Evolution

[Amarok]

Wrong once again yog.




Atheism and materialism go hand in hand but atheists forget that the matter like everything else in this universe is made of vibrations.

Yeah, the phrase "universe is made of vibrations" can mean any number of things, so until you specify exactly what you mean by this, I have no reason to believe your implied claim here, because it has no definite meaning.  Words without definite meaning are what we call 'nonsense'.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conte...ration.pdf

Yeah, this is nothing more than a puree of pseudoscientific drivel.  Equivocating one moment, making unsound inferences the next, it's all over the map.  You need to be specific about what you're claiming or fuck off.

Vibrations are alive with a degree that vary from matter to the most alive entity in the universe.
Being alive clearly means that consciousness is there so all your BS that chemical reactions cause things to happen is just a load of steaming dung.  

Yeah, I have no fucking idea what you mean when you say that "Vibrations are alive" here.  Until you can supply some definite, specific meaning to your words here, it's just meaningless crap.  Nothing follows logically from meaningless crap.  I suspect that you're back in the territory of your earlier claim that the universe is a mental projection of God.  You backed off on that claim pretty fast once evidence was demanded.  Chemical reactions are well understood material phenomenon.  "Vibrations" are not.  Define your terms or the only steaming pile of dung here is your vapid rhetoric.

In the meantime, nothing you've presented challenges the example of what ordinary people refer to when they talk of "chemicals" as playing the explanatory role that what you claimed was necessarily filled by what you referred to as "consciousness."  If you're just playing a game of rotating definitions here, then your claims are nothing but meaningless equivocations.  As I recall, the whole business of plants experiencing pain was brought up to support your idea that everything is conscious.  So it seems you've argued full circle here, using the assumption that everything is conscious as evidence in support of the claim that everything is conscious.  That's nothing more than begging the question.  That's simply not how this works.  Plants were pointed to as an example of something that is not conscious.  You can't simply assume what you have set out to prove and use that as support for your claim.

His argument sounds like a huge composition fallacy