so much better?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  apparently the bible. He's more verbose in the other thread.
  reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Ah thread moved ahead of personal remarks and vague assumptions ? Anyway, will get back to it after finishing few hubs
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The assumption that it has design is not an assumption, it is logic. This is why logic can't prove it wrong. I would like new comments though on the unknowns and recently discovered in evolution.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm really curious what they're hanging onto. I want to know myself. But they are just getting angry at facts and calling me all sorts of name. is there somebody there who has read up memetics? I mean this accounts for many things we are discussing here. Memetics say that some dangerous memes just connects persistent beliefs like superstition as forms of lazy ways to cope with fears, without really bothering to find out scientifically what is going on....hence the denial that there could be intelligence in design.
  
  after 3o years or more, it seems darwinism has become a persistent meme that protects people from the onslaught of religious persecution that it too has become as absurd as the religion it originally dis-empowered.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ask "Q" about your "memetics" if you desire, but I'm sure he'll give you a "memento" of his prior "baloney theories" about you... You two make for great cyber-friends... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i don't think he knows anything about it. he's been dodging the challenge. as I said to ernesthubs, forum arch enemies are like the shadow of best friends because they always fall for it and get angry. LOL!
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I think it is very interesting of the scientists use of the word "nonrandom" to describe aspects of evolution. Here is the definition of nonrandom/random.

Adj. 1. nonrandom - not random
random - lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"

So...nonrandom means that it has plan, order, purpose, design.

But, they will continue to say nonrandom because they know it has plan and design, but they don't know it's predictions or it's designer.
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have a friend who is an astrophysicist, and when he talks about it in the coffeehouse you think he's talking about some secret that will kill him if anybody heard. I told him,"why are you whispering", its hilarious.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You continue to expose yourself as a woo-woo by posting conspiracy fabrications. Yes, it is hilarious.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Q, I don't mean to jump in, but I wouldn't rule it out as not being a conspiracy. How often do you see people use the word "nonrandom"? This is clearly some word play to stay away from saying it has purpose and design. I would imagine if the scientist wished to keep his job, he would be quiet about saying it has design. Just like many on this thread, i'm sure his peers would draw many assumptions to say he is working for religion rather than science.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  you can call me hilarious, doesn't change the fact that I have a friend who is an astrophysicist, an applied physicist and a nuero-biologist who refuse to be quoted but who fed me all these things I'm telling you about. These are discussions over coffee. You can call me hilarious and woo-woo. You still can't even define science, because you don't know science, you know the bible that's for sure. You said so yourself, you were raised in a bible-freak household.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're such a woo-woo; woot-woot! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am happy to be one, as you probably noticed. Dawkins, thinks the universe is woo-woo.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And you're having a mid-life crisis giving up on science.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not old enough for a "mid-life" crisis, LOL! I just don't worship textbooks, that's all. Don't worry, I won't post any creative thoughts on YOUR forum of other peoples' Quotes. Thanks for the, yet again, wrong assumption.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i don't worship textbooks,nor myself. a 25 year old can have a midlife crisis, just as you can lose your hair at 18. my dear creative thoughts is not imagined facts. I was in the creative business for more than a decade and we do not dare claim something unfounded. creativity is not fancy unless it's art for art's sake, which is also based on some kind of design rules found in this earth.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now that's funny...
  I hope I'm insane to you; thanks.
  LOL!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  geez, you truly are insane to think you can just convince me of your worldview without support nor logic.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, a woo-woo with friends. I'm so impressed.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and the punchline continues! tina fey, need a writer?
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Is this really not odd to others that scientists would go through the trouble to use the word nonrandom?

I mean....the word doesn't even have a definition. It only has the posting of random as it's opposite.

How scientific is it to use words that don't have their own defintions?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Our existence may be from or held within a nonrandom energy source, light, [insert whatever noun that makes you happy], but within this nonrandom "source," is full of randomness and unknown elements.
  
  A few years ago, when studying such things, I almost came to the conclusion that it was simply one giant fabric of unification. ...As in the only answers are found from within ourselves since we are all fragmented from one mysterious entity of energy. I used to call it the "Theory of Unity."
  I had trouble trying to convince myself that this was the only universe, so with conflicting dimensional theories, I figured one could, at best, hope to recognize a pattern and nothing more. That's why, later on, I ignored organized religions, and slid further away from science (I still enjoy science) and focused more on personal philosophy from within my own perception of my reality.
  
  Things can get really complicated, and sometimes, people actually become more ignorant by studying material that is going in the wrong direction. Although, this is all very interesting, just as your last notion was...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You Diverse. I agree with you on personal philosophy, the only true important truth is individual truth. If a person can't find their indvidual truth or philosophy, I don't think they will understand outside philosophy or others truths. I understand and agree that there are many aspects of evolution understood as random because we don't know why/when they happen and what the randomness is dependent on. If scientists found what the random things are dependent on and how they work and design one another, would they speak truthfully and say it has design or would they still use the term nonrandom? I am not so sure they still wouldn't claim it as nonrandom, even if they knew it's design. I agree that some people can become more ignorant when researching only things trying to justify their belief rather than everything, even things that disagree with their belief. Great Thoughts, thank you.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, this is a good way to go to live, but to discuss evolution being intelligent or not, it becomes unproductive.
  
  You normally have to have specific stand in a debate, proofs, sources of established facts that you will craft to make a point that is based on the philosophy you wish to advocate. It is the way debates are handled. You use data to strengthen your case.
  
  Whether your opponent accepts it or not does not matter. The winner of the debate is whoever presents more concrete evidence to prove a point.
  
  As for being your own authority in truth, that matter is not the stuff you put in a debate because it is very personal and unscientific. Not wrong, but, it does not move the conversation forward in terms of establishing a consensus based on facts.
  
  The thread began as a debate, if it were just sharing of feelings and philosophies, it will be not a debate but a dinner conversation and really anything goes in such venues. Everyone is respectful of people's opinions.
  
  This thread is a debate, well all methods of discrediting are employed in the hopes that authentic points will be muddled and weakened. So as much as we would like to stay away from science, and get our personal philosophy in the table, this thread is not the venue for that.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're wrong, and if Mr. Marine doesn't agree with me now, he never will. All this data/debate/proof bull-sh*t just shows a lack of your own imagination and poor cognitive function. You'd have to be a damn fool to think you have to read other peoples' take on life just to figure yours out.
  I'm starting to think you're a mental case; you better reform or get your "data" together. I also notice a huge gap in replies to others, it is like you have to research everbody elses work per google or something; how lame.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What does the woo-woo get who provides only baloney?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose all the love I get from you.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why would I be wrong? This is debate rules and rules are there to establish order. My poor cognitive function is pointing out a flaw in your debating style. And you are just saying I am crazy and better change my interpretation of my data because its lame and I'm researching in between, even there is no basis for it.
  
  You cannot use metaphysics to counter physics. Or feelings to debate information. That's just like playing basketball in a game of hokey.
  
  My data is clearly stated and logic was used to arrive at conclusions.
  
  You can call me lame but read your response. All the knowledge that I have given this thread is out there for you to check. Yours are from your head, and most importantly from your heart. well that my dear this is worse than WOO WOO by definition. It's actually more BOO HOO.
  
  The fact is, there are new things that we learn about our anatomy and the univserse everyday. You cannot just abandon these things and say I've given up on science. How do you give up on an on-going thing that does not have an end? It is a way to establish knowledge we can all agree on.
  
  The universe is all woo woo really. Existence is woowoo.That's why science was invented. To make sense of it. To have a world view, a model from which to form an agreement with each other so we can operate along the same lines when working together to form a consensus of what the reality is. It changes from time to time, but just because we do too.
  
  Lack of imagination means you cannot see beyond the facts presented to you. You said so yourself with your statements that all the things that you know FAILED you. You simply could not make sense of it and then ultimately abandoned it, in favor of metaphysics. which is a good way to get to your core truth, but not necessarily to win a debate.
  
  call me lame, it won't change the fact that you are sourly losing the logic game. And the anger, the insult does not change the fact that all you can say is I'm wrong and I'm crazy and that I really research and google. (petty,petty)
  I was not picking a fight just pointing out that your playing hokey in a basketball game. There is nothing wrong with that. Put your thinking cap on and operate on the level that you expect people to operate, namely intelligently and without unfounded claims that cannot be confirmed nor denied.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Thanks for your reply, as it is the point I made. Thinking cap? I thought mine was already on. All of the things I know didn't fail me in that sense, but they all were unable to unravel the properties of the universe. I tell ya what, when you unravel the mysteries of eternity or infinity with logic, with or without book quotes, please...let me know. Thanks...
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well the thing is, it is easy to claim something the burden is in proving it. I can unravel any mystery and claim that I have but unless there is no logical way to communicate it, it will be nothing but visions of fiery birds and three-headed monsters.
  
