(November 19, 2018 at 4:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 2:50 pm)Everena Wrote: Everena: Wrong. We believe higher intelligence was involved in the creation of this universe. You are the ones who require magic as your explanation. Define "natural" in that context.

Show your work.

How did the magic man do its stuff?
Where did it get the stuff to do the creating?
Where was it while it planned the creating?
Where is the evidence that supports all of the above?

Saying magic man dun it slapping your hands and claiming victory is just laughable.

Especially when there are rival ideas for the creation.

Some with evidence some just speculation at the moment but. The higher intelligence is not only not the only idea on the table but by far the least one.

God is NOT a man, first of all. As I have pointed out repeatedly, higher intelligence does not require magic. God always has been and always will be just like our true selves/souls always have been and always will be. God got the "stuff" from an already pre-existing universe, far greater than this one, where we have all always resided. My belief is that our true selves are existing there (not conscious) because our consciousness is existing here temporarily (until we die and wake again there)  in the type of superposition proven by quantum mechanics.

Waffles, lol.

Here's the fun bit, though..since you've gone back to the pre existing universe thing. If the meat fairy wasn't required to explain the universe, and got his meat fairying stuff from an existent universe.....then why would it be required to explain the stuff in this universe, or on this rock? Even if it did create this rock or this life..since it got it's stuff from somewhere else, it's no longer the ultimate cause of anything - even in your accounting.

Was there a fairy fairy that made meat fairies and the universe they lived in?

(November 19, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Everena Wrote: God is NOT a man, first of all. As I have pointed out repeatedly, higher intelligence does not require magic. God always has been and always will be just like our true selves/souls always have been and always will be. God got the "stuff" from an already pre-existing universe, far greater than this one, where we have all always resided. My belief is that our true selves are existing there (not conscious) because our consciousness is existing here temporarily (until we die and wake again there)  in the type of superposition proven by quantum mechanics.

Cool story.
Needs some zombies and dragons though.

Are you *really* so f'ing out of it, and detached from reality you actually expect anyone would buy that rubbish ?

(November 19, 2018 at 4:51 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Neither Penrose nor Hameroff are Neuro-scientists. Sorry ... another fallacy. They are not authorities in Neuro-science.
Penrose (while highly respected in math and physics) has always dabbled in "consciousness".
The Phys.org article says DERIVED, not received, and there is no evidence for "received".
Developmental psychology knows all about the human STEPS infants and children LEARN, in which they BECOME conscious.
There is no "point" at which something is "received" .... it develops.

Too bad Woo Princess lost again.

Edit : BTW, the thing Penrose is most famous for, is his book "Cycles of Time", in which he proposes the universe had no beginning, just expands and contracts ... infinitely ... so Woo Princess' point about the universe needing a creator ... the person she uses here, Roger Penrose, is in basic disagreement over. Oh well. But to get an education before one starts using experts that refute your points.

Penrose is STILL an atheist. He is a "Distinguished Supporter" of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs,"

You are once again wrong and confused. Two separate things. 
The first was the hypothesis from neuroscientists about energy emitted by brain waves and it's relationship to the soul. http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-9101921_47331.htm

The second was the theory of consciousness that I have been following for 20 years by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

This is Penrose talking about it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
This is Hameroff talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_w39gHqF3Q

This is an article explaining that their theory has been partially proven and accomodates spiritual theories about consciousness and materialist theories. According to Hameroff in the video above, theiry theory of consciousness leans more towards proving the spiritual theories about it, and that is why they suffered through harsch criticism about it for many years, until they were finally able to prove that they were right in 2014.
  https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

---

(November 19, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Waffles, lol.

Here's the fun bit, though..since you've gone back to the pre existing universe thing.  If the meat fairy wasn't required to explain the universe, and got his meat fairying stuff from an existent universe.....then why would it be required to explain the stuff in this universe, or on this rock?  Even if it did create this rock or this life..since it got it's stuff from somewhere else, it's no longer the ultimate cause of anything - even in your accounting.

