If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of life.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.​

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If you are honest you will admit that billions of lines of DNA that all must be in perfect order did not form themselves in the mud

Maybe the boogie man did it, but who really knows?
We have evidence for DNA evolution.
Animal DNA structures today are likely VERY different from those millions of years ago.
Creation of the first bio cells (billions years ago?) ... we can only speculate.
If you were honest, you would also say “I don’t know how life started on Earth”.
Are you honest?

 

[ding]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of universe.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
​

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about anything I have discussed.

Shameless lie. Youre entire paradigm rests on magic. But you think your magic is "special", so you won't use that word.

Is George Walding talking about magic, dipshit.

 

[james bond]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

The “real science is creation science”?
You obviously failed your evolutionary biology class and don’t understand scientific methods, which do NOT put the cart (creation conclusion) before the horse (data collection & objective pattern analysis).

Your post is a total fail. I got A's and B's in my science and chemistry classes and became a computer scientist. I learned evolution from Understanding Evolution and believed in it until around 2007 when articles started coming out questioning evolution. Obviously, you do not understand creation science is what was in place prior to the 1850s when atheist and secular scientists came into power and replaced creation science. Other than being an agnostic, what credentials do you have?

Eventually, I compared what creationists had and theirs is what is observable and is backed up by the scientific method. I would guess you are an unscientific idiot from the conclusions you jump to about me. I claimed "faith-based" science for evolution which leads to fake science. For example, they think the egg came before the chicken.

I highly doubt you understand the scientific method, which is agnostic in research studies. Creation “science” does NOT use scientific methods; it puts the cart (conclusions) before the horse (data analysis) in its cherry-picking activities.

Like I say, atheists/agnostics are usually wrong.

I think you are delusional and tooting your own horn. Who are the famous agnostic scientists? I think most scientists can figure it our for themselves and not be agnostic.

We had Sir Francis Bacon who created the scientific method. Sir Isaac Newton was another. More here -- Creation scientists - creation.com

Thus, we can close this thread due to extreme wrongness.

 

[Frannie]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If you are honest you will admit that billions of lines of DNA that all must be in perfect order did not form themselves in the mud

Maybe the boogie man did it, but who really knows?
We have evidence for DNA evolution.
Animal DNA structures today are likely VERY different from those millions of years ago.
Creation of the first bio cells (billions years ago?) ... we can only speculate.
If you were honest, you would also say “I don’t know how life started on Earth”.
Are you honest?

Sorry kid there is no evidence that DNA formed itself in the mud. Absolutely none, so exactly what does evolution of dna have to do with anything

It is just as likely that your computer operating system could be written by mud

 

[Frannie]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of universe.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
​

I bet he knows a lot about acid drops too...………….

The fact is that a chimp knows exactly as much about the formation of the universe as this clown as nothing is equal all over

 

[Frannie]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of life.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.​

Suppose the human race finds a planet and seeds it with life then leaves and humans evolve. Are humans God? because they would meet every qualification to be God

 

[Frannie]

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

Machines are already self aware

Maybe by your definition.

Proof. Cotton is picked by

1. Combine
2. Cotton gin
3. Humans

All are machines that can do the same thing, therefor the human is a machine

A living machine. A computer is not a living machine.

True a computer is not a living machine, but all life is living machines of various complexity to do various jobs. Algae in the oceans for instance produce half the O2 that you are breathing, you have bacteria in your gut digesting food

 

[ding]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of life.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.​

Suppose the human race finds a planet and seeds it with life then leaves and humans evolve. Are humans God? because they would meet every qualification to be God

No. Did humans create existence and the laws of nature?

 

[ding]

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine has to say about the origin of universe.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.
​

I bet he knows a lot about acid drops too...………….

The fact is that a chimp knows exactly as much about the formation of the universe as this clown as nothing is equal all over

Equal all over? What are you talking about?

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

Machines are already self aware

Maybe by your definition.

Proof. Cotton is picked by

1. Combine
2. Cotton gin
3. Humans

All are machines that can do the same thing, therefor the human is a machine

A living machine. A computer is not a living machine.

True a computer is not a living machine, but all life is living machines of various complexity to do various jobs. Algae in the oceans for instance produce half the O2 that you are breathing, you have bacteria in your gut digesting food

.

True a computer is not a living machine

everything in the universe is alive ... beginning with the elements of the periodic table.

the elements form molecules ...

molecules combine to make compounds and eventually a singe cell organism evolved -

no mud involved, the matrix was pure primordial water.

the computer is alive, if it ever reproduces and maintains energy there might not be any stopping it.