  as you probably know the mysteries of eternity is beyond us because we are finite beings. Mythology offers a clue to the essence that is hiding behind the veil of our mortality,this essence has no words, nor place in scientific debates. Unless you can translate in words and raw data your metaphysical experience, it remains nothing more than your ramblings...tales of sound of fury signifying nothing, you are as rubbish as the religion you so obviously despise. This is not about my book quotes. The book quotes support my claims, what supports your claims. nothing, but your claim, or your claim that I'm crazy or lame, or what was that? hmmm....googling my data. all that is unsupportable too, and the attitude of somebody who is cornered to be mean, because well...no other answer comes to mind.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If we were in person talking back and forth, you can't bring a body bag of books to the debate - besides, I hate slow talking conversations & delayed responses. I'd have to wait 1-5 minutes in each reply, so you could quote someone.
  You're the one that sounds defensive.
  I'm saying more power to ya. Unravel the mystery of life. Just think, when you do, you'll be the first one on this planet. Good luck...
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and your thinking cap, is not screwed on well enough because you are not comprehending anything I'm saying.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I hope not... Hey, quit replying to me. I'm not in the "debate" anymore. Remember, this debate is for book quotes and whatever else your terms of service said. So, I'll leave it at that. But, I'll probably keep coming back as long as people keep replying to me. LOL!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well you just keep on coming back with personal attacks, and the world may be this and lets think with our feelings and science is not the end and be all and woo-woo or lame...what do you think I'll say, you're making sense? you're not! I'm writing a manuscript ok. I have to finish in 30 days ok. so I'm running on caffeine, don't mess with someone who drank too much coffee. i use this thread to rest my head and to keep myself awake enough to finish a coherent sentence..as for your aversion to book quotes or actual established sciences or philosophies, its just a dodge because judging from your hubs you are research freak yourself. ok stop being hypocritical and just admit you don't take this seriously enough to actually back up your claims. that would give you more credibility. I'll leave it at that if you stop insulting me for pointing out FACTS, like say no place for "feelings" or "creative" art for art's sake, in a debate about evolution having intelligent design or not. It's not like we'll all get rich doing this.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What is it with all these claims of my "personal attacks." I've heard that from several people and have even been banned once already. I'm just not that sensitive or aware of my "attacks" - I thought the word meant something else. Maybe I was raised poorly in a dysfunctional home or something, and am struggling to understand what a "cyber attack" is. LOL!
  
  Judging by my hubs? See, what you miss, is that I don't do a lot of research anymore. I used to study and ponder a lot more in the past. I rarely ponder about anything anymore. On some of those "hubs" I just typed away from past knowledge. I had to check on a few things and research some, but not much. I have thought so much before, that my brain feels like it is always in automatic response mode.
  
  You're right about that: I don't take this seriously enough to even attempt any "backing up"...
  I just see it as a waste of time, although it is fun & interesting.
  The only reason I say waste of time, is because I think some things are impossible to unravel.
  More power to you, and good luck with the research and manuscript.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well obscure, you still have to do research and study to keep you updated, otherwise, go to inspirational threads.
  
  learning never ends, that's what evolution does that's what people must do to survive.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Study what? Insanity?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  that's a good place to start, especially one's own.
  
  I recommend Jung.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, I thought you started and ended there... Interesting...
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yes I did start with Jung. You started with "errr....I'm going to try, oh no it's too hard...i give up." Try harder.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's a reflective statement from your own self; you have to try harder, not me. Some of us are just more intuitive than others, just as, some people can read & research all they want, and still come up with the wrong synopsis...
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Am I jumping to conclusions?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, what happened to your comment on my last post? The forum was going haywire, or my computer, not sure which. The post went from live to deleted, back to live. I figured your comment must have got deleted in the process. Hmm...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess it did get deleted, I don't know why. It is irratating though, I usually am too lazy to write that much on one post and I don't remember everything I wrote. lol
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That sucks because I actually liked that comment. Ha-ha! You can always just add a quick one back to it; tell me I'm wonderful or something... LOL!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And.....another just got deleted out of random / nonrandomness. It is Chaos.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe this is our ultimate answer after all. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Maybe so, I hope you got to read the long comment I posted before it chaotically got deleted for random/nonrandom reasons.
  
  What do you think about consciousness being the designer of evolution and every individual reality?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I read & liked it. I'm still waiting on my post to get deleted amid the chaos, but I'm ready because I copied & pasted it into wordpad, just incase it does happen.
  
  I've wondered before if human consciousness plays a role in our evolution. Outside of the scientific realm, there could be other factors that effect our evolution. When you say "designer," I can't relate evolution with the terms 'intelligent' or 'ignorant' like the title of this forum subject. I thought we already went through this. I still think evolution is independent from a "designer."
  However, in a unification as one infinite energy source (my prior theory of unity), one could say we are all designers due to our awareness of consciousness...but by saying that, you can no longer say "designer" as in singular. It would be like comparing our boundless imagination to our boundless universe; it is hard to believe the two couldn't exist without each other... Is this what you mean?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  On my next to last sentence, I was trying to correlate our infinitive consciousness with our infinitive space. I messed up my wording. I was just saying that our thoughts may parallel to more things than we currently know.
  
  This forum won't let me edit my posts today! This whole site has been acting crazy & chaotic this morning...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Smart man, you are predicting the randomness by your nonrandomness of the chaos deleting your post. Pretty intelligent.
  
  Think of consciousness instead of evolution. Do you think consciousness could be considered intelligent or ignorant? I don't think evolution is independent of a designer because evolution has dependency of circumstances that allow life to evolve. If life wasn't dependent on other things to evolve, then I would agree to it not having a designer or something that designs it happening. I'm not making any assumptions that the designer is only 1, I learn more towards the overall designer being unified as you said making all life important in creating the overall reality. We draw our consciousness often from observation of others realities to define our individual reality, so a unified consciousness seems possible. I don't think it would make sense for the universe to exist without the consciousness to observe it.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  So the 13 billion years the universe existed with out us to "observe" it made no sense? You sound more religious with every post.
  
  Why doesn't it make any sense?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you get so defensive against ideas that go against your previous belief? Are you devolving in mind to where you can't make a mature comment to something you disagree with without the LOLOL's and smilies? I thought you agreed with evolution, think like it.
  
  Who said there was no life anywhere else to observe the universe? There was life before us to consciously observe the universe, other animals have consciousness also.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Answer the question.
  
  Why does it make no sense? and please prove the "conscious" life that you now believe in with no facts.
  
  LOL is all you de4serve.
  
  Same as all the other religious believers.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I notice you are often scared to contribute any individual ideas. All you seem to do is quote your scientific heroes and use sarcasm and ridicule when you spot something you can disagree with. Maybe you are too scared to post individual ideas because you fear people will ridicule your ideas like you ridicule theirs. I apologize if you cannot think beyond your books. Possible devolution of imagination. You are assuming I don't have any facts. Consciousness built the theory and observations of evolution, without consciousness, how would the universe exist? It wouldn't exist if there was no conscious mind to know it existed.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please prove this rather than just pulling statements out of your behind. You have facts? present them? Still not answering the Kwestion though are you?
  
  Evolution happens whether any conscious observation is there or not. Sorry you cannot understand that because you are too lazy to read any books.
  
  Please also list the proven "conscious" animals that existed over the past 13 billion years that you know about.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How does evolution happen without consciousness? Life makes conscious decisions in evolution in adaptation to their environment to survive. If they had no consciousness, how would they know they needed to adapt to survive? The higher the consciousness, the higher the chance to survive. Who is to say that cells and all living organisms don't have consciousness? You didn't answer my question. How would we know the universe existed without consciousness to know it exists? If random events can produce conscious results, conscious results can produce random events. Without consciousness and science, how would anyone know or believe the universe began 13 billion years ago? How are you so positive that the random events didn't have conscious "nonrandom" actions?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please make a statement and back it up instead of asking leading, assumptive, religious based questions.
  
  You claim to have facts. Present them please or I will conclude that you are just looking for a fight and return to making fun of your nonsense.
  
  Thank you.
  report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't this the old question - "does a falling tree in the forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?" And damn - I can't remember who said it and what is the answer.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, I have stated a source published in a book that the theory that the universe evolved to enable the conditions for life points to the fact that there is data to prove that the intent for life is plausible, hence it was published. This is peer reviewed by many scientists who I may assume know more than you about the matter.
  
  And china man, it is a good point. The eyes are there to observe visible light which was made visible because there is a receiver of that signal. If we don't have eyes, will there be visible light...the answer is no.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But it is a story and the whole thing is metaphorically describing an event that some people imagine happened.
  
  Science also imagines how it happened, these imaginings are called theories.
  
  If you see them both as stories then you can see that they are almost the same in many ways, the only difference really is that science explains it as a naturally occurring event and religionists see it as made by a being.
  
  Then you can argue if nature IS a being I guess.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The most hilarious thing about this thread is people are arguing about something really that is unanswerable at this point, particularly by all of us here, who if I may correctly assume are not in a position to make sub-accurate conclusions about the matter. MIT professors can't make sense of all these. We only have our take on the information that's out there, that's published and with the lens of our own biases do we view this facts.
  
  All we have is just evidence upon evidence. The evidence to me, points to intelligent design because as humans are able to intelligently design our responses.
  
  Is it a god who cares about our individual lives that design this, we don't know. Is it an intelligent process? Most likely, yes. Is it like human intelligence, most likely yes. The human brain consists of parts designed by the entire process of human evolution, and as a result , all the intelligences gathered by life are working together to produce the human mind today. The brain is like a singularity of all the things that transpired in the universe and the earth. It is not done evolving, with each choice we make, each habit we reinforce, we (due to neuroplasticity) change the way our brains work. This is not fancy nancy, this is fact. Our brains rewire according to our persistent thoughts. We pass this on to our offspring along with our general biochemistry.(genomic imprinting, look it up) We evolve through thought alone! Thought is the very driving force of our evolution within this lifetime. Now if thought is driving the evolution of our anatomy now, what was driving the evolution of evolution? Is it not logical that it is thought as well? if the universe is showing evidence that it is evolving in darwin like style in order to support life, isn't it logical that the same driving force that make us evolve is making the universe evolve as well...it is thought. Whose thought? I don't know. Something is thinking. Is it a god? I don't know. Is it the universe, most likely. How do we know if the universe is not just the brain of another organism that is larger than us. Have you guys watched TED? A scientist studying neurobiology took a photo of our synapses, just the light that flashes not the gray matter. Guess what he saw? A microcosm of the universe inside a human head. Flashes of light that look like tiny points of stars emanating from our prefrontal cortex and moving downwards towards our brainstem in the same way our universe emanated from its point of origin. Woo-woo? Maybe. But it is true, it is fact, it is real. TED is Technology, Engineering and Design convention where they gather the greatest think tanks of the world. I've met a couple of amazing people in these conventions, and yes they are scientists. and yes they believe that an intelligence is driving this universe. Some of them almost actually say it. AND if you don't already know, you can't just walk into TED. You've got to have a certain credibility to do so, or just plainly a mindset of openness and/or critical thinking (two features that our brains are designed to paradoxically both have as embodied by our hemispheres).
  
