The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: SuperFrog
Millions killed by what? The hands of men with weapons invented by science, health destroyed by pesticides invented by men. Cancers, diabetes, autism, endemic in the environment,caused by what exactly? Starvation through greed of multinationals that steel their resources and despots paid to comply with them.

Firstly, science is around about few hundred years, where humans kill each other as far as we can see back in past. So to blame it on science is just incorrect, you can blame it on our nature and animal instinct to fight for resources. Interestingly, you will find something very similar in other primates as well... please read following:

A Mother Rises Through The Ranks In 'Monkey Kingdom'

You can actually listen interview by clicking on appropriate link.

As for rest of bashing of science for shortcomings of those on power, who are primarily validating their 'rights' and/or 'greed' that you notice by their religions... very interesting...

As for this statement - 'Cancers, diabetes, autism, endemic in the environment,caused by what exactly?' Do you even know how long humans know for those sicknesses? Are you really so convinced that without science we would live better/longer/healthier?? You have to be well delusional to even consider something like that... Rather then talking and making statements out of thin air, you could do bit research to find out that cancer is not something science brought you... en.wikipedia.org... Here is diabetes history: www.defeatdiabetes.org... It is much harder to get correct info how long autism occur among humans, but only in 1908 we gave it name and it does not leave traces. But we have some old cases about schizophrenia with people hearing voices and some even acting on them... (sounds familiar??

)

originally posted by: kennyb72
Free will is the gift of mankind and you blame the creator for their short little lives. Every precious soul born on earth has a plan prepared for them and many of them never get the chance to see it through. What a nerve to blame anything other than humans for those atrocities. And you quote the same Sam Harris that thinks it's OK to torture people.

'Free will' excludes 'prepared plan'. You can't have both. Time to decide, but you already know answer and how false is this idea that some being specifically for YOU has a plan... makes you feel 'big'? Right?

Here is thing or two about religion, free will and how messed up whole idea is, told in easy to undestand language... by no other then late Carlin.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Truly remarkable logic, Is that what science teaches you?

You are way off, my friend...

a reply to: rnaa

Phenomenology is a rather nebulous field of study or practice, as it tries to explain the structure of conscious experiences from the first person perspective. It is an attempt to explain phenomena as purely personal and subjective, although the definition appears to mean different things to Physics and Philosophy. What it does not do is explain phenomena itself, but rather how we perceive it and questions whether it is a universal phenomena or a phenomenological experience by an individual.

I guess what you are suggesting is that phenomena is subjective, and in a sense has to be a truism and could well explain why some people recognise a phenomena and act upon that perception, as in a hunch, or strong inexplicable feeling about something, while others do not notice or simply ignore it.

Hylozoics explains fully how our consciousness is divided onto four distinct planes of existence, which after studying the nature of our layered reality is much easier to understand. Phenomenology is a one world view of a multiworld experience and can only ever be interpreted from that perspective.

By the definitions posted below, I could be described as a phenomenologist because I feel (yes feel) that I understand the demarcation of states of consciousness and practise the observation of my mind in the third party. A very useful technique to maintain physical,emotional,intellectual and causal equilibrium.

I am not entirely sure why you pointed me to this, as it doesn’t come close to a scientific explanation as to our ability to bend reality to best suit our circumstances. I am not just talking about me, everybody does this, but most people don't recognise it or dismiss it as coincidence, or just forget about the many amazing synchronicity and shrug them off.

I think there comes a time in most peoples lives, when it gets beyond the point that it can be ignored, and then we start to observe and record it.

Synchronicity happens to me routinely, it always has my best interest at heart. It always happens in a way to not disadvantage others, it brings people together. It floods knowledge into my life from unexpected sources and chance meetings when I am seeking answers.

Something is intelligently guiding my life to bring the best possible outcome for me, and has saved my life on several occasions. It has ultimately explained to me how it works by guiding me to the ancient esoteric knowledge.

I don't need science to explain it to me, I just wish science could understand it, so as to explain the phenomena to others. My greatest desire is that we can all benefit from it.

