Why would a bunch of elements in the periodic table come together to form DNA? DNA is what drives the chemical reactions necessary by living organisms. Did the elements want to survive? Did the chemical reactions which to survive? What does survival mean to those things?
No it isn't. You never ask why for God. Going all the way back can't happen because that is a different part of science. Are you also upset that Moby Dick doesn't go all the way back to the whales birth?
I am not saying there is a God. I am not saying religion goes all the way back nor am I saying that religion answers the question.
The "different" part of science is maybe quantum physics. But even that doesn't go all the way back nor does it bridge the gap between quantum physics and classical physics.
Congratulations, you aren't saying anything at all. There are two types of science deniers. The ones that provide an alternate solution and people who are a waste of time.
Evolution does not explain how life started. It explains how it persists. People assume that evolution explains where consciousness comes from. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is where does consciousness come from? How does it come about? That is a big piece and it is not part of evolution.
People assume that evolution explains where consciousness comes from.
I don't think this is a widely held belief Joe. I'm sure there might be some people who speculate that evolution can explain how or why consciousness developed in certain life forms, but its not something that gets posited in mainstream science. Not yet anyway.
How consciousness developed in life forms is certainly an intriguing question worth studying but saying that not having an answer presents a problem for the theory of evolution is fallacious.
The great thing is, as always, it doesn't matter if you have an explanation, science still works. If you don't feel satisfied with the explanation of consciousness, go research it. Don't try to claim that science is broken.
But they haven't been able to explain how it happened.
That's why they continue to do research. Many things have been explained.
All they have are guesses and made up stories.
No, we are discussing scientists, not religious people. Scientists have experiments and results. It takes a lot of results to actually determine what is going on, so things go unexplained for a long time. Eventually they actually get explained and the world makes more sense.
I'm not disputing that "eventually they actually get explained and the world makes more sense."
I'm disputing the people who believe that evolution has already explained it all.
But more interesting is the fact that, even though we have never "seen" (for example) anti matter, scientists believe in the idea of anti matter. But the idea of a consciousness that is infinite... lunacy!!!
I'm not disputing that "eventually they actually get explained and the world makes more sense."
Well, actually, yes you are.
I'm disputing the people who believe that evolution has already explained it all.
You are the only one making this claim. No one is saying that there isn't anything else to learn except people who don't believe in evolution.
But more interesting is the fact that, even though we have never "seen" (for example) anti matter, scientists believe in the idea of anti matter. But the idea of a consciousness that is infinite... lunacy!!!
Who said that consciousness being infinite is ridiculous? Again, you lie about how you actually feel about science. Why not just argue the position you really have?
The position I really have is that consciousness, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed and that it has always been around and will always be around. The position I really have is that consciousness is NOT just a bunch of random chemical reactions. Which is contrary to what many people who believe in evolution believe.
What part of science are you rejecting with this belief?
The position I really have is that consciousness, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed and that it has always been around and will always be around.
Which is kind of stupid since you hold the belief that DNA can't have consciousness.
The position I really have is that consciousness is NOT just a bunch of random chemical reactions.
You also believe that random chemical reactions can't have consciousness, which is kind of strange to also believe. That's like saying God is all around us except when someone is hurting someone else, oh, oops, nevermind.
Which is contrary to what many people who believe in evolution believe.
It is not a concept of evolution, so it is a complaint you have against people, not the way people believe in evolution.
I don't know if Dna has a conciousness. I mean, I'm not sure if conciousness id a physical thing or a metaphysical thing. If metaphtsical, maybe it cimes frim another dimension. If physical, then it existed before the big bang.
But more interesting is the fact that, even though we have never "seen" (for example) anti matter, scientists believe in the idea of anti matter. But the idea of a consciousness that is infinite... lunacy!!!
Well, no scientist who has studied it will say that they know for certainty that anti-matter exists. But there is no evidence that suggests an infinite consciousness, so there is no reason to believe it at this time.
Well..., not the infinite part. But we do have first hand knowledge of consciousness. Well..., at least some people have first hand knowledge of consciousness ;)
sentience seems to have many definitions. some define it as the ability to perceive (with senses?). some as the ability 'to feel pain' (emotional? as a sense?). others as the ambiguous 'to feel'.
you seem to be using sentience in place of consciousness, yet another definition.
there are ideas that you, or your consciousness is your body, your brain, or a sequence of information. i would agree with the latter, but would say that this information, this tendency to make certain choices and follow certain patterns is created by the brain as it 'learns'. i therefore believe that the creation of the brain is the creation of the personality.
the brain exists as a control centre which takes stimuli and reacts accordingly in ways that have in previous circumstances worked for its survival. in my simplified version, the unique way in which a brain reacts to stimuli is consciousness.
evolution can be used to explain the creation of the brain and as far as i am concerned, therefore the creation of the self.
If you lose an arm or a leg, do you lose any consciousness? One could say that the brain contains your conscious self. One could also claim that the brain is merely the vehicle that your consciousness uses to interact with reality.
So what happens to the self when there are mental disorders or brain injuries? I assume they interfere with the self's ability to interact with reality. What about psychopathy, is that the self losing control? What about comas or locked-in syndrome, is the self just trapped inside the body?