  Presenting. DAWKINS himself in his own words:
  http://live7.ted.com/talks/richard_dawk … verse.html
  (saying anything is possible)
  
  and then another, David Deutsch:
  http://blog.ted.com/2006/09/david_deutsch_o.php
  
  This particular chemical scum's (my) brain bizzaare as it seems, is actually just like the universe-- mathematically speaking.
  
  That's straight from the mouth of the leaders of thought in evolution, we are just like the universe.
  
  Now I'm sure there is a case for a random universe designing us, the information is out there...I wish it would come to this thread too, so far....
  
  That's my biased view of the facts because as a human being, I am bound by humanity to be biased. No one here is not biased. I am biased to think that evolution is intelligent because I am, we all are (some more than others)
  
  I have clearly stated sources facts that you can check, counter check. I urge you to do the same, so we will come out of this thread knowing more than we did. As a guideline (for those who cannot define what science is) is below
  
  AS ERIC CHAISSON author of EPIC OF EVOLUTION said:
  "if its experimentally or observationally testable, then it qualifies as science; if its not, its something else."
  
  For those of you who like to take the route of philosophy to arrive at a conclusion, I urge you to also see logic where logic is. Or use logic if that's all you have on your plate.
  
  Insults add no value.
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Woo-woos like to pretend.
  
  Considering there is no evidence whatsoever to support intelligent design, the woo-woo will most certainly continue to make the claim it does, as the woo-woo has little or no understanding of the evidence from the get go.
  
  It is gibberish.
  
  Woo-woo, definitely.
  
  You must have been at a woo-woo convention.
  
  We certainly found out you're a woo-woo, so you're right for the first time. Congrats.
  
  Neither do woo-woos.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  sure, Technology, Engineering and Design Convention for Ideas worth spreading is a woowoo? Yeah, sure...dig your own grave.
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with the last half of your reply.
  But, when you say evolution isn't independent, it makes it sound like you're supporting predestination like everything is foreordained. I can't go for any of that crap. Ha-ha!
  I'm sure I may just be misunderstanding your randomness due to it coming from a mysterious nonrandom force to be reckoned with... LOL!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, I can't say whether or not it is predestined. But if everything is dependent on something else and you figure out what everything is dependent on, this should allow a prediction of where it's headed and how it's built. Remind me, what is the main reason you think evolution is independent of a designer, because it can't be predicted? Thanks.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Without an independence, it would all be pointless; we could never change anything; there would be no reason for the cycles of life or the cycles within the cosmos, et cetera. I understand dependency laws and theories that involve them, but surely we are independent, crafty critters in our own right.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We don't have independence. We are dependent on the right conditions that allow us to survive. We are dependent on food and water to survive. I agree we are independent in what we can learn, but not on absolute survival. I don't think this makes everything pointless, but possibly an illusion of consciousness. Just because we could be in a conscious illusion doesn't mean we should stop being conscious does it? I think we are independent in some aspects of what we can learn and change, but only if our consciousness allows us to and we allow our conscious to.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly; we are independent. You mentioned our independent properties a lot, in your last reply.
  
  Consciousness proves it, as well.
  
  If you're thinking our entire universe is one 'brain' and we are cells that is being dictated by the "brain," then your dependent theories makes no sense. What is the brain? The cells make it. If all this dependent hogwash was in effect, you wouldn't need all the cells. It would just be a single cell organism of existence or whatever.
  I think we lost our dependence when we atomically split apart, eons and eons ago...
  
  I know one thing is for sure, we are all independent to disagree!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We do not have absolute independence though. We are dependent on food and water to survive. I think consciousness is dependent on energy. Or maybe energy is dependent on consciousness. Dependency would mean you do need the cells to make the brain, the brain is dependent on the cells. We are independent to disagree. lol
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi, Marine: Are you saying that there is one grand conscious of consciousness, and we are all slaves to this conscious divinity of yours? Ha-ha!
  I consciously disagree with some of your theories, but I will say, all of our independent minds could have produced a lot of "hubs" if we put all of this literature into a Hubland outside of these fun forums. Maybe you're simply trying to describe a conscious state of chaos, I don't know... Ha-ha! LOL! I gotta go run some errands since I'm dependent on certain things within my independent nature of establishing an enhanced well-being.
  report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well, this is assuming that consciousness and energy are two different things.
  I mean what do you think is running the thoughts in our brain electrochemicals,part water-part electricity...energy is running our thoughts. Those synaptic flashes...what's that. oh it's light flashing in our heads.
  
  The only that travels at the speed of light is you guessed it---information. Translation, only knowledge can travel at light speed. WHY? because information can be translated as 1s and 0s, one light off and one light on and its many many combinations. Information is light. And what is light but a radiation of energy.
  
  What is consciousness...alpha and theta states alternating, a microcosm of blinking which is a microcosm of sleep-wake cycles which is a microcosm of living and dying. It is being aware of the outside world and being unaware of the outside world happening in various levels of reality. This is consciousness as played out in various levels of existence.
  
  It is essentially NOW YOU SEE IT NOW YOU DON'T. one light on and then one light off.
  
  So yes, quite possibly the entire universe is conscious because it is about light and darkness. It is not entirely out of the realm of possibility and certainly more logical than the position that all of this is just one big giant mess....it could well be, it's just not probable.
  report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Mark Knowlesposted 2 minutes agoin reply to this
Please make a statement and back it up instead of asking leading, assumptive, religious based questions.

You claim to have facts. Present them please or I will conclude that you are just looking for a fight and return to making fun of your nonsense.

Evolution happens whether any conscious observation is there or not. Sorry you cannot understand that because you are too lazy to read any books.

Thank you.

If there was no consciousness, evolution would not exist. We have consciousness, we are made of cells, how would we have consciousness if the cells didn't have consciousness? I don't think life would evolve without consciousness because there would be no motivation or goal in surviving. I think evolution is the design of how consciousness survives with consciousness also designing evolution. Consciousness designs evolution by life making conscious desisions to adapt to survive.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now back it up sweetie pie. All you are doing is fighting.
  
  Present some facts other wise you get the LOLOLOL treatment.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Present facts that you are conscious? How about you explain how the cells aren't conscious when you are conscious, that would be even more impressive. If evolution didn't have a conscious goal for life to adapt and survive, life would not adapt and survive.
  reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years ago
Has this forum ever considered the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that ENTROPY ALWAYS INCREASES vis-à-vis Intelligent Design?

With this one law of physics, we should be able to see that everything from the unfolding of the universe to the genetic impossibility or mixing species (in its larger sense, in a viable self-sustaining way) is ample evidence to support the Intelligent, rather than Ignorant Design concept. The Higher Power that has caused and still causes an increase of order in every atom of the universe for us to plainly see is something to be marvelled upon and fill us with wonder and purpose. This suggestion that the design of the universe and/or the ordering of all its components could possibly be an ignorant happenstance is quite simply unfathomable and literally the pretentious hype of philosophical dogma.
If not for Intelligent Design, we would surely have evidence of the Universe and its components moving towards an order of chaos, or utter disorder and uselessness (i.e.: towards a life with NO PURPOSE, only anarchy).
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww sweetie pie. Sorry you don't understand that one. Perhaps if you took some more secular classes? IDK.
  
  Simply unfathomable huh? Persuasive reasoning........... Almost convinced me.
  reply report
2. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is BS. For you to even acknowledge 'Intelligent versus Ignorant design' within this evolution debate, shows how clueless you are. This was a stupid title that Mr. Marine knew (I hope so) would draw people from all walks of life. Surely he knows the "title" to this concept is outrageous and he has changed the question a few times, now. There is more to it, besides simple book quotes & bible theories from the state of being dumbfounded by it all... Try being a little more deep or something...
  reply report
  60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Made you THINK, didn't I? Thank you for reading my post above.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  On the contrary, it confirmed the simple shortcomings in these beliefs. But I admit, I did read the stupid thing. Ha-ha! By the way, I don't think you realize how dynamic my thoughts are; I rarely ponder...
  reply report
  60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  OK, now I know that you think everything is fun and games, and nobody should take you seriously, even if you disagree (which is your automatic response, in light of your admission of lack of ponderance, albeit notwithstanding your uncommonly quick dynamic thinking). I shall just have to laugh along with you. I do however still hold out hope that you will say something intriguing, eventually. Godspeed, Obscurely Diverse.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've seen this type of lost hope before. You have mentioned a few things that shows how much you have followed some of my words. For example, "Fun and games" was a southern joke I said on some redneck forum (a few days ago) talking about whether we should bring "sparky" (the electric chair) back. Ha-ha! I laugh a lot because I find other human beings to be funny. If you're simply suffering from comprehension issues, that's okay.
  Are you the same guy that said you have tried not to respond to me? Ha-ha! Now why would you ever have that notion?
  
