No, because we’re talking science, and you keep trying to slip your religious concepts into the conversation. If you want to talk about “Adam” we can turn this into mythology thread if you like.
I am not religious, and I am not slipping anything; what I discuss is 100 % purposeful
, I hold no need to slip anything in. You just can’t control it; and you don’t like that.
When you want to talk about the Bible, the “Spirit” and Adam, you’ve left the world of science and entered the world of religion.
The Spirit is the science of God, and the bible his science book. The Spirit is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths that were systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
Science in a nutshell.
No, just gibberish. The Bible is just a book of mythology, the “spirit” is just a religious term that you are using so vaguely as to make it meaningless, and the “science of God” is “there is no evidence that there’s a God”.
And the Bible is a religious book and both God and spirit are religious terms. You are religious, and you are trying to push religious ideas, not scientific ones.
I am pushing my ideas!
Not very well.
I don’t have the ability to link to a recipe (being on my phone), but you might want to consider putting them into a Monte Cristo sandwich. Don’t forget to peel them first, and be careful of the seeds.
Graham Hancock? :dubious:
CMC fnord!
I think we’re done here. There’s nothing left to say.
Last one out get the lights.
I am not done, the topic interest me. There is more to consciousness than we know.
The post I quoted above is, quite possibly, the most idiotic, ludicrous, and just plain stupid assemblage of words crammed together without care for reason, logic, or simple common sense I have ever, ever seen. What is the point in continuing a discussion with someone who can produce something like that with a straight face?
Well, we could continue to share recipes for fresh-picked blueberries.
As long as everybody is clear on what is meant by the term “blueberries,” I mean.
Those things with laces you wear on your feet, right?
Self consciousness can only manifest itself in human beings;
But in my humble opinion, it never manifested itself in ancient man, only after Adam. So a whole world of beaming examples of how consciousness did not grow like weeds in us is at our disposal; consciousness has an origin, and its origin is the same as ours.
That website uses the word “theory” as a scientific term a lot, but not once in the entire website does it use it correctly. I reject it.
I wonder what your rejection will mean in the scope of all things? Will it be strong enough to close the website, or will it just further build on this thread?
I am building a theory, and building it strong.
Time and Consciousness really interest me, I wish I could have attended this conference and heard the speeches on that;
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/2014TSCPlenarySpeakers.htm
because all those millions of years early man lived, it never really developed; so time is not a grower or provider of consciousness.
You’ve convinced a grand total of 0 people so far. I’d hate to see what one of your weaker theories looks like!
But we await you submitting your “theory” to a peer reviewed journal and seeing the feedback you get.
From here:
what is it you’re building, again?