portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Ah, but evolution explains how a chicken can come from an egg laid by a non-chicken.No we've already established that the egg did that. Actually it theorizes how a chicken can come from an egg laid by a non-chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUNSTONE Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The egg.Evolution explains how the egg came first, or you can take a 'chicken' on faith. I don't have any faith that the egg came first by evolution's explaination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 You're talking about conscience (as in a sense of right and wrong). I think he's referring to consciousness (as in self-awareness).*EDIT* I never edit to reflect that another poster got there first, so don't expect me to start now. Your right. I should stop reading so fast. But it's still the same. If you can not be self aware, you will not survive. Eveloution still answers it for me. once you are aware, and learn you limits, you then will ask why. Once again, those that don't ask why, and don't learn their limits, will not survive. Once I start asking why, I want answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 My serious answer is that these things came from God, and we know about them because He told us.I just thought that someone should get that out of the way. That would be more plausible than saying we exist in an infinite number of universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Being conscious clearly conveys a survival advantage over being not-conscious.:obvious: And consciousness, like our other characteristics, came from a series of mutations that proved beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Being conscious clearly conveys a survival advantage over being not-conscious.:obvious:And consciousness, like our other characteristics, came from a series of mutations that proved beneficial. Are you saying that homo-sapiens are the only species that have a consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Actually, it is a theory which explains how a chicken can come from an egg laid by a non-chicken. I'll accept this compromise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Are you saying that homo-sapiens are the only species that have a consciousness? Why would you infer that, when I didn't say it? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Why would you infer that, when I didn't say it? :laugh: Then tell me at what point in the evolutionary timeline did a "mutation" bestow upon the earths creations "consciousness"? Your best guess will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 That would be more plausible than saying we exist in an infinite number of universes. No it isn't. I think the infinite universe is much more plausible, and just as easy to prove/disprove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 No it isn't. I think the infinite universe is much more plausible, and just as easy to prove/disprove. If you think an infinite number of universes is plausible then I would kindly submit to you that you are in denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 If you think an infinite number of universes is plausible then I would kindly submit to you that you are in denial. Denial of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Then tell me at what point in the evolutionary timeline did a "mutation" bestow upon the earths creations "consciousness"?Your best guess will do. Again, read about bicameralism. I posted a link on the previous page. Our current form of consciousness is allegedly as young as 3000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Somebody needs to PM PeterMP that he has another thread to monitor... :laugh: I offered to tell, but I would have to kill him. This just is in. A limited time offer. I'll give you the answer for a limited time for three easy payments of $19.95. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Denial of what? You would believe anything and everything so long as you are not connected with acceptance of the concept that there is a creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 You would believe anything and everything so long as you are not connected with acceptance of the concept that there is a creator. And I could say you would believe anything and everything so long as you are connected with acceptance of the concept that there is a creator - meaning, you are in denial just as much as me. You can't prove to me that the cat is alive in the box. However, if you could prove to me there is a creator I would glady accept it. I'm not as much a cynical denier as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, this is what it all boils down to, isn't it? All the agnostics, all the scientists, when you ask them to break things down further and further, can't answer this question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Then tell me at what point in the evolutionary timeline did a "mutation" bestow upon the earths creations "consciousness"?Your best guess will do. What part of 'series of mutations' don't you understand? It depends on how you define consciousness, but most vertebrates have it it to some extent, while other life forms don't (at least according to my very limited knowlege ), so perhaps that's a clue regarding timeline. EDIT: or there may have been multiple separate mutations in different branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, this is what it all boils down to, isn't it?All the agnostics, all the scientists, when you ask them to break things down further and further, can't answer this question Doesn't mean they're wrong. Just that they don't have the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 And I could say you would believe anything and everything so long as you are connected with acceptance of the concept that there is a creator - meaning, you are in denial just as much as me. You could say that. Of course I am not on the side that has to pawn off the concept of infinity as something other than a failure of man to properly describe our finite universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, this is what it all boils down to, isn't it?All the agnostics, all the scientists, when you ask them to break things down further and further, can't answer this question And if you pushed Galeilo and Copurnicus to further build up the structure of the galaxy they failed too. Were they wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, this is what it all boils down to, isn't it?All the agnostics, all the scientists, when you ask them to break things down further and further, can't answer this question Bicameralism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 You could say that. Of course I am not on the side that has to pawn off the concept of infinity as something other than a failure of man to properly describe our finite universe. Yeah, won't want to do that. Because, after all, man is infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Yeah, won't want to do that. Because, after all, man is infallible. That is not what they said in Calculus..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, this is what it all boils down to, isn't it?All the agnostics, all the scientists, when you ask them to break things down further and further, can't answer this question Well ... I'm thinking it might be tied to the functioning of the brain. After all, I've never heard of someone losing consciousness from a blow to the shin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.