  Intriguing? Get real... How intriguing is religious bull-sh*t that was wrote by other domineering a-holes?
  Godspeed? Really? What world have you been living in, of late? I hope it has been secluded from cults, but then again, you seem deluded, so perhaps not... LOL!
  reply report
3. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Timothy Donelly! Yes!
  
  And I quote :
  
  If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equation, then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
  - Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
  reply report
70
pylos26posted 15 years ago
I wonder…is there anyone here… other than the OP… that actually goes back and digs this base thread up… dragging it back up to date… with just any sort of lame comment to keep it alive?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The "up to date" is what is going forward, not backwards; thanks. LOL!
  reply report
  70
  pylos26posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry if my syntax confused you, it seems pretty simple to me. I did not use your word (backwards) in my post nor did I intend to. Don't believe others will miss my intent though.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can't help that you have trouble expressing yourself through words. You could always take writing lessons, I suppose.
  reply report
  70
  pylos26posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  message received.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good; this electronic "stuff" actually conveys...
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Obscurely Diverseposted 5 hours agoin reply to this
This is BS. For you to even acknowledge 'Intelligent versus Ignorant design' within this evolution debate, shows how clueless you are. This was a stupid title that Mr. Marine knew (I hope so) would draw people from all walks of life. Surely he knows the "title" to this concept is outrageous and he has changed the question a few times, now. There is more to it, besides simple book quotes & bible theories from the state of being dumbfounded by it all... Try being a little more deep or something...

I don't think it was a stupid title, it helped the thread get over 800 ideas. You are right about changing the question, but most of my ideas lean to evolution having both intelligence and design. Why would I argue something logically using no religious tactics or references? Do I want to believe evolution is intelligent design? If so, why have I also argued for the possibility of it being ignorant and random? Should I believe it's not an intelligent design when there are logical reasons it could be?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I implied when I said, "This was a stupid title that Mr. Marine knew (I hope so) would draw people from all walks of life." And, once again, me and several others have thought that you phrased that title in a wrong way. I like the fact that you have changed the questions, which helps bring more responses - this, in turn, brings more interesting ideas and humorous quick quips. LOL!
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Could life evolve without consciousness?

Someone explain how sexual selection happens without consciousness.
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Plant life evolves with little consciousness, or what we would perceive to be non human intelligence. Plants are the most sexual of living species.
  
  Can we say consciousness = life?
  
  And so it's the level of consciousness that determines intelligence?
  
  And is human intelligence, as defined by humans, the most intelligent in the spectrum of consciousness?
  
  And because our consciousness is limited by the standpoint of human consciousness only, are we qualified to answer these questions?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nice to see you Jewels. I think Venus flytraps are interesting, "The holes in the meshwork allow small prey to escape, presumably because the benefit that would be obtained from them would be less than the cost of digesting them. If the prey is too small and escapes, the trap will reopen within 12 hours. If the prey moves around in the trap, it tightens and digestion begins more quickly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Flytrap
  I also think it's interesting of the studies done with human interaction and plants reaction to electrical stimulus.
  
  I think consciousness is life and I think the level of consciousness does help determine intelligence. Yes, I think we have the highest level of consciousness compared to all other known life. We are the only ones capable of space exploration. All other conscious life is restricted to the planet. I don't know if any of your questions can be answered as absolute, but it is absolutely limiting to believe your consciousness is limited.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
If plants didn't have consciousness, would they have the ability to alter consciousness when smoking them?
reply report
1. 60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  FYI, the thought that plants and rocks and things (like crystals, and good old Mother Earth), etc. is not a new idea. The Muslim faith professes that angels control the Spirits of these things, and the Natives also believe that they are alive and are endowed with an energy and spirit of their own kind. This, I suppose in an effort to explain the intelligent order and unique virtues and powers that each possesses in their own right. The corporal benefits such as improved health, vitality, and even inspiration can be had by religiously and/or circumspectly exploiting these various living things of organized substance, mass, and therefore spirit, placed and made available for the endemic needs of the higher species, is the prevailing belief and wisdom of said cultures. Interesting concept. Of course, they are also used symbolically, such as in the Indian Peace Pipe.
  reply report
  60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Some interesting scriptures that allude to these beliefs, councils, and practices in the Christian faith include, but are not limited to:
  
  Heb. 6: 7 “For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:”
  
  Rev. 7: 3 “Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.”
  
  I of course would like to submit that these things (i.e.: life/consciousness in all organized matter) be considered a genuine possibility, which idea has stemmed from the wisdom of the Higher Power, Great Spirit, or Creator. Just something to think about. After all, many of these things have the inherent ability to correct what may be amiss in their structures, in due time, and with or without difficulty, but nevertheless, since they exist, it should be considered in an academic and respectful way. The world is only now beginning to realize the importance of not destroying these earthly things, but exercising our dominion over them in a prudent (and respectful) way.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my dear. the Higher Power mention just ruined your case. The minute you use REv: something something it goes down to you're not thinking straight. The terms for this thread is strictly, keep faith out of this. This is an intellectual discussion. You cannot use literature that has no (as yet) historic proof to prove or disprove intelligent design.
  
  You should've stopped at second law of thermo dynamics.
  reply report
2. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If plant's didn't have life force they'd not grow in the first place. I don't think it's a matter of the 'consciousness' of the plant, it doesn't compute in the context of what it does to humans. A plant is a plant. It has life force and it reproduces through sexual means continually. The fact that a human ingests the plant , doesn't suggest the plant itself has control over the influence it has on a human. So there is consciousness and there is intent through consciousness. Isn't it the human's intelligence (or lack of it) that determines what it does with any plant?
  
  Tim - Monsanto is doing a good job at restructuring or destructively restructuring genetics of plants which we are ingesting. I doubt they have the consciousness of virtue in their actions.
  reply report
  60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Good point Jewels, but I would hesitate to use the term good in reference to what Monsanto is doing - quite controversial to say the least. If for the benefit of mankind (over and above their goal of continuing profit because of the monopoly and patents they aim at), then I would immediately agree. However the stakeholders (read: owners) motivation is strictly profit. The ethics of their science has been scorned by many concerned scientists, farmers, and rightwing groups; indeed a fierce battle was the result of their self-destructing seed Genetically Modified invention. Thank you for your astute observation and comment.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't get me wrong, I detest Monsanto with a passion. Somehow they are not human, or it shows to lowest form of human interest I know of. I was speaking tongue in check when saying 'good job' in reference to genetic engineering which I regard as rape.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jewels, your asking me to prove something I don't believe myself. I can't put up a passionate argument, I can only throw in ideas. It seems logically correct and possible that if plants contain chemicals to alter consciousness, that they indeed have a conscious to a certain level. I am not saying that they can consciously get humans to ingest or smoke them, but they can create a dependency after smoking them.
  I found an interesting link you might like. http://www.quantum-consciousness.org/in … ative.html
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The dependency is inherent in our own life force. The chemical mix of the plant interacts with our own, we too have a life force and share common genes. However it is we who made the choice to ingest the plant and it is our organic weakness that is lured into dependency.
  
  The pull of sexual tendencies in humans is as strong as it is in plants. What differentiates the two is thought and choice. Is this perhaps the difference in conscious awareness?
  
  The ability to separate thoughts from life force holds the key to understanding our own organic unconscious pulls, by putting consciousness into these levels of ourselves.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jewels, I don't know much about plants. But we do have dependency on them. We must have them to eat and survive. Without them, we would have no food along with a lot of other things. I really can't answer your question, but your own answer seems logical. What do you think the first life forms came from?
  reply report
0
china manposted 15 years ago
Random thought cos I am bored - If the Universe is alive, and god is the whole universe in whichever way many sem to believe, then aren't we the Universe becoming aware of itself?

I think therefore I am. . . . . And then there was light . . .
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That means you are God China Man. Good God!
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gonna write a book about it ? last one is a best seller
  reply report
2. 60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Correct me if I am wrong china man, but what you have said may be quite sililar to the fundamental precept of the Scientology movement.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If that's the Scientology movement, they stole it. I thought it was Hindu? It also has Buddhist flavors.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ron Hubbard stole every pop science idea he could lay his hands on. The church used pseudo science in their "tests" and sky fairies, He is one now apparently. A "Thetan" He wrote bad science fiction and his theories are nuttier than a fruit cake.
  He wrote near as much junk as the bible!
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I was hoping John Travolta would see the light and do them in! Darn it. Maybe the Australian Government will have an impact. Can only hope.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It still amazes me that Travolta and others follow this mad mob. I hope our Government shuts them down too!
  
  reply report
  60
  Timothy Donnellyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, and did not Buddhism stem from Hinduism?
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Buddhism and Jainism originated from Hinduism(not directly). Gautama was Hindu and same goes for first tirthankar(preacher) in jainism.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Jainism says the same, with knowledge anyone can upgrade themselves to be a god. "aham brahasmi" (i'm my own god) is from hinduism. I guess Scientology is doing quite good research while building strong religion.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And building a big money pot in the process.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of that I have no idea, but the chances of anyone having random thoughts as good as a founding precept is pretty high I would guess. As Earnest says Ron Hub babble would be able to make something of it all.
  reply report
0
china manposted 15 years ago
On this thread I thought it was against the rules to put real information that means something and forms the basis of a real concrete argument - I thought only babbloney was allowed.
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  China, what counts as real information to you, something quoted from a scientist with a Phd? What if the scientist with the phd writes something wrong and it gets quoted, is it still right because the scientist has the phd?
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not just quotes, it's evidence. When we make claim we need to back this out.
  
