danielsangeo

I read it and I read Doom Shepard's response to your response on speciation. I don't have anything else to add on that unless you do because what Doom stated was accurate.

ThatSmartGuy: You've gone from complaining about "evolution" to speciation. We have evidence of speciation. I've posted evidence of speciation in this thread. Oh, and man didn't evolve from apes as you're thinking. Apes and man evolved from a common (non-ape) ancestor.

Axle: Sorry! ThatSmartGuy: I don't really know how to respond to that. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. As for disproving evolution as fact, I'm sorry, but that's impossible. Unless every single child is identical to their parents and their parents are identical to their parents, that would be the only way to disprove evolution. Since we know, for a fact, that children are not identical (clones) of their parents, then evolution is fact. The only other way to disprove evolution is to change the definition of evolution.

So, if God was "always there", why can't the universe be "always there"?

Love is an affection or attraction to a specific thing. As for "formula" about God/Creator, what "formula"? What "calculating"? I asked a question about where God/Creator came from if "something" can't come from "nothing". I don't have to do a thing but read the answer to that question and perhaps ask for clarification afterwards.

I am wondering where the idea that the Big Bang Theory says that "nothing" begets "something" came from. From my understanding of the Big Bang Theory, there was a small, infinitesimal "something" that begat "something". As for "something" can't come from "nothing", from whence comes God/the Creator?

BTG: I've asked you several times now for examples of what you'd consider to be evidence for evolution and you've so far ignored me. I'm waiting for your answers so I know what to provide for you.

Millions: Mind vs Body Problem What is God? What are Normative ethics? What is the relationship between language and reality? What does it mean to "mean" something? The most famous ones though are: How should one live? What is reality? I could go on.... I don't know why these questions cannot ever be answered by science. And the found that the atom is not the smallest possible particle. But "smallest possible particle" is pretty self-evident. Each thing is made up of smaller things, so it's only self-evident that those smaller things are made up of even smaller things...and so on. There are things that religion cannot and will never answer...like What is God? or What made God? or What was before God?

Not really. They'd like to say that they have control over marriage but marriage exists beyond Christianity. They don't get to control it.

Line 98: Wow, those snot freaks have good eyesight. Line 128: Destroy the damned thing before it grows any larger! Line 134: Like if I could herd a cow in here, would it be able to lift it all up and eat it? Line 151: I was expecting some shitty drummer practicing or Line 167: Whoa! Don't light a match.

So, couple things I saw going through it: Line 2: "I'm being squeamish about this." Line 33: "I'm a gopher!" Line 36: "None of you are housebroken!" Line 50: "He can't just run away because, technically, his job is animal control" Line 89: "Whoa!" (right before "Combo platter!")

You are truly a scientific robot programmed with scientific formulas, I can see why I will not be able to explain anything to you. A human can't explain to a robot what life is. I think I may have learned something today. I will reply on the intelligence matter scientifically if I will be able to get it in myself and form myself together to fully understand it scientifically, a hard challenge. Not at all (ignoring your obvious attempt at insulting). I just figure, if you're going to ask questions, I need to know how to approach a situation. I admit that I don't know how to respond to certain things without a basic foundation from which to approach the subject. I don't want to assume that you know what I do and I don't want you to assume that I know what you do. It's why I ask questions: Clarification.

0+X=X because you are taking value "X" and you aren't adding anything (0) to it. It does not change the value of X.

I would use the word "haven't", not "can't".

Like what kind of questions that can't be answered by science?

I don't see any evidence of a "soul" so we must go by what we have evidence for. I'm still not getting an answer to what "intelligence" is versus "non-intelligence". Are plants intelligent? They respond to external stimuli just like us and we're called "intelligent" for it. Are plants intelligent? They're able to adapt to their environment and some plants even eat meat (pitcher plants, venus fly traps, etc). Is intelligence a gradient? Are magnets only vaguely intelligent because they're able to respond to external stimuli? If so, are magnets alive? When you ask a question like whether matter can turn into intelligence, you need to define what you mean before we can continue. Not philosophy, just basic facts. The answer to what makes something blue is that it takes light and absorbs all but the blue spectrum back. What is blue? Blue is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths roughly between 440–490 nm in width.

You don't need to prove that he doesn't exist, but convince so. There is many ways you would be able to convince me. One way to convince me that there is no God you must prove or at least show in favour of the theory that either intelligence cannot make matter or that matter can turn into intelligence. Not trying to prove anything but can you tell me what "intelligence" is and how you distinguish it from "non-intelligence"? Is a person dodging an on-coming car intelligence? Is a dog yelping if you step on his tail intelligence? Is a plant bending towards the source of light intelligence? Is a magnet being attracted to metal intelligence?

Science lab example of a species turning into another species? Why do you need that? A lot of of science isn't done in white-walled clean rooms with doctors in white labcoats and centrifuges and microscopes. That's TV. We have scores of evidence of species turning into other species. Speciation evidence usually comes from outside the lab and in nature. For example: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23103/

We have been providing evidence for evolution up and down this thread. What exactly do you want? Specifics. Don't just say "conjectureless evidence". Provide an example of what you mean by this. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT. Again, you keep misunderstanding how that makes no difference when you have yet to show me any conjectureless evidence. Wait, what? "Conjectureless"? Do you know what you're talking about?

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy, an extension of the false dichotomy. It assumes only two options: God exists and belief will get you into heaven and lack of belief will not....or God doesn't exist and belief doesn't really hurt anything. I assert that these aren't the only two options, which is why the wager is flawed and cannot be used as an argument. Let me put this option (which is one among many) out there: The real deity doesn't desire belief and believing in a deity is what causes suffering and lack of belief takes you to paradise. Or, another option: You're believing in the wrong deity and the correct deity, one no one has ever heard of, is upset at your belief in a false god and you'll burn more than if you hadn't believed at all.

Enh, I'm a relatively new poster. Need to post moar!

Thanks. Check it out: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Well, what I'd like is an answer to what "increased information" is.

How can you believe that a man came from a monkey and believe that god made the man (Pedant mode on)Man didn't come from monkeys! Monkeys and men came from the same common ancestral organism!(Pedant mode off) As for believing in God and "believing in evolution", some Christians say that God used evolution to make man from the dirt. In other words, they state that Genesis 2:7 ("the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground") encompasses the entire evolution of man from the time of the first life until the first man; several billion years. I never claimed that the whole Bible is true. I stated that the Bible is fiction with some factual things in it, just as Harry Potter has Kings Cross Station, just as Half-Life has New Mexico and MIT, and just as Star Wars has brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, fathers and sons. Nor am I claiming that the things in the Bible are "made up for no reason".

May I ask what you mean by "increase of data"? There's something called "duplication". Let's say the following (very oversimplified, but I think it works): You have genetic information for the word "cat". Let's just say that it's those three letters: C-A-T (again, vastly oversimplified, but let's go with it). The code is duplicated (mutation) during mitosis. So, now you have "catcat". Is this an increase in information? It doesn't kill the organism so this "catcat" continues through the generations. Eventually, one of the letters mutates into another letter. Now it's "catcap". Again, doesn't kill the organism and continues through the generations until mutation happens again and you have "catcip". Repeat. Now you have "catnip". Suddenly, from 'cat', you have 'catnip'. Something completely different from what it was. Is this "increased information"? Let's go one step further. From the ancestral organism with "catcap", you have a mutation. "Catnap". From the ancestral organism for "catcip", you get "catsip" than "catsup". From cat, you get "catnip", "catsup" and "catnap". Three organisms from one source. What do you mean by "increased information"?