When does the self leave the body? Only upon death? Brain-death? How would this view affect DNR? What about emergency resuscitation in general?
Bottom line. No one is able to do anything without an act of will. Where does this intent come from? Our bodies are made of chemicals. Human consciousness and self awareness cannot be explained by natural processes. Life, itself, cannot. Scientists can explain how the brain works, but they can't explain WHY it works. Science does not have the answers. They simply think they do. They deny a obvious Creator, whoever that may be. I believe that most people believe in evolution because they reject God, because of their sinful pride. That only leaves them with a naturalistic origin of life. No matter how absurd it is, they believe it, because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to.
Human consciousness and self awareness cannot be explained by natural processes.
How do you define human consciousness and self awareness? Is it limited only to humans? Which parts of human consciousness cannot be explained by natural processes? In what way is it different from animal consciousness or plant consciousness? Where is the line between consciousness and unconsciousness? Bacteria? Fungi? Dirt?
Scientists can explain how the brain works, but they can't explain WHY it works.
Explaining the way the brain evolved does actually provide a why. It is similar to the study of embryology. In order to explain the process, we have to consider why the process came to be.
A living God that they must answer to.
Even if there was a visible/apparent Christian God that ruled over humanity, humans would still ignore it for most aspects of daily life. This is the point of free will. Planning for the future is not exactly a strong characteristic of humanity. People ignore consequences all the time, often leading to lethal or life-altering results.
Bottom line. No one is able to do anything without an act of will.
Based on what evidence?
Human consciousness and self awareness cannot be explained by natural processes
Based on what evidence?
Scientists can explain how the brain works, but they can't explain WHY it works.
The entire point of science is to explain the how, not the why.
Science does not have the answers. They simply think they do.
Sounds familiar :P
They deny a obvious Creator, whoever that may be. I believe that most people believe in evolution because they reject God, because of their sinful pride.
First, just because you believe in it does not make it obvious. Second, that statement is incredibly arrogant. If one does not believe in god, that does not mean they are doing so out of pride. It simply means they do not believe in god. That is not "rejecting" god, as to "reject" god one must first believe in god. Please, at least try to think this stuff through.
That only leaves them with a naturalistic origin of life. No matter how absurd it is, they believe it, because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to.
I find it hard to believe that elements in the periodic table got together by chance to create RNA, then DNA, then single cell organism, then a multi cell organism, then the cells specialized and created organs and finally became sentient.
I can see them getting together into a cycle of chemical reactions but that's about it. For example, the cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation.
How would you define the self? Since it is separate, does that mean it does not reside in the body while we are alive? How do injuries apply to the self (mental and physical)? What about those with mental disorders who no longer have full control of self? Does that mean those disorders affect the self rather than the body?
The self is what most people consider the soul. It resides in the body while we are alive. Injuries affect only the body. Emotional pain affects the self. Mental disorders are physical. But what do I know ;)
So mental disorders affect the body which affects the mind which is part of the self? So the body can affect the self. What about the other way around?
I am curious how you would classify those considered brain dead. Has the self left the body? Is it just trapped until the body dies? At what point of brain dead-ness would the self leave the body? What about Locked In Syndrome?
The greatest thing about science is that it works even without you finding it easy to believe. Plus, of your list of things most of them didn't just happen by chance. All of those things make it easier to survive.
If there ever was no life in the beginning, then there were only sub atomic particles and atoms and elements. Why would elements/atoms/(sub atomic particles) find a need to survive? What does the term survival mean to those things?
There is too much energy in the universe for it to just stay with sub atomic particles bouncing off each other. The energy gets converted into stability and bring sounds together. There is enough energy to make more complex RNA, then the RNA replicates to survive and the survival process begins.
I can see matter clumping together. I even see cycles happening by chance (like evaporation, condensation and precipitation). But matter coming together to create life? ;)
Evolution does not explain how life came to be. It only explains how it changes. To use the computer analogy, evolution explains how a program works. Not how the computer booted up.
Please read my argument and read your question that my argument is a response to. You are shifting from legitimately questioning evolution to just being stupid.
The problem is with the definition of life. There is a lot packed into that one word. I want to tease out a very specific piece, consciousness. You are focusing on the physical aspect. Consciousness is not a physical thing. Unless you believe that subatomic particles are conscious and thus everything is endowed with consciousness.
I wrote this about God and it says some stuff about Consciousness, or Chetana:
Depends on your definition of God. If you think of God as Western religions define him, then no God doesn't exist. There is no person type thing that created the world in 7 days or whatever and will send you to Hell if you displease him.
My definition of God, being Hindu, is greatly different. God isn't a him or a her but an omnipresent force that has existed before time. It didn't create the world, and doesn't decide anything about the world. It exists inside of everything; me, you, Gandhi, Hitler, a tree, a rock, space, etc.
Scientists call it consciousness. Scientists know consciousness exists, so you can say my definition of god is wrong. You may argue that rocks don't have consciousness, but once you read the link you will have a new outlook on consciousness.
I know my definition of God isn't what many of you are thinking of,but if you look deeply God in all of the theistic religions is just a manifestation of consciousness. In Hinduism there aren't "many Gods" there is one God that is the consciousness in every thing on Earth.