G
Glark
Guest
Indeed. ToE is a direct product of atheism; it’s their bedtime “creation story”.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Glark
Guest
You’ve created a monster. Or did it evolve? I don’t know, ask Dawkins.
G
Glark
Guest
I agree - except for the running away bit.
G
Glark
Guest
“Whom the gods wish to destroy, first they render mad” - ancient Greco-Roman proverb.
R
Rau
Guest
What DOES it mean to have consciousness? I believe this is a long-standing philosophical problem. Certainly there are credible scientific claims that (some) animals do, and various demonstrations of self-awareness in animals.what it means to have consciousness
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
There is no conflict Ed.Back to the stardust thing again? God created ex nihilo.
So did much other life.a tree that has gone missing for 150 million years has been found. You can buy cuttings if you like. Somehow it survived all those interglacial periods.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
We don’t know that for a fact.
G
Glark
Guest
Monkey-men evolved into humans, for example, because atheists won’t accept a Divine Creator.I just wanted to know if there was any scientific reason why a new species emerges from a different species. I’d like to think it has to do with adapting to an environment but that’s unlikely
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Self-awareness in animals as in awareness of a “self?” I don’t think so, but feel free to provide sources.
In any case, even if (some) other animals demonstrate some level of self-awareness how does that demonstrate self-awareness is an emergent property of matter?
Aren’t you assuming – by bringing up animals as distinct from humans – some inherent difference between animals and humans to begin with? Your point, I presume, is to make the case that because purely material animals have self-awareness, then self-awareness is an emergent property of matter. If so, you are begging the question. You haven’t shown how self-awareness could be purely an emergent property of matter, you just assume animals are purely matter and, therefore, if they are self-aware that self-awareness had to have emerged from matter. A conclusion grounded on pure presumption.
In any case, even if (some) other animals demonstrate some level of self-awareness how does that demonstrate self-awareness is an emergent property of matter?
Aren’t you assuming – by bringing up animals as distinct from humans – some inherent difference between animals and humans to begin with? Your point, I presume, is to make the case that because purely material animals have self-awareness, then self-awareness is an emergent property of matter. If so, you are begging the question. You haven’t shown how self-awareness could be purely an emergent property of matter, you just assume animals are purely matter and, therefore, if they are self-aware that self-awareness had to have emerged from matter. A conclusion grounded on pure presumption.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I dunno. Is death directed?Are cancers directed?
The difference would be?
B
Benadam
Guest
St. John Paul II wrote that for life to go from one state to another, life in a higher state must reach down and lift life in a lower state up. I’ve come to think the invisible component of evolution may be found in that , Namely the gaps.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I would also note that Darwin was a supremacist.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Just to be clear, many higher order animals can locate themselves in space using various sensory feedback mechanisms. That is not the same as having an enduring sense of “self” as the subject of experiences or loci of consciousness. It is also not the same as having an awareness of a “self” as the object of one’s own identity.What DOES it mean to have consciousness? I believe this is a long-standing philosophical problem. Certainly there are credible scientific claims that (some) animals do, and various demonstrations of self-awareness in animals.
R
rossum
Guest
The literal interpretation of Genesis is shown to be incorrect by science. Genesis has the earth (day 1) before the sun (day 4). That is shown to be wrong by astronomy. The literal interpretation of Genesis has birds (day 5) before land animals (day 6). That is shown to be wrong by both geology and palaeontology.the theory of billions of years of evolution is untestable, so it will never be established as an indisputable scientific fact. In which case, ToE will never prove that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is erroneous and that it is a source of embarrassment.
Show me a fossil bird contemporary with, or earlier than, Tiktaalik. Either that or be ‘embarrassed’.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
A fertilized human zygote is a single cell. It is alive, but it does not have consciousness and it does not have personal identity. Both of those emerge during later development. They are emergent properties, dependant on the growth of the brain.To assert, for example, that consciousness and personal identity as phenomena are analogous to the “emergent” property changes that arise when a gas transforms into a liquid would be to completely misrepresent and absurdly reduce the profound significance of what it means to have consciousness and subjective identity in the first place.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
And earlier it says that animals were made from the same inanimate stuff: “Let the earth bring forth…” Did that process change the Thomist Substance of the inanimate earth, or did it just change the Thomist Accident? If the Substance was not changed, then the Substance of animals is still inanimate, and Genesis agrees better with science.It says Adam was made from INANIMATE physical stuff, not from a living creature.
rossum
I
IWantGod
Guest
Scientists are heading to your location now.
Run! I’ve been infected with natural evolution so i can’t help you, but you can still save yourself!
Run! I’ve been infected with natural evolution so i can’t help you, but you can still save yourself!
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
But, there is one truth. In this case it is the person, each an expression of one humanity. There are no half-persons and there were no half persons. We have a history and some of the remnants of our having been here remain in the present. Depending on our vision of how things are and were, we put together the pieces of data into a mosaic that may or may not fit with what happened. As Ed clearly illustrates by his quotes, current thinking on the matter of our creation does not see it as such. Following its very shallow logic “evolution” as it is currently understood, leads one to Atheism because that is its fundamental assumption.Does Gothic Architecture contradict Classical Chinese? They are completely different subjects, like Evolution and Roman Catholicism.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Why? How do you get to atheism from natural evolution?“evolution” as it is currently understood, leads one to Atheism because that is its fundamental assumption.
You have been saying some strange things lately.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I think it comes from a desire or a need to have God fit a particular kind of mental image, particularly in so far as the manner of creation is concerned. Others recognize that these things have no bearing on the salvation of souls and have no need for a fixed mental image.How do you get to atheism from natural evolution?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.