Moontanman

The difference is that we know that a material source is possible because we have access to materials and it is at least hypothetically possible to falsify this. No known immaterial source exists and there is no known way to test for this. In the face of a total lack of evidence the default position is there is no immaterial source for consciousness... I can hypothesize anything, I hypothesize a basketball is in orbit around Uranus, you cannot show it is not so I must consider the basketball as real or even possible? Then the invisible pixies must be considered as equal... Magical thinking is not science, an unknown supernatural source for consciousness is nothing but magical thinking..

I'm pretty sure France uses them as well. Their lack of popularity at least in some respects, has to do with them not being good at producing weapons grade material...

I could not have said it better, Galveston Tommy, what mistermack said...

No, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably an observed fact, as I said earlier the word "truth" implicates that investigation serves no purpose. In science everything remains open to new evidence. Just like the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or the atomic theory of the atom something simply become ever more accurate. It seems highly unlikely the heliocentric theory of the solar system will ever be overturned but small details might change. Evolution is the same, it's quite improbable that Evolutionary Theory will ever be overturned, the details might change but the fact that life evolves will not... I've never heard of a concept in science being "completely" out of bounds but you can't just claim something isn't true without something other than God did it... I would like to say that if you have an approach that falsifies Evolution I would suggest you tell us what your approach is. Simply trying to show some aspect of Evolution isn't true because you can't understand it really gets us nowhere... Please define what you mean by "creationist community" you really need to be precise about what you are defining as a creationist community. I personally know of no aspect of creationism that isn't at it's basis "god did it"...

Ok, point taken...

I have one that is about a foot tall I grew from seed and I just started another one! It takes about three months to really get one going. Mine is still partially in water like your illustration but it has a root and about 30 cm of foliage..

Actually Einstein's theory of relativity overturned Newton. While it might be proper in colloquial terms to say electricity is real, truth is a bit of a loaded word that implies the current understanding is the end of the investigation... The shape of the jaw is just one characteristic of the jaw, you said you wanted to simplify, I suspect you are trying to bring irreducible complexity into the discussion. I can go there if you want but rest assured that IC was debunked in open court with its main supporters being unable to defend IC. Maybe I do not understand your questions but it certainly seems like you question if science is on the correct track. Care to name them?

https://www.livescience.com/61532-oldest-human-fossils-outside-africa.html? The author of the paper states that is does.

Every bit of evidence we have so far points to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. What evidence do you have that consciousness is something the brain picks up like a radio from the outside? https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness https://www.seeker.com/physical-location-of-consciousness-found-in-brain-2086918268.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness If you are asserting that the brain is a receiver from consciousness that is broadcast from some unknown source outside the brain then yes we are... Yes, yes we do, please read my links to get your google search started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness So now you are going to quote mine Richard Dawkins? "We are biological robots" is actually quite an accurate metaphor for biology. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my rectum... Belief is not evidence of anything except what you think is true. As has been said many time, non random has no connection with a higher intelligence, order can and does arise from chaos and your personal philosophy of what the universe is and a couple $ will get you a coke in many vending machines... What you personally think is not evidence and even in speculation you have to backup your assertions, read the rules of the forum... Natural selection is is the scientific consensus of why evolutionary pathways result from random factors. The spirit of free inquiry, at least in science, requires you to back up your speculation with something other than baseless assertions. What you prefer is not relevant...

I'm not sure what you are looking for here, "the truth will come out"? Truth is a strange word to use in this context, science doesn't result in truth, science describes models supported by known evidence. Nothing is ever officially labeled "truth". I would suggest eye color, much more simple and still selectable and known to have occurred as a result of selection...