 

[Frannie]

Machines are already self aware

Maybe by your definition.

Proof. Cotton is picked by

1. Combine
2. Cotton gin
3. Humans

All are machines that can do the same thing, therefor the human is a machine

A living machine. A computer is not a living machine.

True a computer is not a living machine, but all life is living machines of various complexity to do various jobs. Algae in the oceans for instance produce half the O2 that you are breathing, you have bacteria in your gut digesting food

.

True a computer is not a living machine

everything in the universe is alive ... beginning with the elements of the periodic table.

View attachment 269521

the elements form molecules ...

molecules combine to make compounds and eventually a singe cell organism evolved -

no mud involved, the matrix was pure primordial water.

the computer is alive, if it ever reproduces and maintains energy there might not be any of stopping it.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

 

[diver52]

The basis for that conclusion?

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

 

[diver52]

The basis for that conclusion?

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

The “real science is creation science”?
You obviously failed your evolutionary biology class and don’t understand scientific methods, which do NOT put the cart (creation conclusion) before the horse (data collection & objective pattern analysis).

Your post is a total fail. I got A's and B's in my science and chemistry classes and became a computer scientist. I learned evolution from Understanding Evolution and believed in it until around 2007 when articles started coming out questioning evolution. Obviously, you do not understand creation science is what was in place prior to the 1850s when atheist and secular scientists came into power and replaced creation science. Other than being an agnostic, what credentials do you have?

Eventually, I compared what creationists had and theirs is what is observable and is backed up by the scientific method. I would guess you are an unscientific idiot from the conclusions you jump to about me. I claimed "faith-based" science for evolution which leads to fake science. For example, they think the egg came before the chicken.

I highly doubt you understand the scientific method, which is agnostic in research studies. Creation “science” does NOT use scientific methods; it puts the cart (conclusions) before the horse (data analysis) in its cherry-picking activities.

Like I say, atheists/agnostics are usually wrong.

I think you are delusional and tooting your own horn. Who are the famous agnostic scientists? I think most scientists can figure it our for themselves and not be agnostic.

We had Sir Francis Bacon who created the scientific method. Sir Isaac Newton was another. More here -- Creation scientists - creation.com

Thus, we can close this thread due to extreme wrongness.

How can agnostics be wrong when they are honest and admit they don’t know about any god?

Until this past century, scientists were pressured to believe cultural norms or speculated in religion OUTSIDE of science (like Bacon & Newton). Einstein is an example of an agnostic in the modern era, and Stephen Hawking was an atheist regarding current religions.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If you are honest you will admit that billions of lines of DNA that all must be in perfect order did not form themselves in the mud

Maybe the boogie man did it, but who really knows?
We have evidence for DNA evolution.
Animal DNA structures today are likely VERY different from those millions of years ago.
Creation of the first bio cells (billions years ago?) ... we can only speculate.
If you were honest, you would also say “I don’t know how life started on Earth”.
Are you honest?

Sorry kid there is no evidence that DNA formed itself in the mud. Absolutely none, so exactly what does evolution of dna have to do with anything

It is just as likely that your computer operating system could be written by mud

Face it, you don’t know how life originated.
Be honest. Provide the evidence if you think you know anything about it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Maybe by your definition.

Proof. Cotton is picked by

1. Combine
2. Cotton gin
3. Humans

All are machines that can do the same thing, therefor the human is a machine

A living machine. A computer is not a living machine.

True a computer is not a living machine, but all life is living machines of various complexity to do various jobs. Algae in the oceans for instance produce half the O2 that you are breathing, you have bacteria in your gut digesting food

.

True a computer is not a living machine

everything in the universe is alive ... beginning with the elements of the periodic table.

View attachment 269521

the elements form molecules ...

molecules combine to make compounds and eventually a singe cell organism evolved -

no mud involved, the matrix was pure primordial water.

the computer is alive, if it ever reproduces and maintains energy there might not be any of stopping it.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

.

The simplest single celled organism has hundreds of thousands of lines of dna that have to be in the perfect order for the cell to exist, and the single cell has to exist first in order to split. What you claim is impossible to any known science. Tell us how would hundreds of thousands of lines of dna write themselves one day out of nothing.

they are stored in the metaphysical till complete then administered in a single instance, evolution is your witness ... you seem drunk in your draconian appraisal.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

 

[Frannie]

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

Thoughts are the running electrochemical ram process. When the electrochemical charges stop powering thoughts the thoughts stop