  For example, do you think electrons exist ? Why ? Just because it is taught in schools ? or scientists say ? or our report card expects it ?
  
  OR there are tests that validate the existence of electrons ?
  
  (Which one you pick ?). As i mentioned many times here that even if you claim from dawkins or hawkins book, unless their claims are backed up by evidence it makes no sense, they just hold the position of hypothesis.
  Anyway, we're on forum not science workshop,i limit my expectations so i expect atleast links to verify source of some claims made in this thread. Let's hope people don't get personal again to divert this thread.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol I apologize if I don't have links for everything I post. Guess what, I actually thought of them, I didn't copy all of my ideas from links. If you want comparison, google them and compare to other ideas with tangible evidence.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think skyfire has answered the substance of it - however science comes to conclusions about many things and then changes its mind later, the flat earth was a scientific theory at one point, and things like the behaviour of electrons still have things that need explaining, or the explanation is still a theory.
  
  The issue is that words in a book are theories, or supposed facts in history. You can argue that they are right in your opinion but you cannot argue any point scientifically without evidence or proof. So mostly there are two arguments going on here, one is a slanging match between belief in religion and belief in science - the other is a factual argument - and the post I mentioned contains proveable facts and theories that hold water.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Where is the argument for religion?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  marine, claims have to be backed up otherwise, if not by facts, at least by logic based on established facts. you can come up with your own opinion but unless it is founded on accepted knowledge, you can't have a strong case. We are on the same side, but man, creativity just won't cut it. creativity is the string that strings facts. but the beads, have to be facts otherwise its just people hanging by a thread. (pun intended)
  reply report
  56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Says the pot to the kettle.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  says the hot air to the pot and the kettle.
  reply report
3. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, hear that Obscure?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that was singled out. I've seen baloney flying all over the place from you, me, and a lot of us here. At times, I fight baloney with baloney. Hail to the baloney repellents... LOL!
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
It seems that the more cells an organism has, the higher level of consciousness that it can reach. Is this not proof leaning that cells create consciousness and possibly all have some level of consciousness?
reply report
1. 60
  BobLloydposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That idea just doesn't follow at all. For example, the number of cells in a giant redwood would be very large indeed but would you really think that it was therefore reaching a higher level of consciousness? Perhaps you think that a very large growth of seaweed had more intelligence than say a snail?
  
  Though it is true that consciousness is only evidenced in self-referencing neural networks such as possessed by mammalian brains, the source is likely to be in the self-referential nature of those networks rather than the individual cells themselves. Otherwise you'd be tempted to think that a bacillus was also possessing of rudimentary consciousness, even without the neuronal apparatus needed for self-referentiality.
  
  But hey, you probably didn't think this through.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I think he screwed up on that one. But he has made some good points throughout these threads.
  
  I wonder if people think about different forms of awareness or intelligence?
  Say...an Eagle's keen eyesite; a Whale's amazing communicating skills through echolocation, et cetera. There are so many different attributes within the various forms of life. Human beings are not the best at everything; we are currently just the dominating virus of the planet. Okay, I'll be more positive: We are the only species that has the power to destroy planet Earth (especially by nuclear means) and piss Mother Nature off! As a whole, we are polluting scum.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now you're talking. While humans only take the standpoint of the human consciousness we are blinkered.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Spot on!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Damn! I thought I was! Thanks a lot for the fan support. By the way, I wrote the damn thing she replied to; thanks. Ha!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is your comment merely the betrayal of my fu*kin' awareness? You could have replied to me directly, Earnest... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well that is assuming the earth will not destroy us first...afterall, it has been known to wipe out millions of us at a time.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I said we are the only "species" that can destroy it. I don't think mother nature counts as a species... Duh...
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  i think it can potentially destroy us first, it is destroying us now with quakes and tsunamis, one pole shift and you're going to be metaphysical yourself.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Also, there is data that uni-cellular life was "aware" enough to feed and multiply. "aware" enough to adapt to whatever soup its swimming in.
  
  that is fact, not feelings nor creative musings.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is why I think all life could have consciousness. If I am correct, many ideas in abiogenesis and evolution say we originated from uni-cellular life into the multi-cellular organisms that we are today. If an evolutionist were to believe the multi-cellular came before the uni-cellular, would this not be skipping a step in evolution?
  
  If the evolutionists believe all multi-cellular did evolve from uni-cellular, it could be possible we evolved from plant life and that the plant life have some extent of consciousness?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well, trees grow away from buildings, sunflowers are atleast aware of the sun. the mimosa is aware of contact...and so on and so forth. Awareness is the ability to sense and react. But that's debateable.
  reply report
68
Rod Marsdenposted 15 years ago
Another attempt at attacking the theory of evolution...

Intelligent Design is just old rubbish put into a new package. I thought the USA and the rest of the so-called civilized world had left the monkey trial days far behind.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I am 99% sure by assumption that you maybe only read 1-2 pages of the entire thread if not just jumping to the last post after reading the title.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  sure, it's rubbish. but prove it. otherwise...scratch your head. If you're reading no one is attacking evolution but is saying that it has intelligent design.
  reply report
60
Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years ago
Okay, I must post this asinine link.
This post is about Japan's Temple Toilet!
Is it just me, or does this make at least "some" of the religious fanatics, look like lunatics? Ha-ha!

Have fun, guys...

Check it out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8546706.stm

When you get to the point where you find forgiveness from a damn toilet, it is time to seek out for some mental help! LOL!
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Funny though, it sort of brings home the idea that you can only ever clean out your own 'shit' No amount of prayer is going to get you to heaven until you do something about your bowel movements!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I like your philosophy of dung purging. Unlike some of these idiots, you actually know your shit! Ha-ha!
  reply report
67
ceciliabeltranposted 15 years ago
Well just to further the dung discussion in relation to the universe.The egyptians worshipped the scarab because it is infact a dung beetle.

Dung beetles leave their eggs on the dung of oxes or any animal. The egyptians saw tiny little scarabs walk out of dung from seemingly nothing but sh--!.

It is a symbolism of the idea that life came from waste. life produces more waste from which more life can come from.

Well as a matter of fact, this is true. Stars are born from the stuff of dead stars and we were born from the waste of stars.

Woo-woo, yeah totally. True? Absolutely.
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Cecilia. The never ending cycle of life seen through the eyes of the dung beetle. Now that would be an interesting viewpoint. The scarab or dung beette doing the work of composting. Isn't the chaos principle one of compost.
  
  Is there anything we know of that is not subject to composting (breaking down)?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  second law of thermdynamics. but then, that can be used by both sides. yeah?
  the paradox of objective knowledge.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  if that indeed exists given that we are all subjective beings limited by our senses.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Being able to separate consciousness from the organic, physical rotting body and all it's sensory cellular parts, gives a view beyond that currently proven through science.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well, i don't know about that. i mean, consciousness is awareness of something-proteins are aware of balance and self organize. you could say that about molecules organizing or atoms organizing. i mean at what level is consciousness considered conscious? this is a problem of definition, more than anything.
  reply report
71
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
Lawrence Krauss agrees on the stardust theory, and has a lot to say about all the points mentioned here. I am not going to put up the evidence again, I have done it so often before.
Suffice to say that the BBC ran a complete series of shows where he put his theories to his peers and took questions. It is brilliantly understandable, this art of being able to explain in layman's turns have become his trademark, and he has received awards for his presentations.
BBC radio the show is called "Discovery" You need to be keen and interested as several of the interviews and question time take more than 30 minutes to hear.
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wish you would give us a link so we can all learn from it.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The link can be found if people want to read it. My generous nature is not so generous on these forums when not one single word gets said about it when posted a dozen times by several of us.
  No one here reads anything that disagrees with their beliefs. I am over trying to bring scientific evidence to religionists, they neither regard scientific method or the mass of cross references or empirical evidence that supports it. They would rather believe in a psychotic man made fairy.
  Talk about dumbing down!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well i have to agree with that I mean, I just had a long petty exchange about the nature of a debate as some wise-a.. here thinks he can get away with his feelings and creativity to convince people that the universe is as he conceived it to be.
  
  empirical evidence is the only way intelligent conversation can move forward...but then again, this is a stupid forum, maybe I'm asking too much.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Cecilia, thanks for the compliment. I think that is the nicest thing you've said about me all week. LOL!
  By the way, I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just one of the ones who admit that I do not know the song of the universe.
  P.S. Let me know when you unravel eternity.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well..that's kind of like contradictory to what you said. Okay I will tell you right now: 1s and 0s, one light off, one light on.
  