Was there a fairy fairy that made meat fairies and the universe they lived in?

The pre-existing universe always has been. Infinite like our souls. God has always lived there with us. Nothing made any of us. We are what is.

(November 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 4:51 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Neither Penrose nor Hameroff are Neuro-scientists. Sorry ... another fallacy. They are not authorities in Neuro-science.
Penrose (while highly respected in math and physics) has always dabbled in "consciousness".
The Phys.org article says DERIVED, not received, and there is no evidence for "received".
Developmental psychology knows all about the human STEPS infants and children LEARN, in which they BECOME conscious.
There is no "point" at which something is "received" .... it develops.

Too bad Woo Princess lost again.

Edit : BTW, the thing Penrose is most famous for, is his book "Cycles of Time", in which he proposes the universe had no beginning, just expands and contracts ... infinitely ... so Woo Princess' point about the universe needing a creator ... the person she uses here, Roger Penrose, is in basic disagreement over. Oh well. But to get an education before one starts using experts that refute your points.

Penrose is STILL an atheist. He is a "Distinguished Supporter" of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs,"

You are once again wrong and confused. Two separate things. 
The first was the hypothesis from neuroscientists about energy emitted by brain waves and it's relationship to the soul. http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-9101921_47331.htm

The second was the theory of consciousness that I have been following for 20 years by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

This is Penrose talking about it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
This is Hameroff talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_w39gHqF3Q

This is an article explaining that their theory has been partially proven and accomodates spiritual theories about consciousness and materialist theories. According to Hameroff in the video above, theiry theory of consciousness leans more towards proving the spiritual theories about it, and that is why they suffered through harsch criticism about it for many years, until they were finally able to prove that they were right in 2014.
  https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

---

(November 19, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Waffles, lol.

Here's the fun bit, though..since you've gone back to the pre existing universe thing.  If the meat fairy wasn't required to explain the universe, and got his meat fairying stuff from an existent universe.....then why would it be required to explain the stuff in this universe, or on this rock?  Even if it did create this rock or this life..since it got it's stuff from somewhere else, it's no longer the ultimate cause of anything - even in your accounting.

Was there a fairy fairy that made meat fairies and the universe they lived in?

The pre-existing universe always has been. Infinite like our souls. God has always lived there with us. Nothing made any of us. We are what is.

Too bad Woo Princess.
Religion will never be proven by science. It cannot. The steps of the scientific method cannot accommodate religion.
The fact you inter-mix the two demonstrates you know nothing about either.

(November 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Waffles, lol.

Here's the fun bit, though..since you've gone back to the pre existing universe thing.  If the meat fairy wasn't required to explain the universe, and got his meat fairying stuff from an existent universe.....then why would it be required to explain the stuff in this universe, or on this rock?  Even if it did create this rock or this life..since it got it's stuff from somewhere else, it's no longer the ultimate cause of anything - even in your accounting.

Was there a fairy fairy that made meat fairies and the universe they lived in?

The pre-existing universe always has been. Infinite like our souls. God has always lived there with us. Nothing made any of us. We are what is.

You mean, fairy fairies are a superfluous entity...and meat fairies are the ultimate cause of nothing...? Geee, ya don't say.

(November 19, 2018 at 6:17 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Everena Wrote: You are once again wrong and confused. Two separate things. 
The first was the hypothesis from neuroscientists about energy emitted by brain waves and it's relationship to the soul. http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-9101921_47331.htm

The second was the theory of consciousness that I have been following for 20 years by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

This is Penrose talking about it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
This is Hameroff talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_w39gHqF3Q

This is an article explaining that their theory has been partially proven and accomodates spiritual theories about consciousness and materialist theories. According to Hameroff in the video above, theiry theory of consciousness leans more towards proving the spiritual theories about it, and that is why they suffered through harsch criticism about it for many years, until they were finally able to prove that they were right in 2014.
  https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

---

The pre-existing universe always has been. Infinite like our souls. God has always lived there with us. Nothing made any of us. We are what is.

