Ringer

Consciousness is a mechanism of brain functions brain functions require energy input that energy is derived from our metabolism when we die our metabolism stops when we die our brain functions stop when we die our consciousness stops Using your assumption that consciousness is required for an afterlife we have to assume no afterlife exists when one dies.

So long as it agrees with me it's not an arbitrary line, it's a best fit line. But if your line doesn't agree with my line it IS arbitrary.

I agree completely with you. I was just pointing out that most any claim he is going to make has been covered time and again in case he was unaware. His general rejection is a completely different arguing point which you have been covering quite capably so I wasn't going to address it.

Alright, how about when you have a point about evolution and such that hasn't been debunked here, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ , go ahead and bring it up, otherwise it's a waste of time.

But. . . You asked me to answer for something. . . I suppose I don't follow what you're trying to say when you accuse me of attempting to intimidate someone. It was said that both are supernatural and neither have empirical evidence to back them up, so both claims are functionally equivalent. As has been said, the comparison is one that is purposefully ridiculous to show one can make any claim if evidence isn't a requirement. But to be honest I don't know what the purpose of the thread is any longer, so I think I will be bowing out of this until some sort of coherence is returned to the thread. I certainly do not seem to be helping it on that course.

I don't feel like I have been brow beating. And, again, if Pears feels that my part has been in any way abusive or dishonest I hope she says so. I will say that iNow's comparison may feel insulting, but it was an attempt at show that one can make up almost anything and defend it the way any supernatural phenomena can be defended. It is a similar analogy to one that Carl Sagan used, with the addition of the corndogs. Just because the addition of the corndogs may seem insulting to a belief, it does not invalidate the analogy.

You're still shifting the goalposts and the burden of proof, but anyhow: http://astroweb1.physics.ox.ac.uk/~philcosmo2009/shtml/talk_shtml/pdf/s7.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953 Are two that touch on the subject, since I don't work or study in the QM I don't have a bunch of specific papers on hand nor am I inclined to spend a bunch of time searching them out for you. Here's a wiki entry that you could have easily googled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Probability To discuss religion in a reasonable manner, though it very often doesn't work very well.

I, personally, have not. But based on how certain aspects of quantum theory work you can use Bayesian statistics to work out the probability may be true based on the evidence we currently have. So it breaks every single law of the natural world? How is that in any way a definition that can be defended with more than 'because magic'. So something that breaks less rules of the natural world is less probable? There's a variety of problems with this. One is that you're explaining something that could be explained easier without a god just to justify a God. It's not the least bit reasonable. There is absolutely nothing about any of those statements that follow from anything except our 'because magic' explanation. Ants provide no explanation for anything, they exist. So explanation is not a criteria for existence or for making sense. If we say that the dragon is biological, we could explain it being invisible by it having exceptional camouflage in iNow's garage. We could also explain the corn-dogs by it eating corn-dogs but is unable to digest them. By that we have a more likely scenario that makes more sense than something that follows no physical rules, but somehow interacts and is the cause of all physical rules. That actually made me laugh. It's only incoherent because it's not God that is breaking those rules? I already said above.

Wrong, it's a probability statement. Not many people deserve much credit. Though, to be fair, I held many superstitions when I was younger for the very reason I gave. Either, neither has evidence and doesn't follow the principal of parsimony. I was answering a question about an analogy. But you have yet to demonstrate that they are in any way different in an objective matter. How can you say they are different without giving any difference except popularity? The point of verifiability is that in the natural world if it can't be verified and replicated than it doesn't have enough of an impact on anything to be useful. Therefore its plausibility doesn't matter when explaining or understanding anything about the natural world. The difference is one is a probable consequence of what we know is possible, the other is a story that has been told to people. This works on both the dragon and God so far as science and everything we know about the natural world. There is no argument against the dragon that would not similarly work for God, in fact there are more arguments against God than there are for the dragon because the concept of God makes more claims, as well as claims that are not internally consistent. So again, using the multiverse is a false analogy, and the dragon is not.