  But then that's just me, everybody's welcome to disagree.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You just proved nothing, but the fact that we have the ability to provide infinite senselessness. Praise be!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  fractals is senseless to a two year old.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So are woo-woos... There is nothing in your "one light on, one light off" statement that would enlighten anyone. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I would expound but...unlike you i know the proper venue for such things.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, the venue of senselessness; I've already implied this.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
How does unconscious process = conscious product?
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I think there was a conscious process in producing awareness. I think the process was through language and writing in helping transfer information over generations. I think as more information was learned over generations, the more complexities and capacity to learn and memorize evolved. Without the conscious process of language and writing, what kind of awareness would be have today? Without conscious process of writing and language, how would you get a conscious product of transferring information over generations ?
reply report
1. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  DNA is a language. ( But you don't take my word for it, feel free to look it up. Perry Marshall of Cosmic Footprints had an interesting talk about that ) So that means, anything that has DNA would qualify as conscious in this argument.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Song of the universe, perhaps?
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzQ_QeZjNOg

I don't know how credible this video is, it claims to be a BBC clip. It is pretty amazing. If the information is true, it shows consciousness and awareness of plants.
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
How would any plants evolve defense mechanisms to their environment without a conscious or awareness of their environment?

reply report
1. 56
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Would that be the same awareness as in a newborn baby or full grown functioning adult of the world around them? Or, could it possibly be an awareness not similar to anything we as humans can relate? Hmmm...
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it does relate Q. The more consciousness and awareness we have to our environment and people around us, the better chance we have to survive. Take a prison inmate for example, if the inmate is aware of his surroundings, he will likely join a gang for defense. If he wasn't aware, he would try to survive on his own giving him less chance of survival. In children, possibly one of their defense mechanisms is crying, many animals use loud sounds to deter predators. If crying is a defense mechanism of babies, this shows consciousness and awareness of their environment. Hope I made sense, I got carried away.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm... Or could it possibly be that your awareness of biology and the hierarchy of intelligence is not there.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
So...is it safe to say that evolution is not possible without a conscious awareness of the environment? Unless you believe all of evolution is random from the environment.
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Is consciousness and awareness of environment to survive intelligent or ignorant?
reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Wow...are the skeptics silenced? Where are you? Explain how life could evolve without a conscious awareness of their environment? Maybe it is the conscious awareness of the environment that designs evolution.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it is more bored. Please use semantics to redefine a word, tell us what you think, don't bother to back it up with any facts or logic and then ask people to disprove it.
  
  Sounds familiar huh? Oh yeah.............Religion.......
  
  Then do it again and again and again and again until people start LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOing at you.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you serious? Does your faith keep your from seeing everything I wrote? I fully explained every idea that I wrote. What kind of tangible evidence do you want through your computer screen?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Fully explained? Oh - you mean gave an uneducated opinion. Even cecelia called you on that. Dear me. Since when is saying "I think...." fully explaining anything?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Give me a specific thing to further explain out of what I wrote. What is your idea of fully explaining something through the forum?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How about just backing up any of these wild claims with some sort of evidence or at least a logical thought process?
  
  As an example - the plant video from the BBC. The video show evolved behavior that suggest communication between plants. Specific communications that suggests what?
  
  Awareness of a specific threat after millennia of learning.
  
  Yet you jump to the erroneous conclusion that this is "consciousness and awareness of plants".
  
  You have jumped from - oh look - plants react in a certain way when threatened - they must be conscious and aware of their environment.
  
  Total BS and not a logical deduction in any way. Lazy in fact. And annoying when you then say. "Now disprove it."
  
  So - go ahead and explain how you get from seeing a plant react when threatened with that specific threat to "consciousness and awareness".
  
  You think they would react if I went and took a can of petrol and a box of matches along?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The video shows that they were conscious and aware of the threat and relayed the message that there was a threat. This is self explanatory.
  
  If they wasn't aware or conscious of a threat, they would not react to it. How is it hard to understand this? The reaction is from awareness.
  
  Maybe if you took matches, the wind would mysteriously blow your direction and set you on fire. I would poor water on you though.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Too lazy to bother huh?
  
  Straight into "please disprove what I think"
  
  Yes - they have developed a reaction to that specific threat over a period of time in an effort to survive. I agree. When that threat is present, they react in that way and other of the species recognize that behavior - or seem to. The ones that did not have long since been eaten and died out. The ones who developed this reaction and cognizance of the message from others survived and passed this on to their offspring.
  
  This is how evolution works - which you would know if you could be bothered to educate yourself at all - which it seems you would rather not do.
  
  Please offer some sort of logical explanation as to how this endows them with consciousness and awareness of anything other than the need to react in this way to this specific threat in order to survive.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am agreeing with evolution, so why are you so angry as if i'm trying to prove it wrong or redefine it? Because I am not quoting your atheist science books? I don't see the science books saying that awareness and consciousness of the environment designs evolution. I haven't read anything that says this. It could be said that natural selection and mutations are dependent on awareness and consciousness of the environment. This would make it likely to say that all life has some level of consciousness or awareness. The ones with less awareness of their environment die out? I think this fits like a puzzle. Without a conscious or awareness, there would be no survival or adaptations to threats of the survival. There would be no consciousness to know there is a threat. I think this paints a perfect picture.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am not angry. I am asking you to offer a logical reasoning process rather than doing as you have just done and make a blanket statement with no backup and then ask me to refute it.
  
  I will try and explain why what you have just said is nonsense. You have not seen any science books saying that awareness and consciousness of the environment designs evolution, because that does not happen.
  
  You are misusing all 3 words. "awareness consciousness and designs."
  
  You think it "it fits like a puzzle," but cannot be bothered to explain why in a logical fashion. You have just decided to believe. So - offer up a logical explanation please rather than just provoking me and others and asking us to disprove what you said.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I feel like I am being repetitive. I thought I just explained how consciousness and awareness designs evolution. Evolution is dependent on consciousness and awareness of the environment, the less aware the animal is of it's threats, the less chance it has to survive. Is this not an explanation? I am not misusing the words.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How is it necessary to be aware if say - a disease wipes out 50% of a particular population? It is merely chance that 50% of the population had whatever it took to survive and 50% did not.
  
  How is it necessary to be aware if a flood causes a segment of the population that prefers to nest a low water levels to be killed off?
  
  How does it require awareness to mutate in a particular fashion that happens to be successful?
  
  Like I said - you have not applied any reasoning process to this and do not understand evolution.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If we wasn't aware of the disease and it's harm, we would't recognize trying to develop medicines trying to counter the disease. Also, our bodies naturally learns to adapt and cope with sickness and diseases sometimes. Just because people are dying of cancer now doesn't mean they will still be dying of cancer 1,000 years from now. People back in the day died from simple colds, how often does that happen today compared to the past?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What does that have to do with 50% of a particular bird population dying off 20,000 years ago?
  
  You are being lazy and have decided not to educate yourself about evolution.
  
  Why?
  report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Antibodies evolved to fight disease. Cancer is a reaction of an overly active immune system. it evolved as well and it can evolve into a more intelligent way to fight disease.
  
  The genes of that bird population did not necessarily go extinct. evolution has gone past fossils now mark.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww woo woo. Q was right about you.
  
  Sorry - meaningless answers that show you do not understand. Ask the marine to explain. He has sum kwestions for u.
  report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Mark Knowlesposted 1 minute agoin reply to this
What does that have to do with 50% of a particular bird population dying off 20,000 years ago?

You are being lazy and have decided not to educate yourself about evolution.

Why?

I educate myself everyday. Why do you not educate yourself to have an open mind beyond what you have read in science books. Not everything is already written. If it was, it wouldn't be science. Why do you make silly assumptions that I don't educate myself along with calling me lazy? I don't think my responses have been lazy. 50% of the bird population is not 100% of the bird population now is it? Something changed or adapted to survive the disease obviously so the disease couldn't kill all of them. Population also helps with this. The more population of birds, the better some have chance to survive any disease from wiping all of them out. This is part of evolution also, no? Power in numbers?
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A flood causes the birds who prefer to nest at low water to be killed. How does this require consciousness or awareness? Yes you are being lazy. Merely repeating the same thing over and over and over is lazy.
  
  Answer the questions I posed please.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It requires awareness and consciousness to learn and pass on that nesting at low water will kill them. I am answering your questions, you don't like any of them.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Mark, if someone pointed a gun at you and you had no awareness or conscious recognition that it was a gun or understood that it could kill you, you would have a lesser chance to survive. If you were aware it was a gun and aware of the danger it posed, you could make a better conscious decision of how to survive the threat.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  And what does this have to do with a successful random mutation 400,000 years ago?
  
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it was a conscious mutation.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And you don't need to back it up because it is an uneducated belief.
  
  I understand - and I don't blame you. This is a difficult subject to fully grasp - especially when you throw philosophy into what is a non-philosophical discipline.
  
  Much easier to throw your opinions out there as a fact and demand that some one else disprove them. This is why religion is so appealing to many. I will stop wasting my time trying to help.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  O wise one, why are you so mad that you are conscious? Would you rather be unconscious? How did you come to be conscious? Magic in evolution or did consciousness evolve like everything else? What is the non philosophical discipline, philosophy built the disciplines you have so much faith in. Did you not know that? Did the science books not tell you they were built from philosophy? I am putting together logical facts, you are using faith that they are opinions.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Logical facts? Why are you so angry? - that you are too lazy to do any research and projecting that on me?
  
  I am not angry. A little frustrated that I spent some time and then you are too lazy to learn anything - but -
  
  Like I said - I don't blame you - this is much, much, much, easier than educating yourself.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I do research, you don't. Research your mind and find your courage to write some ideas out instead of simply ridiculing others remarks the entire time. This may make people respect your criticisms as legit. Even though you are always angry at me because I don't follow your faith, I still enjoy your comments and those "nonrandom/random" times that you state something important.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  
  I don't blame you - I agree - this is much much easier.
  
  Research? Oh -= you mean throwing an opinion out after watching a BBC video?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why not explain how it is logically incorrect instead of throwing out opinions with no explanations of how it is incorrect. Is this science to you? You don't agree with anything thats not already written in your science books do you?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  
  Why not make a logical argument based on the facts instead?
  
  You are too lazy sweetie pie. I don't blame you. Learning is hard......
  
  Tell me about random mutations being conscious again... Something about a gun I think........
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You tell me why Dawkins says evolution has design.
  
