pfrankinstein wrote:Alone 'Primal selection' can be easily quashed, one must bear in mind the unfolding of selection itself:

1, Primal selection = Non-conscious selection.

2, Natural selection = Unconscious, sub-conscious selection

3, Cognitive selection = Conscious selection.

The supposition that 'selection' began at source in the beginning fits neatly into the observed pattern, both on a Grand universe scale, and also at ones own human personal level.

........................

Science observation = [SO]

http://youtu.be/B3kFPBtc9BE

Paul.

Oh my, how clever and profound...















NOT!

Oh, you're back.
Pity.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:"My sister was recently diagnosed with multiple personalities...yesterday she called me...my caller ID exploded."

Oh my, how clever and profound...

NOT

Paul.

Nice knee-jerk reaction. First of all, that's a quote from comedian/actor Zach Galifianakis, not something I came up with. I could care less if it doesn't impress you. Second, you're the one asserting that your stupid ideas are in some way scientific and profound. They aren't, as evidenced by your repeated failed attempts to convince the mods to move this thread to the science section.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

No, you asked me and I gave you my answer on the question of "good". There is no good that can apply to all of existence, only
And so to answer the question regarding "should mankind/science move forward as 'atheist' 'agnostic' or 'christian'?", you have made a category mistake in that you have presented three different things as if they were in the same category.



An "atheism" is to not have a belief about god or to have no belief in gods or to doubt the existence of gods,
The "agnostic" is to take the stance that the proposition of the claims about gods are unknown or unknowable
A "christian" is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour or lives by ideals that are claimed to be from Jesus.

How can these three possibly be related to consider them an evolution ?.

Forgive my naivety but... Seems to me the lead "G" question remains more or less the same; whilst shifting opinions find evermore complex labels/categories/sub-categories and like minded folk form groups.

Simple questions can be answered most simply "Yes", "No"; or "i don't know the answer, I'm still looking".

"G" Question = Atheist "No", Agnostic, Christian "Yes".

Paul.

Christian are (generally) monotheist so the god question is actually No for all other gods except one God. That would be fine but they also pile on a whole boatload of other nonsense about people rising from the dead and an afterlife and an ever-shifting set of miracles.

In no way is Christianity ever comparable to Atheism. Theism may be but not "Christianity".

Atheists (usually) consider there to be insufficient evidence for any god and (usually) don't subscribe to any supernatural realm.

These are not an evolution.

pfrankinstein wrote:For example, Both atheists and Christians claim to know the unknown....

What would be an example of an atheist's claim of knowledge of the unknown?

!Paul.

Edit: removed stray quote tag.

pfrankinstein wrote:Are you unable to think for yourself?

Ken Ham?

pfrankinstein wrote:
As an atheist i penned the science supposition 'One bang one process', i then broadly divided the one process logically by noting total difference in both material and domain.

The Process of Primordial evolution, the process of Darwinian evolution, Cognitive evolution.

Each process related to the other. Am i describing ONE process or THREE?

Paul.

As I see it, they are only related in that one follows the other, in (our) retrospect. One thing leading to another, without a shared mechanism. And so I would say you are describing three processes, not one.

Analogies don't fully apply, but I'll attempt one anyway: Metal is formed in supernovae, and is abundant on earth. | Humans then mine, smelt and manufacture the metal into car parts. | The finished car is driven by a human.
These are processes that follow each other, but have different mechanisms. They are only related in that one follows the other - they are not part of one, continuous common process, other than perhaps in (our) retrospect.

"Winding it back", the car could be made without ever being driven, the metal could be mined and manufactured without it being used in a car, and metal could exist on earth without us using it at all. Only in retrospect are the various processes related, to form a car that is driven.

"Winding it back", biological evolution could have ended up without cognizant beings, and the cosmos could have formed without biological evolution following. Because they are not one process, but three separate ones following each other. Only in retrospect are the various processes related, to form cognizant beings. IMO.

If you want to say (I don't know if you do or not) that the Big Bang must lead to biological evolution, and biological evolution must lead to conscious beings with increasing cognitive abilities, because it is all part of one continuous process, then I'm all for that, but then you need to bring out the science that has lead you to that conclusion, you can't just assert it.

What you use as the common thread between the processes to tie them together to form one process, is selection. As you outlined above; Non-conscious selection, Un/sub-conscious selection, and Conscious selection. But they are not the same.

There's "sieve-like, one-off selection" (Non-conscious), biological natural selection (which can also be 'sieve-like', but builds on heredity) (Un/Sub-conscious), and you have the selection made by cognizant beings, where many possible outcomes are weighed against one another, and the one deemed best is chosen (Conscious selection).

I don't see how they bind it all together as one process, other than in semantics, with the word 'selection' as a common thread.

pfrankinstein wrote:I've grown quite contented at being here in the pseudoscience thread, it means that i am allowed to express myself as i please.

Don't believe you. If you are to win your Nobel Prize, before your ideas are routinely taught to schoolchildren and used centuries into the future as the basis of a future galactic civilization, in which you are remembered by people on thousands of planets as one of the greatest geniuses in history, you'll have to make the transition from "Pseudoscience" to "Science" at some point.

!!Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:
The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science, don't be fooled by the breadth of the framework.

LOL! Sorry, but you're dead wrong. Have you ever taken a science class?

pfrankinstein wrote:Are you unable to think for yourself?

Sure. Are you able to stop navel-gazing for a minute to put a coherent thought together?

pfrankinstein wrote:I've grown quite contented at being here in the pseudoscience thread, it means that i am allowed to express myself as i please.

Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

$$$ Paul $$$

pfrankinstein wrote:The supposition 'One Bang = One Process' = science

No it isn't, and I already explained why, and now you have exposed another one to boot. Suppositions are not science, and supporting suppositions certainly isn't. Science is about testing suppositions, and it doesn't hold on to them when they've been shown not to hold water or not to teach us anything that we didn't already know without the supposition. Your 'theory' has been exposed to every single failure listed above. You aren't testing it, you're clinging on to it after it's been shown to have no value, it doesn't hold water and it doesn't teach us anything we didn't already know. This isn't science, it's pseudophilosophical wibble.

Edit delete post - fucked if I'm going to bother to reformate if someone can't post with the quotes all tidy.

pfrankinstein wrote:Our universe is NOT a quantum Universe. By experience it can be observed that the parameters of this universe dictate the outcome. = Cause and selected effect.

Oh, really? I'm sure that Werner Heisenberg would like a word with you about that.

Phenomenon do not appear randomly as if by magic from nowhere.

Perhaps some study of such processes as the Casimir effect would be in order here.