I personally have no further questions, as I now understand it in as much detail as I need.

Source
Phenomenology came into its own with Husserl, much as epistemology came into its own with Descartes, and ontology or metaphysics came into its own with Aristotle on the heels of Plato.

Yet phenomenology has been practiced, with or without the name, for many centuries. When Hindu and Buddhist philosophers reflected on states of consciousness achieved in a variety of meditative states, they were practicing phenomenology. When Descartes, Hume, and Kant characterized states of perception, thought, and imagination, they were practicing phenomenology.

When Brentano classified varieties of mental phenomena (defined by the directedness of consciousness), he was practicing phenomenology. When William James appraised kinds of mental activity in the stream of consciousness (including their embodiment and their dependence on habit), he too was practicing phenomenology. And when recent analytic philosophers of mind have addressed issues of consciousness and intentionality, they have often been practicing phenomenology.

Still, the discipline of phenomenology, its roots tracing back through the centuries, came to full flower in Husserl.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I could fill an entire blog with responses to your last post in an attempt to explain to you my position and like a dog to a bone you will purposely mis-interpret my words and wilfully take the wrong meaning when an obvious ambiguity is expressed, based on the assumption that I am communicating with a rational mind.

Your last three post have been aggressive when I have simply made the observation that some posters on this thread have a spiritual incapacity. That was not meant as a slight to anybody, merely an observation and acknowledgment of your own admissions.

I don't enjoy your negative attitude towards me and so I will take my own advice and not feed the dog, sorry, I meant frog.

We're done!

a reply to: kennyb72

It is very interesting how even in this post, you don't even try to touch on all of your invalid statements that I posted/noticed above. Just for you info, you claim science is responsible for cancer, diabetes among other things, then when provided with facts, now you are playing 'some people are incapable of spirituality'. If spirituality IS misinterpretation of facts in order to prove you are more worthy then others, sure I will never fit description.

So, stop bashing science, stop misquote and misinterpretation and you will not get this kind of response... Keep your woodoo science for your self...

originally posted by: kennyb72
I could fill an entire blog with responses to your last post in an attempt to explain to you my position

How about keeping to the topic of the thread instead of trying to steer it to being about your personal philosophy?

originally posted by: kennyb72
Nowhere In my statement have I suggested that anyone was mentally handicapped for not understanding or seeing the truth of reality, I am talking of a spiritual awareness that some have and some most certainly do not. I would call that spiritually handicapped. How else can we explain that for some it is as clear as day and others, not even on the radar.

You called it "mental faculties" and earlier in the thread equated it to not understanding beyond a coloring book. I just think there are better ways to express yourself aside from putting down others. You've done it with scientists, atheists, and pretty much anybody that doesn't agree with you. Maybe you didn't realize it but you come off as very combative in these threads, and seem to want a fight.

Eureka, and when science can explain that to me, I will be relieved because then we will know that research toward explaining the reality of life is on the right track. Thank you Barcs, now I know we are on the same page, and I am delighted that you experience this.

Also the more you accept it, the more it manifests in your life. hylozoics explains it completely in a very logical scientific and non woo woo way. Science yet to be explored.

The view is subjective. It is not scientific or logical. This is what I've been trying to explain. My own subjective belief does not prove it. I admit this, you do not, you consider it absolute truth and fault people for not believing it. This is the wrong way of doing things.

Coincidentally, that is exactly the feeling I get talking to evolutionists.

And right back to the cheap shots at science. Evolution is valid. Stop attacking scientists, especially when they DO know WAY more than you do about evolution and science.

Sorry, but if you are trying to consider yourself enlightened or spiritual or in the know, you have a ways to go. You cannot call yourself a spiritual person when you put others down who don't believe your view and attack scientists and folks familiar with the science with insulting generalizations. That is the exact opposite of enlightenment. You just need to realize this before you go too far down the wrong path. The key is controlling your emotions and stop trying to blame everything on a person. It's easy to do, but you can't blame anybody but yourself. YES, I'm saying that the dude driving slowly in front of you in the fast lane, or the guy tailgating you in the slow lane is YOUR FAULT. You create your reality. You put yourself here. Don't trap yourself somewhere you can't get out of.

