Posted by BIOS 23 months ago

Evidence is not a "science" thing. It literally means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". It is the very basis on which we should hold our beliefs.

Biocentricism and the persistent self

Posted by BIOS 33 months ago

> "consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space"

I have a problem with this. There is no evidence to support this claim. Why does consciousness need to be anything but the product of biology? We built computers that leverage physical states to organize and compute without needing to tap into some consciousness pool (yes, I realize they are not at the same level yet, but we do have quantum computers in the works). Seems to me that death will feel a lot like before birth or when asleep and unconscious (nothing, not even darkness, no experience).

This relates only to the 'self' that died. All other life continues to experience and new life will bring about new experience, but to consider a persistent self seems counter intuitive to me. I consider myself to be of the larger system of consciousness. This is not a contiguous pool of consciousness outside of time and space, it is the aggregation of all sentient life. My matter and energy a very much intertwined with all else, and I (the universe as perceived through a local pinhole called 'Joe') will live forever. However, what my ego is attached to will certainly expire after it's one go.

Matter and energy can not be destroyed, sure. If you die near a tree, that tree will absorb your nutrients, but you will not experience as you did before (you won't have the faculties needed to consider experience).

Isn't it amazing enough that life made it far enough to realize it made it this far? Why is it necessary to live forever or to have any relation to a previous 'persistent self'? Sure, I see the allure, but where is the logic? I look forward to some evidence on these claims.

Evolution vs Creationism

Posted by BIOS 33 months ago

Here is a link to a resource from Berkeley

50% of Human DNA is shared with a banana. All life has DNA and has a common ancestor (as described by the phylogenetic tree). With humans and bananas, it was some 2 billion years ago in a single celled organism. For a long time, there were no sexes. There was only asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction evolved through a need to generate complex new genetic code. This process evolved over time as did everything else and different species went different ways on how they reproduce. The sexes of a species are genetically identical save the Y chromosome that is optionally engaged so there would be no need for each sex to evolve independent of one another.

Some animals are both:

"The perpetrator of this bizarre act, Siphotperon sp. 1, is a small sea slug found off the northeast coast of Australia. A simultaneous hermaphrodite, it has both male and female reproductive organs that it uses simultaneously during sex."

> "It is stated in Genesis that GOD created plants and animals first. Man was last. Actually Women were last."

My interpretation of this is that GOD is Creation itself and plants and animals came to be within this system with man being certainly last to arrive. This strikes me as an attempt to explain how the stars, the earth, animals, and humans came to be with the limited evidence available at the time (God of the Gaps). I do not find this book to provide compelling evidence for the literal origin of Creation. If you have any resources regarding the book's origin, I would be interested to learn more.

> "Why would an omnipotent being use a process?"

Why would an omnipotent being need to do anything at all beyond setting existence into motion if it is perfectly feasible for evolution to have occurred through natural and (recently) artificial selection?


The big bang theory is outside of the scope of my argument. I do not suggest that science offers more certain answers for creation (origin of existence and reality and matter and energy) itself than "God did it".

However, evolution has enough evidence behind it to where any other explanation for the evidence would be counter intuitive. Dog breeding shows even today before our eyes how artificial selection has shaped man's best friend.

Now take that and have nature slowly select the dominating variation of each species over the course of a billion years. The earliest fossils of our homo sapien species were found to be only 200k years old.

"Uncontested microfossils and chemical traces of life were present at least by 2.7 billion years ago."

Given these numbers, the evidence suggests that modern man has only been around for 0.00740740% (200K/2.7B) of the time that life has been evolving. That is more than enough time for random mutation and natural selection (including several mass extinctions where life almost didn't make it) to leave us where we are now.

"Less time separates us from Tyrannosaurus rex than separated T. rex from Stegosaurus."

It is perfectly reasonable for your omnipotent god to answer questions science cannot. However, science can and did answer the question of the evolution of life. We aren't 100% on how it started (maybe it was God?) But I find the evidence to be very compelling that life evolved over the course of 2.7 billion years as the theory describes.

My belief here is compelled entirely by evidence. If validated evidence were to surface tomorrow to invalidate evolution, I would abandon evolution as a viable theory.

Without science based on evidence, we could not have gone to the moon, or properly understood our physical place in the cosmos (geocentric vs heliocentric). This is why it is so important to me that evidence and a scientific approach be prioritized in all cases.