  How does a mutation mutate?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLO
  
  Much easier than learning anything. Good for you sweetie pie. Ask sum mor dum kwestions.
  
  ciao
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You don't like to answer questions do you? Why do you defend your faith when you claim you aren't religious?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  he cracks me up marine! talk about uneducated.
  
  what it has to do with 400,000 years? he he he he...it's 1.3 billion years from the first eukaryote with a mitochondria that is the basis of the structure all life forms.
  
  "A flood causes the birds who prefer to nest at low water to be killed. How does this require consciousness or awareness? Yes you are being lazy. Merely repeating the same thing over and over and over is lazy.
  
  Answer the questions I posed please."
  
  how does this question disprove consciousness or awareness? The meme machine enables other bird species to pass on this memory to its offspring as a cautionary tale. The meme is a big discussion now. We are participating in the meme machine right now.
  
  Yes, marine is using logic based on empirical data, in science its called a hypothesis.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww sweetie pie - he dun no such thing - neither dun u. Soz. He dun dint answer the kwestion. Memes?
  
  Odd - I looked u up. Nothing.
  
  Woo woo.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  googled it, sweaty pie? what about reading DAWKINS for a change, darwinian.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he is a silly little character. I don't think he wants to seriously discuss ideas, he just wants to nit pick others ideas without adding anything of value.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww sweetie pie. Thanks for the attacks. Sorry the book you bought was too hard to understand. Perhaps if you throw some ideas out and Cecelia calls them LOL a "hypothesis" you will get what you want.
  
  You religious people crack me up.
  
  Too bad - I thought you were actually going to learn something - instead you are going with woo woo.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Stop being such an angry little character. What is the main point of evolution that you think I am misunderstanding? Can you answer a question?
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  sure we're woowoo if you and Q think TED is a woo woo convention then I'm fine with that. You can go to your pie convention and maybe discuss your theories there.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  DAWKINS is hard to understand? Okay, now I know who we're dealing with here marine. An atheist who claims to be darwinian but who has not even heard of memes until this thread. "not much there"
  errr...waste of time. yeah...OLi seems to be a worthwhile person to talk to atleast he's read darwin.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, Oli has put up the strongest arguments against it being intelligent design. Too bad he is the only one and his buddies left him out to dry. I think this is the closest atheists scientists have came to losing an argument against intelligent design. It's hard when there are no religious connections in the argument and they are forced to create them out of thin air. Oli could have potential if he would put more faith in himself to think instead of relying on primarily science books and idols.
  reply report
  80
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Every argument I have put to you has been my own opinion and thoughts based on fact, you keep mentioning my 'science idols' without realising how wrong you are, since I have spent a huge amount of time researching theologian texts as well as scientific.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well it does show oli that you are a little bit more informed, that's the spirit of this last set of posts.
  reply report
80
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
Marine, you are still confusing the process with the product.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, lets go one at a time. How does an organism evolve or adapt to a threat without being conscious or aware of the threat?
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Maybe this is why the scientists don't understand the mutations and "nonrandomness". Because they don't understand that they are dependent on awareness and consciousness of the environment. Most are scared to even define consciousness and awareness for fear of ridicule.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Scientist "don't understand" and are "scared"?
  
  lololololololol
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you think you have a scientific mind and you are scared to list any individual ideas or anything thats not written in the science books for fear of ridicule. If you wouldn't concentrate so much on ridiculing others, you wouldn't be so scared of them ridiculing you.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol = no comment, marine.
  
  Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism TED convention 1997
  and I quote: "... when atheists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking use the word G-d, its a metaphorical shorthand for that deep part of physics that we don't yet understand."
  
  But einstein is not an atheist, he is just not a religionist.
  
  "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)
  reply report
2. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Most are scared to even define consciousness and awareness for fear of ridicule."
  
  Awareness is where consciousness knows that it is conscious. But this is still a definition of the human state of consciousness.
  
  Can you understand the consciousness of a species of plant, or can you only observe it's behavior. Can you become the archetype of a plant species and be in the same state of consciousness? NO. Because your standpoint will always be a human one.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think conscious and aware can mean the same thing at times. If a person is conscious there are threats around him, it can also be said that person is aware that there are threats around him. Same thing.
  
  I think we can understand if plants have conscious behavior through observation. Do other animals have to know our conscious state of mind to know that we are conscious? Do we have to know other animals state of minds to know they are conscious? No, we use observation.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This girl is truly a jewel.
  I concur; awareness is everything... duh!
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Awareness and consciousness of environment is a necessity in evolution for life to adapt and survive.
reply report
80
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
Yes, but again those are the creatures, not the process of evolution.

Evolution is where the creatures that do not learn to build nests out of flood water have less chance of reproducing, and tend to die out.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Learning mistakes through awareness, perhaps?
  reply report
2. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oli, if there was no awareness and consciousness in the process, life wouldn't have survived this far as we are today. Awareness and consciousness led us to developing morals and laws so we don't kill each other off. Evolution isn't only about how animals die, it's also about how they adapt and survive. Consciousness and awareness is a huge part of that survival.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I like your new picture, a silly picture for a silly character. lolololol
  reply report
80
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
The scientists are the ones who spending decades researching the topic, and you are willing to call them scared and then portray your own ignorance between a process and the results of a process?

You keep talking about a bird learning something, without realizing that an animal learning something is a product of evolution.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Are you offended that I criticized your idols? Sorry to hurt your feelings, but there is a lot of politics involved in science. I see you have no explanation of how the product can be conscious and aware without the process being conscious and aware. The animal wouldn't learn if it didn't have conscious or awareness to learn. Learning isn't possible without consciousness meaning evolution isn't possible without consciousness, sorry you can't comprehend this. Keep reading.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well, scientists are also studying consciousness marine. And Oli, he was never against evolution, he is just saying that it is a product of intelligence and design.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Oli, go ask the science idols you worship and have so much faith in how it is possible that you learn while unconscious.
reply report
1. 80
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And what would that have to do with this conversation, and I would rather listen to and analyze facts that come from scientists than the incoherent ramblings and misunderstandings of someone who thinks they are perpetuating debate, but more accurately frustrating people with their own inability to understand concepts.
  
  I have repeatedly shown how the process differs from the product, about 5 times, and each time you ignore it and talk about something else such as how a hundred posts back I used the word 'is' while forgetting that I clarified it a few posts later after you questioned it.
  
  Evolution simply states that a more adapt creature stand more chance than a less adapted creature, it doesn't matter if this is down to speed, strength, venom, fur or intelligence.
  
  This does not mean that evolution requires intelligence, only that the more intelligent animals are more likely to reproduce and spread their intelligence. In some cases the animals with less intelligence thrive, simply because their adapted bodies hold more value. This is again evolution at work.
  
  Evolution is simply a theory on how life on earth has advanced. The animals might advance in conscious thought, but that is merely a product of evolution. Animals grow faster through evolution, but you don't call evolution fast, animals grow stronger through evolution, but you don't call evolution 'strong', animals learn to fly, but you don't call evolution 'airborne' animals grow more intelligent, but you don't call evolution 'intelligent'.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be frustrated with your inabilities to understand concepts. Raise your awareness. I am stating that a creature can't adapt without consciousness. The higher the consciousness, the higher the ability and chance to adapt. It does rely on intelligence, the most intelligent and adaptable are the ones most likely to survive. Evolution requires consciousness, consciousness is intelligent in my opinion. Consciousness is not a product of evolution, evolution is a product of consciousness.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Consciousness is not intelligence. Consciousness = life.
  
  Awareness is consciousness knowing it's conscious.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The level of consciousness allows intelligence. If a person is only conscious of one learning system and not conscious of multiple learning systems, this would limit their intelligence. I agree consciousness = life, all life is conscious. Awareness and consciousness are not separated except in philosophy. The dictionaries use them often the same way.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Then take the philosophical meaning, because they are not the same.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree with Jewels, consciousness is intelligence. It's not necessarily high intelligence but if you are conscious and aware shows that you are aware and KNOW the implication of 1. Movement. 2. Predator 3. No food. 4. Food etc.
  
  you could also be conscious without being aware: example- catatonics.
  reply report
89
Jewelsposted 15 years ago
To get a better understanding of the mechanisms of the organic body, learn to be more aware of your own.

For example: separate out what is an unconscious sexual urge because man is programmed, same as animals, to procreate.

Separate out whether a sexual urge is because of affection or procreation - to keep the species going.

Don't observe it in other creatures, observe it in yourself.

Separate out your thoughts from your bodies cravings and see if there is a difference between conscious thoughts and unconscious urges from your organic body.

Separate out whether affection is a wanting for the physical needs of the body or for something else?

There's a good start to knowing your own consciousness.

Ask yourself why you are living in the place you are living.

Ask whether it was difficult to leave your place of birth, if it was hard, why?

See if you can differentiate between a logical understanding for leaving your place of birth and the organic pull to stay put.

Separate out and become aware of what drives you both mentally and physically.

Become aware of the breath inside you and separate out your life force from your mental ramblings (not an offensive or personal statement intended - it is innate in all humans.)

Ask whether the reason you left home was because your father gave you the shits or because you wanted to spread your wings and expand the population?

There is some homework to help with conscious awareness.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now she is starting to sound like some my philosophies from within "self"... I concur... Now, lets see who all is lame enough to ask her for proof. Ha-ha! Thanks, Jewels.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Problem is I can't show you without sounding like some new age hippy and I hate new age hippys. I can teach you how to do it so you can see for yourself but you have to want to put in the time and effort.
  