You know making a straw-man, shifting the burden of proof, and changing the goal posts are fallacious arguing techniques and makes it seem you are less interested in honest discussion and more interested in trying to muddy the conversion so you can say you win. If you read my post, or others posts, you'll notice that I never said we've had a cell spontaneously form under that environment. That would take incredible amount of time. We did say that abiogenesis and the big bang are based on multiple lines of evidence. You'll also notice that the formation of the cell as we know it now would be post abiogenesis, so not the topic of this discussion. Also, there is no one study that shows everything for anything. Science doesn't work like that, thinking again shows you should really study up on the things you are critiquing. I'll give you a jump start: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5805/1558.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=irene+chen&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Two things: One, the comparison I used was used because it is a common experience to see children acting in this manner. It is not necessarily childish. I could have also used the fact that many athletes will have a certain pair of socks (or underwear or whatever) every time they play. But that is a less common experience so I didn't use that analogy. To summarize, I used the analogy because it was easy to understand, not to 'put down' Two: You really don't pay attention to what is posted do you? Read the post above mine, we are talking to a her not a him. I, nor none of the others I have seen, have personally attacked her. I also have not made any attempt to put her down, and she doesn't seem to feel that we have. And do what? I'm not, I actually feel more disgusted with myself for still answering your posts with the hope that you actually understand what is being said, assuming you're even trying which is becoming more and more doubtful. I feel that statement won't quite get the reaction you hope for. Alright, now I'm going to help you. The word 'made' in the sentence you quoted indicates past tense. You are using the verb 'going to' which indicates future tense. So you already have a problem in meaning by switching tenses. There is your grammar help for the day. You're also trying to make the idea of helping someone seem to be negative, which doesn't even really make sense. Then you say I need help, which means that you want someone to do something disgusting to me since it was disgusting if I helped someone. So within the logic of your post you are making a personal attack, which is against forum rules. I'll let this one slide, but any more of those cleverly hidden personal attacks I may have to report you to the authorities.

Personal decisions I make on emotion (else I doubt I would be married), but factual information cannot be judged based on emotion. Also, using the qualifier of making decisions changes the goal posts and is fallacious. No I didn't, I made an analogy to help him see why one idea seems different to him subjectively. Obviously you didn't see the word 'like' in that sentence which qualified the statement as an analogy between two similar things. I didn't demand emotional meaning. I was giving a probable explanation to his feelings that the comparison iNow drew wasn't equatable. I have no emotional connection to either idea, nor due I care what the beliefs of others may be. In all honesty I define myself as apatheistic, meaning that I don't care at all if there is a deity or not and it's really pretty pointless to discuss if there is or not. Two are the ideas from stories, one is a probable consequence of physics as we know them. Emotional meanings aren't just based on the emotions people think of like anger, love, happiness, etc. Any drive or subjective feeling can be considered emotional. And the coherence of that sentence can be affected by emotion; the drive to decipher it, frustration if you can't, joy when you solve puzzles, etc. But that's a false analogy, the sentence is merely a a scramble of known words that follows the rules of language. Ideas, in and of themselves, don't need to follow rules yet they can still be coherent. A unicorn grants immortality, but it only shows itself to virgins. Both ideas are pretty ridiculous and don't really follow any rules we know the world to follow, but they are coherent. We are agreed on that to an extent. But there are many other factors that go into belief. Many of the ideas or beliefs of religions that people aren't raised around don't seem coherent or at all believable. But just being raised in that environment facilitates belief. An example is the idea that breaking a mirror bring bad luck, with thought the idea isn't coherent because it doesn't neither follows the rules of the world nor is there a reason or meaning that most know of associated with that idea. But since one may have heard it since childhood it isn't really questioned or thought about. We aren't talking about internal coherency of theories, we were talking about coherency for people looking at the system. Also, the description of QM theory is mathematical, like any physics theory, but it has real world consequences that can be seen. Because there is no evidence for duality and much evidence against it. I say likely because, with most ideas that involve non-material processes, dualists can always find a work around the evidence against it so there is no real way to falsify the idea. It's just most any duality theory that holds up to evidence causes the duality ideal to be redundant. But that's a whole separate discussion, and if you would like to discuss it you can open a new thread and I would happily participate. Subjective coherence and plausibility you can't measure, that's why mathematics are used. They are coherent, which is part of the probability. That's why scientifically you don't measure what is true by how easy it is to understand.

They seem different because one probably has some emotional meaning and the other doesn't. It's like when you try to give a child a different blanket when they want their favorite blanket. It seems different to them, but objectively there is no difference. But that doesn't have any effect on the truth of the idea. Quantum mechanics don't make sense to very many people, but they are very real. Mind/brain duality makes sense to a lot of people, but it is very likely incorrect. But by this logic anything can be considered reasonable because it's subjective.

How about the fact that those very specific conditions were created not because they were the best choice to create the wanted molecules, but because those conditions are what Earth would have been like for protolife. So it was testing the idea that life could develop in those conditions, not whether or not we could make them. IIRC, we can make a fairly functional cell if we chose the conditions, so your analogy was false because it was based on a false premise. The specific conditions weren't created to show that we could make protolife, the conditions were what it would have been like for protolife. His argument of you needing to study more is based on your misunderstanding of the entirety of the field you are critiquing, yours is based on. . . nothing? To shorten that, one 'belief' is based on evidence gathered from multiple fields of inquiry and the other is based on little to nothing. So false analogy. Anyone can spot holes in an idea that no body holds. When the obvious holes are shown to have been tested, and retested, and the idea is shown to be solid further study is needed to make an argument against a stance. So since the holes you point out are misunderstandings or plain wrong you need to actually learn the material you're critiquing.

Odd that that's what you found. Since all the participants that I know an approximate age for are over the age considered to be an adult, as well as fairly educated, I'm not sure what you were looking at. Please clarify what you mean by useful thought, because presenting evidence and discussing the faults/merits of that evidence is what most of this thread was and that is very useful. If you mean everyone agreeing to some idea because it sounds nice when you say useful thought processes you are using a very different definition of useful than I've ever heard.

IIRC flightless birds tend to have feathers that would be able to fly for at least part of their life, but they tend to lack the keeled sternum and other attributes of flying birds. Primitive feathers were a single hair-like filament then branched out into the leaf looking structure, as well as other feather types, of modern aves.

Except we see fiberous type feathers not suited for flight further back in the evolutionary lineage. So it's doubtful that these types of feathers helped much in terms of air time. http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

I think these things are much more complicated than you're giving them credit for. We don't know how hydras avoid senescence or if it would be a viable way for people to do so. We have an idea of the reason a naked molerat may be immune to cancer, but it is doubtful our bodies would do favorably using the exact same mechanisms. The cure may be more dangerous than the disease.

AFAIK it is currently unknown how hydras avoid senescence, or how they retain telomere length. But to implant a gene to regenerate telomeres would more likely result in cancer (which, IIRC, are biologically immortal) than to keep you alive.

If my life is controlled by someone else, it would explain why I go through life the same way I play role playing games. If I have a main story line (like doing my homework) I put it off by doing as many side missions I can get away with (hello sfn) before I do what I'm actually supposed to do.

Yeah, TV tends to do that. That's why you won't see sympathetic language used on almost any of the characters in that show. If you liked/sympathized with those who are dying crazy and horrible deaths everyone would just be p*$$ed that the show is making a profit on other people's misery. But as long as those who are dying are a$$holes, nobody cares.

At my university, the main difference is in the expectations during lab. Your basic chemistry course will teach you the basic information about measurement, equipment, precision, etc. and the analytical chem lecture only goes into a little more detail. But what is expected in lab in regards to detailed notebook, percent yield, standard errors, etc goes above and beyond what most first year chem students believe possible.

Personally I switched to an e-reader because I got tired of carrying 5+ books around campus so I could study, then read my other books on my breaks from studying. Also, instead of printing a bunch of powerpoints I can upload them to my reader and go through them on there. Honestly though, I probably would use a tablet if I had the money, though I am still terrified that I'm clumsy enough that I'll break it too easily.

Out of curiosity, was this tracheal tube system homologous to, say, a primitive chordate circulatory system or were they derived independently? Also, is it understood what the primitive character state was for this? I assume extremely primitive states relied solely on Brownian motion, but I've not seen how many primitive circulatory systems are assumed to have evolved independently.

So we don't get off topic, let's not debate when religions arose/specifics of any mythology. The examples were just used to show the OP was starting with a false premise, which seems to be a fair consensus.