Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.Ok, how were the assembled to create life? RW can't answer apparently.
The best people can do is give you reasons they believe a god or gods exist.'Mysteries re: the creation of life is not proof that God exists
You have proof God exists? Show it to me.
But they will.Why did those elements do that? How did they create life? You can throw elements together all you want and they will not create life.
You talk a lot about what molecules do but can’t explain why. You assume that’s the way it is. But why? I have read the same things you have. You can throw all that together but can’t create just one ribosome. You yourself said who knows why?But they will.
Life is an inevitable outcome of the fundamental symmetries of the universe.
Because - when we're talking about DNA, one must realize that it's NOT the sequence that's being selected for, it's the shape of the resulting protein.
The question "what are all the DNA sequences that can create this shape" is a different question from "what is the probability of creating this sequence".
There is not just one way to create life, there are many. Ours happens to be left handed, all the biomolecules are l isomers - why? Who knows. There's no reason it has to be this way. At some point something evolved left handed and then everything else had to follow suit. Or maybe there was a more abundant supply of left handed source material. Or something.
Here's what happens in real life - there are 14 different ways a strand of RNA can wind around a ribosome. The same exact pair of molecules, can assume 14 different stable configurations, and in each case the winding will be different. You can have monomers, dimers, trimers, and 4-mers, all form naturally and spontaneously in water whenever the components are mixed.
Mathematically, you have one large molecule interacting with another, on the basis of shape, charge, and geometric flexibility. If you'd like a mind blower, read up on the self assembly of microtubules, and then ask yourself how they stay in one place. Vesicular transport is another good one, as is muscle contraction.
The point being, it is not sufficient to look at something and claim it's a species. Modern identification techniques involve things like the 16S rRNA sequence to identify and catalog species. People discussing this topic should be familiar with the basic mutation types.
No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.
You are presuming that humans actually have the capacity to know and understand everything and that is not necessarily true is it?
I never claimed what you are saying.Mysteries re: the creation of life is not proof that God exists
You have proof God exists? Show it to me.
Then why bother saying I have no proof of God?I never claimed what you are saying.
So far, you are correct. We seem to keep finding more and more the deeper we go. However I don't discount anything. Intelligent design may be a factor and until we know things for certain I am not willing to throw it out or label it God. There is a reason we cannot create life and I would like to not close my mind to anything.Back in the late 90s I used to play a computer strategy game called Alpha Centauri
Aside from being a fun game, it was filled with amazing “quotes” from its fictional characters about science and philosophy.
One quote from the “science faction” applies to this topic:
The substructure of the universe regresses infinitely towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons, quarks. Each layer unraveled reveals new secrets, but also new mysteries.
In other words, just because there’s always another unknown just beyond our grasp with each new discovery, that doesn’t “prove” intelligent design. All it proves is there’s more to be discovered. That’s the nature of the universe.
Conversely, there was a quote from the “religious faction”:
Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God. And He awaits you just beyond the last theorem.
From a philosophical standpoint, the continued inability of scientific inquiries to explain the creation of life and/or an afterlife will always ensure religion is a facet of human culture, even if one we should have discarded it generations ago
There will always be something science “can’t explain”. Thus, there will always be humans who cling to religion to fill the gap.
You are presuming.The fallacy your chasing is that just because we cannot explain some things ( a lot of things actually) then a god must be responsible.
You are presuming that humans actually have the capacity to know and understand everything and that is not necessarily true is it?
You talk a lot about what molecules do but can’t explain why.
You assume that’s the way it is. But why?
I have read the same things you have. You can throw all that together but can’t create just one ribosome.
You yourself said who knows why?
But this thread is about consciousness.No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.
Consciousness is not a separate thing. We are consciousness. The 'process' is letting go of thinking to realize that.But this thread is about consciousness.
My claim was (is): consciousness is a physical process, it involves an "unfolding of physical time".
The brain synthesizes an extra "dimension" that physical time is unfolded into.
But this thread is about consciousness.
My claim was (is): consciousness is a physical process, it involves an "unfolding of physical time".
The brain synthesizes an extra "dimension" that physical time is unfolded into.
No, you don't understand. I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.apples and oranges ....
View attachment 878282
the spiritual content of physiology in the above example transforms its physiology, including the cns (brain) from a land dweller to an avian being - from one creature to another, metaphysically not using physical properties of any sort for the exchange whatsoever. through programing.
A true realization of 'now' is what I call being present. This state does not include thoughts of the past or future or other spurious thinking. Yet, presence IS always there. Notice it when you take a deep breath or, when asking oneself what one is going to think next. I do not know how you would translate that into your scientific theories though.No, you don't understand. I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.
The key to understanding it is criticality.
The problem statement is, you need to show how the "experience" of now, relates to the physical thing we call now (most people label it t=0 or some such thing). Your experience of now is a window, not a point. You need to show how that window comes into existence, and what it looks like in the limit, as dt => 0. (Because that's how you determine what kinds of information you can process with it).
So, imagine a heirarchy of electrical signaling in the brain. There is criticality at each level from ion channels to single neurons to local populations to the whole brain. The result is, the opening of a single ion channel can change the entire EEG.
But the concept of "in the limit" gets much more precise than just ion channels, we can talk about things like quantum tunneling in microtubules and such. Ultimately, it's the processing and storage of information with random and unreliable components, all the way down to the quantum level.
No, I am saying that we cannot create life by mixing elements in a primordial pond. I never mentioned God.
from one creature to another, metaphysically
I'm saying it requires direct physical support, at the level of fundamental symmetries.
There is criticality at each level from ion channels to single neurons to local populations to the whole brain.
the cns is irrelevant - physiology is directed by its spiritual content is the reason there is not a delay as described.
The CNS is very necessary, without it there is no such translation.
lmaophysical translation -
cns is physiology - the spiritual content of physiology is its real time component, cns is irrelevant for that purpose.