Yes it "seems" to be supported by the available evidence. Again that alternative has zero supporting evidence other than baseless assertions. Invisible pixies might be broadcasting consciousness but there is no evidence to support this. Again where is your evidence of this? What is the mechanism of this? Where does the broadcast come from? I would suggest that you provide evidence for this assertion, I see no reason think these behaviors are anything but evolutionary pathways that result in behaviors that evolved over time with no decision making at all.. We can assume (ass/u/me) many things not supported by available evidence, science does not work that way and to suggest it does it a strawman... Show some evidence that consciousness originates outside the brain and we can go forward with that bald speculation. But in the face of no evidence the default position is not to believe the assertion, this applies quite nicely to the idea of consciousness originating outside the brain, no evidence for it, then it shouldn't asserted as possible.. You seem to be fixating on this despite the processes that science uses to filter out biases. Is it perfect? Of course not, but simply asserting what you think adds any weight to your speculation is a much more extreme bias...

I think you are obfuscating yet again. The jaw bone is a single part in some but not all modern vertebrates. The jaw bone resulted from gill arches being repurposed, again the idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked. Again you are incorrect, the jaw bone does not consist of one part in early vertebrates and even in some modern vertebrates. Gene interaction is very complex with multiple genes being used in multiple ways. You're setting up a strawman... Actually the wing started out as many things, from arms, running stabilizers, arm feathers used to keep eggs warm,and even gliding from tree to tree. The wing, like many body parts, is quite a more complex than you are trying to make them out.

Lots of our vertebrate ancestors had no jaw, in fact at one time no vertebrate had jaws. Where do you get this stuff from? So you are asserting irreducible complexity? Really? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html No it is not logical, in fact it's completely false, generally something like a wing, starts out as something else for a completely different reason that what it is currently used for. talkorigins.org is your friend...

I would agree that colonising other planets will come much later than building space habitats. In fact I doubt we will have much use for planets, the risk of biocontamination is too great and the idea of a planet we could live on, even if it did have life, is unlikely. The addition of too little or too much of just trace substances could prevent us from living there at all..

What is the unit for measuring Love, hate, or fright?

Being controversial doesn't imply unknown or lacking knowledge of, nor does it mean it can't be measured.

I bothered to read all three of your links and in no way can i see how they support the assertion that consciousness does not arise from the brain... Can you point me to what I missed? I do know there have instances of brain damage that totally changed who the people were before the accident. This is quite well documented... Not to mention that brain damage often, if not mostly, results in death or a distinct lack of self awareness... I have a significant portion of my brain that is unresponsive, the doctors say it probably happened before or during birth. A large amount of the temporal lobe of my brain is affected. The doctor said it was "interesting" that I seemed to have no cognitive problems but he didn't go into anymore detail. At the time I was young had suffered from a couple blackouts that never happened again so it was never really followed up. My point here is that brain plasticity in no way supports the idea that consciousness does not originate in the material world or the brain... You say: I have to ask why you think the scientific method constitutes a closed mind?

Can you clarify that, I admit I used the term monkey incorrectly but since apes did indeed evolve from primates is we are all primates more accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU Possibly, I am not a biochemist, but I know he was using the information wrong. God of the gaps yet again? We weren't there? Ken Ham much? The god of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller and nothing supports the idea. Eyewitness testimony is not valid science and deep time is also demonstrably correct.

Apes are a subset of monkeys and evolved from them, since we are apes we are also monkeys...

I don't know, I googled this one to death thinking it had to be out there someplace, evidently it was but it wasn't widely respected..

Something like this?

I have a 3 hour video that completely refutes this one, do not think that no one watches videos but an hour and 20 minutes of nonsense is a lot to ask... It's very source suggests this is nothing but theist obfuscation. Right off the bat it makes unjustified assumptions about what the first life is. Modern bacteria are nothing like what it thought the first life forms were. No one has ever said a cell popped into being out of nothing fully formed... Abiogenesis is indeed thought to be chemical evolution of simple catalysts to more and more complex versions. This guy is talking nonsense... I watched, I can give you the real science behind this and no biochemist is clueless about the origin of life he is being deceptive and obfuscating the facts in his favor for his own reasons... I have to think there is good reason the comments are turned off for this video...