Clear suggestion that global warming is a 'belief'. I never denied that it exists. It's a stupid Creationist term that attempts to equate people that accept scientific study with religious belief. It's largely meaningless, which is why people like you end up confused and think that it has something to do with abiogenesis. No, that's your opinion. What I've said is a fact. Evolution is a proven fact. You're merely asserting that abiogenesis had to be the start of life for it to be true, with no substance behind that assertion. The two aren't connected.
I think that it's probably more to do with the brain shutting down and the release of dimethyltryptamine, which has been known to produce similar effects. Studies of near death experiences don't suggest that it's a supernatural event.
I think you've missed the point of this thread. If you bother to take the time to read through it you'll find that there are some well thought out discussions and ideas
The existence of DMT in the brain is an interesting phenomenon anyway, but that's probably a discussion for another thread. I think the term 'supernatural' is a bit of a misnomer - if something happens in nature, then it's natural. The term supernatural suggests that it's something apart. There's a good book called 'super nature' I think.... I read it some years ago, and it has this theme running through it. I suppose my position is that, we incorrectly assume that we are at the pinnacle of our understanding, when in fact we are constantly reshaping our understanding of the universe around us with each and every new discovery and reassessment of old ideas. The neutrino travelling faster than the speed of light being the latest example of this type of observation.
No I have not missed the point. Evolution has probably provided life with a way out easing out of life. Some will take what nature has provided and put it into the hands of religion or mysticism. If a person has a firm faith in a supreme being, then there is a chance that they will be a believer in the soul. If they believe in a soul, they need to just the belief. Some will never be convinced of any other option.
Firstly 'elements' of evolution are proven, not ALL of evolution. hence its still a 'theory' evolution deals with what happened after creation, not what caused creation without creation there can be NO evolution I used abiogenesis as a word rather than creation for the purposes of avoiding a science v religion argument. As it is of no use imo. abiogenesis/creation had to happen for things to evolve FACT edit: i put with instead of without
You indicated that in the comment that I previously quoted. If you're not clear about what you mean and it adds fuel to the fire that you believe a load of batshit crazy lunacy, then that's your fault, not mine. I never denied that it exists, so why have you continually suggested that I have? It's stupid because it's a Creationist attempt to misrepresent actual views. What have I avoided or deflected? More baseless claims. Can evolution exist with some form of abiogenesis? Yes. Can it exist without some form of abiogenesis (which is what I think you meant to ask)? Yes. More utter, utter bullshit from the man who specialises in it. The Church of England and the Vatican, for example, both accept evolution to be true. Do you think that they believe that god didn't create life? Clearly not. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Look it up. At least now I know that it's ignorance that drives your bullshit on here. I've repeatedly stated that abiogenesis and evolution aren't interconnected and now you're arguing with me by saying the same thing. Life would have to exist in order to it to evolve, but the theory of evolution offers no insight into how that life came to exist, nor does it try to.
The chemical is called Dimethyltryptamine - or DMT for short. But it doesn't just exist in the brain. It's also in the root of several plants, notably in the compound that is made into Ayahuasca - a traditional Shamanic brew. The Shaman's state of mind during the Ayahuasca journey is used as the basis of what is considered real and fundamental in those cultures. It interesting that in the West, we use a reductionist approach to describe these experiences as simply chemical reactions in the brain. Is Love simply a chemical reaction in the brain? Or is it something more? As I've said before, the reductionist approach can describe the elements of a process, but it does not explain why it happens, or for what reason.
It's not about 'fairy tales' It's about the purpose of meaning. Why have it, if it serves no purpose?
there is no afterlife. you die, you cease to exist. simple as that. there is no disney style fairy tale.
There's a theory in Quantum physics that suggest there are a multitude of universes that sit parallel to our own three dimensional one. Not so long ago, this idea would have been dismissed by skeptics as mystical fantasy. On a more simple level, we construct our reality through our senses. What we see, smell, can touch, hear etc... Yet this is just a snapshot of a narrow bandwith of what is actually there. There are sounds beyond the reach of our ears, stimuli beyond the reach of our visual receptors. A good example is that a dog can hear sounds that are inaudible to us. It's there but we don't see/hear/perceive it Scotoma - Greek for darkness ..... it's there, but we don't see it.
Or, one is deluding themselves by believing that they have the full picture when they are omitting things that they may not have detected. Once, people thought that if you sailed off into the Ocean, you'd eventually fall off the edge of the Earth, they had no concept of what else could be beyond the limit of their known world - there was nothing there. Until they actually discovered that there was.
If the supernatural interacts with the natural world, then we should be able to measure that effect, even if we're unable to detect the supernatural itself. If it doesn't interact with the natural world, then it's irrelevant.
We can't detect dark matter, but we know it's there. as for the old 'medicate it away theory' I work in psychological services - and this is a common approach. However, it's designed to suit society's norms, rather than the 'patient's' as society likes to dictate what is real and what is not, when in fact, it's all an arbitrary construct of our minds.