  I can separate out the organic from the mental. It's not too difficult, (retaining it is what's difficult) I can get the tangible tactile feeling of the two, it's very difficult to not be swayed by the organic components. And the mind - well you've heard the saying 'mind f**k! Such a cesspool of apparent reasoning with no practical applications. If you don't apply knowledge to your own self, it's just useless words.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't know you had to show me anything; I said I concur. I've been in these twisted debacles before. I already know what you're speaking about, well, I somewhat know.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You mentioned proof. I can't prove anything except through teaching some to have the experience. Sorry, misunderstanding.
  reply report
2. 67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The answers are from within; praise be the theory of unity!
  That was such a nice, lengthy title ya gave me... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well-well-well: 'ceciliabeltran' finally says something nice about me and then she deletes her damn comment, nice... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh sorry...what did I say? I delete things only if they're too mean. I'll post it again. it ws something along the lines of:
  
  my favorite athiest/buddhist nonreligious meta-physicist.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You said a lot more than that, and I liked it. I think you deleted it for other reasons... LOL!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  oh I wish I remember but hell yeah, maybe I meant it. so cheers!
  reply report
89
Jewelsposted 15 years ago
People pass more knowledge via mimicry than a written book. Doesn't make the learner more intelligent.
reply report
1. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It gives them the possibility to be more intelligent.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Possibility, yes, but what prompts the urgings to move beyond mimicry?
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Consciousness!
  reply report
2. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The animal kingdom mimics a pattern that us pompous humanoids should also learn from.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The animal kingdom is primarily survival of the fittest. Even collectively it appears to be the agenda of the meme (say group meme of chimpanzees) to ensure their survival. Is it intelligence? Is it innate programming in the genes of the chimpanezee? Is it an individually unconscious drive, but a meme driven consciousness - ie that's what we do because it's what we've always done?
  
  Unfortunately we humans mimic the animal kingdom as far as procreation is concerned. We have much in common with plants and also animals.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Freewill in humans is questionable until you can separate out the unconscious animal and organic pulls, and collective meme demands and individual choices above and beyond the memes we are involved in - ie family, school, religion, corporate agendas.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We do not mimic the organization of nature; we have not found harmony yet; fact.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Life force can find harmony. But thoughts are a different thing. We don't seem to be able to find harmony there, except when we are removed from thoughts.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Homo sapiens is a fine example of a life force that is unseparable of thoughts, awareness, consciousness or emotions; like I said: We do not mimic the systematic organization of nature that is found throughout Planet Earth, as we have not found harmony yet......
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  our anatomy will dispute that.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What planet have you been living on lately? Nature works in harmony, as a system. The Homo sapiens do not, and have not, thus far. As a whole, we often seem as the virus of the planet. Go to the middle east and tell them you come in peace because your anatomy disputes such... LOL!
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  the arabic people are peace-loving. I have many arabic friends as well as american friends. they are the same in that they want peace on earth. One of them welcomed me into their home and showed me how they eat with their hands on the floor. They then offered child-rearing advice." Let the children be themselves and they will grow better able to find themselves" The woman goes: "it is easy to do that if you are a man" the man goes: "it is easy to that if you are a woman too, everything is a choice and a belief."
  
  if you look at nature from a distance, they are harmonious, but observe a predator attacking its prey and that's not harmonious, it's disturbing that the poor cute baby zebra gets eaten by the cute cuddly baby lions. It doesn't make sense!Maybe there is no intelligent design in evolution because how can an intelligent evolution make this happen, this poor baby zebra just out of its mother's womb and just learning to run --- becomes food for these savage predators.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ever been to central park? it looks peaceful. without that park new york will be a horrible expensive place to live. but the park is there and on weekends, you see footprints of birds on the sand and the occasional tracks of worms that got pulled of the sand.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Human beings are not at peace, and we are erratic beings. Nature is not erratic, it is a system...and a beautiful one at that.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  nature is erratic which is why evolution is erratic. we are part of nature obscure. we behave as they do, but we are little more verbose and less limbic than our animal relatives. But within this chaotic discourse, there is a harmony that is both microscopic and macroscopic. You have to look at it to see it.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I did, look at it. You looked into microscopic aspects, so you missed a lot; not me.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Alright, how could anything mimic, memorize, or replicate without a consciousness or awareness of the past? I don't think this is possible without consciousness.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is not a fair question, when you contemplate the possibility of multiple levels of existence. Who in the hell said this was all some equal, fair, plane of reality? I would like anyone from this Earth to prove that there is only one current plane of existence. [LSD jokes set aside] Ha-ha!
  
  All we know is that awareness of our own existence is the ultimate, as for all that other hogwash: it makes for great mind games and trivial fun.
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We can only ever learn from the past. Only the explorer/pioneer forges to a future not yet experienced.
  
  We experience and make choices to not replicate something that no longer serves us. Although we seem to repetitively make mistakes, is it because it is the known? Or do we fear the unknown even more?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mimicking a parent's actions can happen in the moment . Like a child who watches a music video then learns to dance to it, where is the memory of music, or is the child in the present moment and enjoying and wanting to emulate the actions of the video?
  
  If there was not a video, what makes the child want to move. Is it the force of the rhythms of the music? And how does memory occur?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Jewels: What did your last two comments emulate? Or, is this more of your personal, subjective philosophy about the unknown? I feel ya, though... LOL!
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you mean where?
  
  It's more experience, observe yourself and see what fuels you to more your butt.
  
  It's not philosophy, it's years of study and practical application of awareness. When you break down all your bits and pieces, ie physical body, life force or prana, thoughts and emotions, physiology, reason and sourcing using a fourfold model of subtle bodies. It's fascinating.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, I meant 'what'? My second sentence was a joke from the other day, when we were on that whacky forum about philosophy; I thought you'd get it (remember?).
  Yeah, it's fascinating, but it is something I try to stay away from these days.
  It really sucks when you get so deep into trying to analyze atomic structures, sub-conscious realities, and ultimate sources of energy, that it takes several days to somewhat normalize - just to be able to deal with society within this current time frame of existence. If you get too involved into such things and actually start to understand, things can get a little "fruity" after a while. So, I laugh and move on... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's similar to long stints of meditation. Hard to come back and interact with people and the 'normal' world. But once you see the separations of life force and thoughts and the actions and pulls of the organic body, it's then easy to see the functionality. It's not easy however, to not be ruled by run by them. I think from this standpoint it's difficult to maintain the structures and see most things end up being run by a chaos principle.
  reply report
60
johnasjuringtonposted 15 years ago
My biology teacher once showed me an example which contradicts the belief in intelligent design completely.

The optic nerve goes from the brain to the light receptors in the eye, it is the nerve that transmits the picture information to the brain for processing. Now the light receptors need to be inside the eye, and they need to be "bathed in light" for them to function and catch that light to send the information to the brain. So what would be "intelligent" would be to have a smooth carpet of such receptors in the inside of the eyeball to catch every drop of light that falls in your eyes. This would be possible if the receptors were at the inside of the eye and their nerve "tails" which bundle into the optical nerve would come out at the back of the eye.

But this is not the case. The nerve endings from the receptors come out at the inside of the eye and are bundled there before they leave the eyeball as the concentrated optical nerve. So at the point where the nerve leaves the eyeball, there is no place for receptors, and that is what is commonly called the "blind spot", a spot on the retina which cannot transmit information to the brain because it hasn't got receptors.

This is absurd, if somebody would have designed us intelligently, he wouldn't have done it this way, because there is absolutely no advantage to having it this way!
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, I always thought of a blindspot being due to the placement of mirrors within an automobile. Anyway, since you mention these things: Why are people born deformed or handicapped? That doesn't sound intelligent either... I think adaptation and evolution, whether due to awareness or consciousness...intelligent or not, did a fine job at producing our nervous system and eyesight in response to the light. I mean really, we are dealing with some complex stuff here. I think you screwed it up when you said "he" wouldn't have done it this way. It is a peeve of mine when I hear people refer to a creator with a gender status... WTF? Well John, maybe we are the ignorant eyes of the universe then... I don't know?
  reply report
2. 60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your biology teacher is ignorant. There are many imperfections in evolution, this doesn't mean the process or the product is an imperfection. Intelligence is ability to recognize imperfections and correct them, we have this ability.
  
  In the last sentence, you could replace intelligence with awareness or higher level of consciousness and it would still work. I think consciousness and awareness allow intelligence.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I like the way you told John is less words than it took me. Hmm, I'm usually more concise, but thanks for telling his misguided arse... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, good day to you. I cut any corners possible to type less words.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Is conscious reactions to stimulus what fuels life?

Would sexual selection be considered conscious reaction to stimulus?
reply report
1. 89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sexual selection? Not a good term. Sexual act as a result of stimulus.
  
  What fuels sexual desire? where does it begin in the body? Even though nerve endings are what become stimulated, where does the initial stimulus come from?
  
  In a human it would be hard not to be conscious of a sexual stimulus.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You said that sexual stimulation also happens in plants. So does this mean it is a conscious act? I think the initial stimulus comes from the conscious creating them based on conscious reactions. If no conscious, how would there be sexual selection?
  reply report
  89
  Jewelsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In the case of plants, their life is one of procreation. It's sex sex sex. But is it the same as sensory sex that we humans experience? I'm not a plant so I'm not sure if they feel anything! The term sexual selection may not be a good one to use in the plant kingdom.
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If they use their senses for awareness of predators or helpers, it would be logical they could use them for sex. I'm not sure though, good question.
  reply report
60
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Knowles, I think you are angry because you are conscious.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOLO
  reply report
  60
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The LOLOLOLO's are just a cover up for your hidden angriness.
  reply report
  67
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ah, ignore him. he's just on a break in between pies.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 34 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies