At 4/2/13 11:16 PM, CresIsis wrote: Evolution.

You mean pokemon?

gotta catch'em all babeh <3

At 4/2/13 11:17 PM, badfurrykitty wrote:

At 4/2/13 11:16 PM, CresIsis wrote: Evolution.

You mean pokemon?

gotta catch'em all babeh <3

I suppose so <3

As soon as new generations stop coming out that is. D=

At 4/2/13 11:15 PM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 2/21/13 04:50 PM, 372 wrote:

At 2/21/13 04:39 PM, Trillionaire wrote: Post the abstract.

Well you see it's still in the works. I'm only a student, I'm hoping to get access to lab resources by then end of April. Not to mention, I don't know of any scientist who goes revealing their ideas and discoveries before publication for no reason..

Anything?

Well I actually met with Dr.Moloney and Dr.Z (He's greek and his full last name escapes me) at Stony Brook yesterday and discussed. It was a very cool experience. I have not done any actual lab work yet. Dr.Z thinks I would be able to expand my ideas if I was to study Crystallography.

At 4/2/13 11:18 PM, CresIsis wrote:

At 4/2/13 11:17 PM, badfurrykitty wrote:

At 4/2/13 11:16 PM, CresIsis wrote: Evolution.

You mean pokemon?

gotta catch'em all babeh <3

I suppose so <3

As soon as new generations stop coming out that is. D=

Getting Y

At 4/3/13 01:00 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Getting Y

I sure am.

At 2/25/13 11:49 PM, Feoric wrote: Because contrary to popular belief, the point of science is to try to disprove theories, not prove them. Creationism is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific theory, therefore there is no such thing as scientific evidence for intelligent design/creationism.

Ironically, if we were to continue on this line of Popper's thinking (ignoring Kuhn's), the same could be said about evolution. Some theories (not all) within the whole of the evolutionist framework are not falsifiable either.

However, you are right when you say creationism isn't scientific. But does that mean it is automatically not true as well?

At 4/3/13 01:18 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/3/13 12:57 AM, 372 wrote: . SHOW ME

Yeah sure whatever you say man...?

At 4/3/13 02:02 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/3/13 01:54 AM, 372 wrote:

At 4/3/13 01:18 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/3/13 12:57 AM, 372 wrote: . SHOW ME

Yeah sure whatever you say man...?

Reasons you won't show us:

0. You are lying
1. You have nothing interesting
2. What you have isn't enough to change anyone's views
3. What you have isn't new to science, and has been investigated thoroughly
4. What you have is a hypothesis which will advance knowledge measurably
5. What you have is a groundbreaking partially tested throughly planned concept which will rewrite textbooks

Pick a number

6. I spent a really long amount of time and work on what I have so far and don't want to just give it away someone on the internet who could claim my work for themselves...

can you not understand this..?

Why are you so annoying? I don't care if you don't believe me... it's not going to keep me up at night lol..

Also all I said was "it would blow this thread to pieces". Stop pretending I claimed it was some breakthrough in biology... I didn't...

bearded cloud people

made nothing
explode

then told bacteria to turn into fish

happy now?

At 4/3/13 04:21 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/3/13 02:20 AM, 372 wrote: 6. I spent a really long amount of time and work on what I have so far and don't want to just give it away someone on the internet who could claim my work for themselves...

Other people spend their entire lives working to understand this subject. You're not alone there. Instead of taking part in the discussion, you trolled it. And you're lying.

Lmfao
Are you fucking stupid? I trolled it? I'm a 17 year old in high school. I wrote a paper on my own time and my AP Bio teacher wants to help me get published in a scientific journal. I also plan on submitting it in applications for programs in which I could acquire lab resources and LEARN MORE AND EXPAND ON WHAT I WROTE. Yeah sure buddy, people have looked into it before. Doesn't mean my thoughts on the subject have no practical value. I talked to two professors for the first time and they seemed interested in what I was working on, so fuck you.
Is this hard to understand? Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Why the hell would I post this on the internet before I have it published and risk having someone post it as theirs? So I can be laughed at when I submit it and get accused of plagiarism? Not to mention the only one who is pressing me on this is some wannabe "prestigious" alt on newgrounds.com

What if... (nah, just evolution)

Bill Nye goes against creationism. Bad for the brain of children because it goes against facts and science and stuff.

Evolution just makes the most sense. Even spontaneous generation could happen. Remember that as far as our knowledge of quantum mechanics and chaos theory go, a clone of you could literally appear in midair RIGHT NOW, even if the odds of that happening are unheard of. Spontaneous generation of a simple organism capable of photosynthesis and homogenesis is improbable, but possible. Considering that it took billions of years before a successful 'coin flip' resulted in life on the planet, I consider the idea feasible.

However, following the idea of evolution, all life on this planet is simply the result of billions of years of natural selection. Although that makes sense, there seems to be no explanation for consciousness. Under a completely scientific perspective, our universe could exist exactly as it does now, only we would not really be conscious, but just a bunch of flesh robots repeating a bunch of patterns of survival and survival-based society.

Only that's not the case. Not only does my body exist, but there's actually a 'me' inhabiting it, and whatever 'I' am also has a connection to whatever happens to my physical body. I'm not just a computer like I should be under logical circumstances. I suppose that's what Ghost in the Shell means when they talk about the concept of a ghost.

Of course, it's possible, though somewhat unlikely, that I'm the only living being on the planet with a consciousness. I know I have one, because I'm me. However, since I am unable to expand my consciousness beyond my own body, I can't tell if other people really exist from firsthand experience; I can only assume that they do because of the similarities they have to me in appearance and behavior.

Whether or not I inhabit a solipsistic universe, I know at least that I have a consciousness, and so far I have not been able to find a justification for it. Evolution does not go any farther than physical similarities between species. I can believe in that; however, whether or not there's a divine being manipulating the universe, there's definitely something going on beyond what our current knowledge of science can tell us.

Short answer? I believe in evolution, but consciousness is unexplained, and the connection between consciousness and life seems conspicuously deliberate.

At 4/4/13 12:00 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/3/13 11:24 PM, Kwing wrote: Short answer? I believe in evolution, but consciousness is unexplained, and the connection between consciousness and life seems conspicuously deliberate.

Consciousness is perfectly explained. You have sensory organs connected to a central computer which is capable of rerouting circuits on multiple levels, changing the way you behave.

I believe Kwing is here referring to the mind, not just our senses, and to the fact that we have both a sense of self beyond instinct, but a sense of right and wrong in our actions. Furthermore, our vast intellectual capabilities as a species is unseen among any other species. Sure, many animals show remarkable signs of critical thinking and problem-solving, but we have come so far and done so much in the relatively short amount of time we've been here (mammals coming much later in the evolutionary chain), that there must be a reason behind it beyond mere random chance.

Why does it have to be Creation versus Evolution? Why can't there be a middle ground? What if a higher power beyond our comprehension created everything with the ability to grow and change?

Evolution has been seen in numerous living things, even viruses (though the debate whether viruses are considered "alive" is still out there). I don't know how religions explain or debunk the scientific evidence but in the end it's someone's own choice to believe what they want.

why you bump entice

the theory of evolution is at least supported by scientific evidence and thus is probably the most believable theories out there.

but i find it a bit difficult to accept the idea that micro-organisms (and life itself) appeared out of nothing completely by chance. the probablity (amplitude) that life was created by a random process at any given time is inconceivably small. the concept of intelligience design seems not to be unreasonable.

Why do you even bother?

At 4/4/13 02:10 PM, Entice wrote:

actually, just looking at the conditional probablity is quite sufficient since there aren'y many earths out there.
even the molecular structure of the simplest organisms are very complicated. eveything has to be at the right place for life to exist. we have to be really fortunate if life appears by chance, even if you consider the time frame.

At 4/4/13 01:07 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/4/13 12:55 AM, icecreammac wrote: I believe Kwing is here referring to the mind, not just our senses, and to the fact that we have both a sense of self beyond instinct, but a sense of right and wrong in our actions. Furthermore, our vast intellectual capabilities as a species is unseen among any other species. Sure, many animals show remarkable signs of critical thinking and problem-solving, but we have come so far and done so much in the relatively short amount of time we've been here (mammals coming much later in the evolutionary chain), that there must be a reason behind it beyond mere random chance.

