of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity
"mental activity" is an action.
of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
A process is an action
7. Philos. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
8. raise one's consciousness, to increase one's awareness and understanding of one's own needs, behavior, attitudes, etc., esp. as a member of a particular social or political group.
[1625–35; CONSCIOUS + -NESS]
None of these definitions support your verb theory.
No, in fact, most of them do. I don't know if you're keen on the fact that VERB = ACTION.
Apart from dictionary definitions which actually support what I've said, but which you seemed to have misinterpreted, There is a missing SCIENTIFIC defintion. Scientific terminology is constantly in flux, especially as highly theoretical areas become more validated through discovery and rsearch. Most dictionaries do not have current, up-to-date medical and scientific terminology. You need a medical/scientific dictionary to suppliment it. I have several. You need a new one every year or so.
But to continue with your theory, it is regrettable that you try to reduce human consciousness to mere electrical feedback loops etc. I think you have confused Star Trek with reality. Mr. Data, for all his fictitious glory, is fantasy.
I know that. In fact, I think Star Trek is the worst science fiction show on television. I guess you didn't see that I was usng Mr. Data as an example of somethig THAT DOESN'T EXIST!
Man is one of God’s highest creations. In this respect, our bodies are wonderfully made. You err and cheapen us by postulating that we are only physical.
I do not believe that our physical nature cheapens how awe-inspiring our minds and biology are. I appreciate the human being and mind for what it is - a fabulously complex living machine.
We are also spiritual and the workings of our spirit will doubtful be put under a microscope.
What do you think a microscope would help prove about the spiritual world of which you speak.
Fine. Understanding DNA is a remarkable scientific byproduct and I have no problem accepting MICROEVOLUTION. It is observable.
The evidence of macroevolution is everywhere. The BILLIONS of fossils we have, combined with our knowledge of how DNA works, makes macroevolution an inevitable reality. I honestly don't know what the problem is. How does the world being billions of years old invalidate the Bible? It doesn't. It only invalidates one extremist position. Hugh Ross is a highly respected creationist author and scientist. He also believes that the world is older than 10,000 years.
WWW.answersingenesis.org.
It follows that you must believe that time is the only difference. Sorry. You just made a leap of faith. With the exception of your godless thinking, there is no scientific reason to accept your macro-evolution-dogma. This missing link is still missing! Why do you suppose that is? macro-evolution is NOT observable, yet your bias is forces you to see what is not there.
Which missing link are you referring to? The concept of the missing link is no longer valid.
Evidence? If you can provide eyewitness testimony from older than 10,000 years, let's talk. Evolution is theory. It is religious dogma dressed up in scientific garb.
Well at least you admit it is your opinion. I don't think you know what a hypocrite is. I am a creationist and there is no way you could level that charge against me without knowing my motives, and that I am in fact pretending in my assertions.
I wish that people would stop having strong opinions abou stuff that they obviously never realyl studied.