Too bad Woo Princess.
Religion will never be proven by science. It cannot. The steps of the scientific method cannot accommodate religion.
The fact you inter-mix the two demonstrates you know nothing about either.

Nothing changes that We are What IS

(November 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 4:51 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Neither Penrose nor Hameroff are Neuro-scientists. Sorry ... another fallacy. They are not authorities in Neuro-science.
Penrose (while highly respected in math and physics) has always dabbled in "consciousness".
The Phys.org article says DERIVED, not received, and there is no evidence for "received".
Developmental psychology knows all about the human STEPS infants and children LEARN, in which they BECOME conscious.
There is no "point" at which something is "received" .... it develops.

Too bad Woo Princess lost again.

Edit : BTW, the thing Penrose is most famous for, is his book "Cycles of Time", in which he proposes the universe had no beginning, just expands and contracts ... infinitely ... so Woo Princess' point about the universe needing a creator ... the person she uses here, Roger Penrose, is in basic disagreement over. Oh well. But to get an education before one starts using experts that refute your points.

Penrose is STILL an atheist. He is a "Distinguished Supporter" of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs,"

You are once again wrong and confused. Two separate things. 
The first was the hypothesis from neuroscientists about energy emitted by brain waves and it's relationship to the soul. http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-9101921_47331.htm

The second was the theory of consciousness that I have been following for 20 years by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

This is Penrose talking about it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
This is Hameroff talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_w39gHqF3Q

This is an article explaining that their theory has been partially proven and accomodates spiritual theories about consciousness and materialist theories. According to Hameroff in the video above, theiry theory of consciousness leans more towards proving the spiritual theories about it, and that is why they suffered through harsch criticism about it for many years, until they were finally able to prove that they were right in 2014.
  https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

---

The phys.org article does not describe that Penrose and Hameroff's theories have been "partially proven".  That there might be electronic vibrations in a microtubule (something I'm not sure is proven, but am willing to accept) has nothing to do with proving Penrose's ORCH-OR theory of consciousness.  The latter is still considered woo in the science world.

Penrose is brilliant, but in a crazy sort of way.  He is great at imagining things which never turn out to be true.

(November 19, 2018 at 6:27 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(November 19, 2018 at 6:12 pm)Everena Wrote: You are once again wrong and confused. Two separate things. 
The first was the hypothesis from neuroscientists about energy emitted by brain waves and it's relationship to the soul. http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-9101921_47331.htm

The second was the theory of consciousness that I have been following for 20 years by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

This is Penrose talking about it  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
This is Hameroff talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_w39gHqF3Q

This is an article explaining that their theory has been partially proven and accomodates spiritual theories about consciousness and materialist theories. According to Hameroff in the video above, theiry theory of consciousness leans more towards proving the spiritual theories about it, and that is why they suffered through harsch criticism about it for many years, until they were finally able to prove that they were right in 2014.
  https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

---

The phys.org article does not describe that Penrose and Hameroff's theories have been "partially proven".  That there might be electronic vibrations in a microtubule (something I'm not sure is proven, but am willing to accept) has nothing to do with proving Penrose's ORCH-OR theory of consciousness.  The latter is still considered woo in the science world.

Penrose is brilliant, but in a crazy sort of way.  He is great at imagining things which never turn out to be true.

False. Read the article. They proved the part that scientists were saying was not possible and it was corroborated. The naysayers claimed the brain was too wet, warm and noisy for quantum processes. But they were wrong. And you are wrong. It is now proven science and NO ONE considers it WOO anymore.

(May 4, 2018 at 2:48 am)CDF47 Wrote: DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes.  Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G.  In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.  In the same way, the instruction necessary to assemble amino acids into proteins are conveyed by the sequences of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA.  This chemical code has been called the “Language of Life” and it is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe.

With more than 99 percent of these designs producing species that went extinct because they didn't have what they needed to survive in their environment, the designer can't be too intelligent.