This is the real reason I responded. Consider it guidance, help, advice or whatever you'd like. It's your reality, don't blow it. Reality is fragile. It is very easy to go from the illusion of thinking you've got everything in control, to everything coming out from under you and unraveling. Trust me, I've been there. Avoid the ego, avoid the negative emotions. If you keep poking the hornets nest you will eventually get stung. The self destructive path is not the enlightened path. I also type this to myself.

Peace.

a reply to: Barcs

The view is subjective. It is not scientific or logical. This is what I've been trying to explain. My own subjective belief does not prove it. I admit this, you do not, you consider it absolute truth and fault people for not believing it. This is the wrong way of doing things.

OK, this is it, definitely the last post. Barcs, you have just told me you would not believe your own eyes or listen to you own heart or acknowledge your own experiences if science disagrees with you. I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.

Your psychiatric advice I know is well meant, but you couldn't have been further off the mark with your evaluation. When I write in a blog like this, my consciousness is firmly rooted in my mental plane and I rarely visit my lower emotional states, ever in fact, I am very happy to report.

As I have explained previously, I have no problem understanding scientific concepts as most idea's are rather elementary with increasing levels of complexity when things get technical in attempts to measure and quantify it.

I havn't insulted anybody, people just choose to be insulted because my statement touched a nerve. I have simply stated the obvious. I most certainly have felt some heat from the other side of my monitor, but I can handle that.

I do find it interesting and informative to see how others process information and handle cognitive dissonance, as many people appear to prefer to be told how to think, and rely on peer acceptance rather than challenge their own understanding. I am self assured and happy in my understanding but I am also quite willing to change my views if my own experiences and a particular concept coincide.

It is your decision if you wish to respond to this but I won't be tempted to continue this dialogue, as we are worlds apart in our philosophies on life and it is getting us nowhere.

Peace, back to you Barcs

Warm regards

Kenny

originally posted by: kennyb72
I do find it interesting and informative to see how others process information and handle cognitive dissonance, as many people appear to prefer to be told how to think, and rely on peer acceptance rather than challenge their own understanding.

Interesting that you can't see that this is what you are doing here.

First off the topic of the thread is "questions that abiogenesis needs to answer, before evolution". The title and the OP say that you can't tackle the question of evolution without tackling the question of abiogenesis first. Around page 17 the OP tried to pull a fast one, probably because they saw the error and wanted to save face.

What it isn't about anyone finding spirituality or enlightenment. Which is what you seem to want to turn it into.

You say that you understand that some just can't see the truth but you keep wanting to move their heads in that direction.

You say that you understand that if someone doesn't learn that in this life that it means that this wasn't the lesson for this life then you harp on as if it is important for them to grasp what you are saying.

You said you were a slow learner but that you now understood last time I pointed these things out yet, here you are acting as if you don't understand and, more importantly, it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which I think was resolved pages ago.

a reply to: daskakik

To me, bigger surprise is previous paragraph...

I havn't insulted anybody, people just choose to be insulted because my statement touched a nerve. I have simply stated the obvious. I most certainly have felt some heat from the other side of my monitor, but I can handle that.

where in topic only person that played on 'insulted' card was him...


At least we are done with bashing science, I see...

a reply to: SuperFrog

Oh not quite, there was some dramamatic acting from a couple of the other creationist/IDer crowd. I would not be so sure that science will not get attacked again. Just because he's on a Chopra high, does not mean he will not revert

a reply to: SuperFrog

In all fairness, I did bring up the insults to him a few times, which is probably why he mentioned it. I don't think he realizes that he's doing it, but when you pigeon hole somebody to the mental capacity of a coloring book because they don't believe your world view, it's a bit over the edge. There is a big difference between not understanding a worldview and saying that you don't believe it. Scrutinizing people's claims is pretty much what makes us human. You can't take anything on face value these days.