Let me quote the part you missed:

...a central computer which is capable of rerouting circuits on multiple levels, changing the way you behave.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. All of our BEHAVIORS can be perfectly explained under evolution. Everything about our behavior, culture, technology, and so on can be explained by natural selection. Take Shakers, for instance. They were a pacifistic religion that didn't believe in having sex at all. On top of that, the children they adopted were never even forced to carry on their religion, though they were encouraged to. Unsurprisingly, they all died out. Collectivist, militant societies, as well as a healthy amount of greed have allowed our species to survive to the point where it is today. Even if evolution didn't exist, our cultural evolution is a form of selective breeding of ideology.

What I'm pointing out is that we humans have a 'soul', for lack of a better word. Yes, we follow certain behavioral patterns, perhaps even to the point of us not having free will (kind of an unrelated topic of debate) but there's also something inside of us that experiences.

I'm not contrasting humans and machines because humans have emotions; emotions are only a framework of tendencies towards certain emotions, determined by genetics and chemicals. Even if a computer can't have emotions, its processes can be divided into more primitive basic functions and higher processes.

I really don't like using the word 'soul' because of all of the postmortem implications that go along with it, but I don't think there's any other way to describe it. Yes, your body may exist, but what is it that makes it yours? How come 'you' inhabit your own body, instead of inhabiting someone else's? Better yet, why do 'you' inhabit any body at all? Our bodies can survive perfectly fine without a soul inhabiting them. What's more, our soul can't be attributed to any matter or energy found within our bodies. So why is a living body a some-ONE and not a some-THING.

At 2/26/13 02:19 AM, jaminscript wrote: Pretty darn sure this cold I have right now is an evolutionary strand that I haven't had before, hence why my immune system still has to fight it.

All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the one true God!

No. God is just continually creating new strains of viruses and bacterial infections to plauge the human race. Lul.

At 4/4/13 10:09 PM, Trillionaire wrote: It is what you're getting at. The mutating, reorganizing, convoluted mass of flesh inside your skull is responsible for producing your experience of having a soul. If you let go of your religious beliefs, learn how to clear your mind, and read a few neuro textbooks, you'll realize how absurd this chat was.

Yes, the information containing experiences and thoughts is contained within my brain, but that's not what I'm referring to when I say 'soul'. In fact, what I'm describing isn't really a dictionary definition of a soul anyway, if you go by this:

The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
A person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.

Perhaps this miscommunication has to do with the definition of consciousness. You could say the body is conscious when it is able to interpret sensory information, or based off of the level of brain activity going on. However, what I'm saying is that there appears to be a different part of a person that interprets the brain or mind, which is what separates a person from a machine.

Keep in mind that a machine has different layers of consciousness, too; it can sense different kinds of information (even if information is just an isotope of binary logic gates) and it can respond to them. I guess what I'm saying is that a machine processes information, whereas a person interprets information. I hope I'm being a little more clear.

Contrary to your assumption, my religion (or lack thereof) have absolutely nothing to do with me believing in a soul (or whatever you want to call it). I'm simply relaying what I observe around me. What do YOU consider the difference to be between an organism and a machine?

Perhaps you lack a certain aspect of consciousness which prevents you from relating to this 'separate consciousness' I'm referring to? Please understand I don't say this to accuse or insult you; it's just that when you discuss consciousness, our inability to 'be' someone else makes communication quite difficult.

At 2/21/13 03:56 PM, Entice wrote: Just face it. Sometimes there's enough scientific evidence to completely rule out a certain belief from a logical standpoint, and creationism is one of them.

If you're going to jump on the science wins over creationism bandwagon then at least don't misrepresent science. There has not been enough scientific evidence to rule out creationism.

Either life created itself, or God did. Both explanations are equally absurd.

At 4/5/13 01:18 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 4/5/13 01:00 AM, Gramiscus wrote: There has not been enough scientific evidence to rule out creationism.

Every creationist hypothesis from every previous generation has been ruled out by modern science. The evolution of life on Earth follows an intuitive and predictable rate of growth.

I believe in science. I also believe that having common sense is enough proof that creationism is pure bullshit.

Because *BANG! makes so much more sense.

what if we didn't evolve or rise from creation but instead... just kinda farted into existance?

Honestly my proposal isn't that drastic.

Creation is a word christians came up with to make fairy tales sound like a scientific theory.

"I'm an atheist because I think that science is wonderful and reality itself is so mysterious and wonderful that there is no need to believe in a god.

But if a philosophy and a belief system makes you appreciate life and makes you happy and you aren't hurting anyone with it.

Then god damn no one should be a shit to you about it."