Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[ProHypster]

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 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.

[Bjossi]

Just because you can not use his shoes gives you no right to throw them back at him with force. It accomplishes nothing at all to use ad hominems. They are lame.

 

And for the record it is quite possible that programming and computing will reach the potential to power an AI that can learn by itself.

 

You have to approach science with the right attitude. You can't say something can't be done. Everything is possible. Thanks to this state of mind a lot of amazing technology exists today. Time machines are impossible? I am ready to bet that some scientists refuse to accept that. A lot of things we accept today, including religious folk, had to swim against a vast stream of naysayers, for decades or even centuries.

[ProHypster]

First of all I'm sorry that my personal first Eureka today offended anybody (It was directed to scientists not personally him but I formed it wrong), but

Bjossi, I have learned something else, the ultimate wisdom between communications.

 

After walking in my room for 20 minutes in circles I came to a conclusion.

 

1. For you to prove me something you need to prove it philosophically,

for me to prove something to you I need to prove it scientifically,

what I believe is proof you think is speculation,

what you believe is proof I think is speculation.

Adjust this thought with religion too.

As we don't understand each other's logic we won't come to the same conclusino due to the same facts.

I may be a neo-creationalist, but that's not due to faith generally, but due to my own wisdom in what I have achieved to understand about the world.

Some may be evolutionists due to intelligence.

Some due to faith.

So that brings to a whole bunch of other conclusions you should understand.

 

2. Generally,

Religion is faith

Science is intelligence

Philosophy is wisdom

 

3. A guide to understanding philosophy:

 

Question everything

 

Learn something

 

Answer nothing

 

4. This post may sound egocentric but I was willing to share what I am feeling right now, please don't attack it with scientific logic and due to the slightly egoistic approach. All I wanted is to share something.

 

5. I can predict unstable/unfair thoughts and response to this.

[danielsangeo]

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 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.

[Doom Shepherd]

1. For you to prove me something you need to prove it philosophically,

 

I took enough Philosophy courses to suspect that it's impossible to "prove" anything "philosophically."

 

You can't even conclusively prove, philosophically, that you EXIST. Or from your perspective, that _I_ exist.

 

That's where that fun inductive reasoning comes in. If one does not (or refuses to) apply it, nothing can ever be proven to his satisfaction. And when it becomes apparent to others that he is not employing it, it will become impossible for him to prove anything else to them, or even converse with them. He will, behaviorally speaking, have become the monkey that painted himself green.*

 

 

*This refers to an old behavioral study in which one monkey was taken from a group, painted green, and returned. The other monkeys, seeing the painted monkey as essentially an alien intruder, promptly tore him to pieces.

[ProHypster]

1. For you to prove me something you need to prove it philosophically,

I took enough Philosophy courses to suspect that it's impossible to "prove" anything "philosophically."

That's just stupid, I learn something every day.

No, proving something is easy. You need to convince me rationally.

[ProHypster]

Anyways, let's get on with the topic.

 

First of all to Bjossi I found false by your logic:

 

Bjossi's theory about the world doesn't work out, Physiscs 6th grade - "Nothing comes from Nothing" and "Something can't turn into nothing"

So this world had to be there forever which would explain physically: "There was always something". This also goes in favour of Plato's vague theory that the mind (Your spirit) doesn't dissapear after death nor does the body. Makes sense?

 

Also I found that the Big Bang theory is a complete fantasy with no facts whatsoever, it's really there to explain the beggining of the evolution theory at the moment but it fails.

 

Almost the same thing as the 3 Elephants holding earth theory. Temporarily explaining Earthquakes.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

Next, to Danielsageo, I DID NOT TRY TO INSULT YOU FOR THE LAST TIME , evolution is generally right, I mean humans come in different shapes (Asian, Caucasian, Black), mutation is also happening and is right, proven 100%, but there was never a solid observation of a case where a species turned into many species, I don't count 6.9 Million years ago as that is beyond our scientific tools of measure. My suggestion is that the scientists took a fact and then assigned BS theories to it and proposed them as a fact. But since those theories are part of evolution, I cannot accept evolution as a fact to be taught in schools. You cannot do that.

 

Basic Scientific faults in evolution, ignoring your own scientific method, please don't ignore post and answer:

 

The 20 Homo Erectus, Neanderthal etc.. skulls can be explained by extinct monkeys and real disabled humans/deformed skulls so they cannot be used as proof.

 

There is no suggestion that dinosaurs turned into birds other then observation of the 150 found bones of the dinosaurs.

 

150 bones should explain why you can't automatically draw T-Rex and his buddies and assume he was a predator becasue of the large teeth.

[Doom Shepherd]

The 20 Homo Erectus, Neanderthal etc.. skulls can be explained by extinct monkeys and real disabled humans/deformed skulls so they cannot be used as proof.

This statement is false.

 

There is no suggestion that dinosaurs turned into birds other then observation of the 150 found bones of the dinosaurs.

This statement is also false. A HUGE falsehood that can be easily disproved by using Google for 30 seconds.

150 bones should explain why you can't automatically draw T-Rex and his buddies and assume he was a predator becasue of the large teeth.

This statement is both nonsensical and false.

 

I suspect that you are merely repeating things that you have been told by creationists or read on creationist websites, since you have a history of quoting unqualified creationist sources. But I tell you again, whoever is telling you these things is LYING to you, either deliberately or in an attempt to falsely justify their own beliefs.

[Doom Shepherd]

No, proving something is easy. You need to convince me rationally.

We've tried that, but your beliefs seem curiously immune to reason.

[BTGBullseye]

This statement is false.

Show some evidence.

 

This statement is also false. A HUGE falsehood that can be easily disproved by using Google for 30 seconds.

Then why aren't you posting the links?

 

This statement is both nonsensical and false.

See previous responses.

 

I suspect that you are merely repeating things that you have been told by creationists or read on creationist websites, since you have a history of quoting unqualified creationist sources.

Kind of like the rest of you supporting Evolution with unqualified Evolutionist sources?

 

But I tell you again, whoever is telling you these things is LYING to you, either deliberately or in an attempt to falsely justify their own beliefs.

Prove it.

[Lord Sinister]

I could always threaten the next people who post something without citing a source with some sort of inventive punishment.

 

EDIT: A source anyone here can read/study I might add.

[ProHypster]

The 20 Homo Erectus, Neanderthal etc.. skulls can be explained by extinct monkeys and real disabled humans/deformed skulls so they cannot be used as proof.

This statement is false.

 

There is no suggestion that dinosaurs turned into birds other then observation of the 150 found bones of the dinosaurs.

This statement is also false. A HUGE falsehood that can be easily disproved by using Google for 30 seconds.

150 bones should explain why you can't automatically draw T-Rex and his buddies and assume he was a predator becasue of the large teeth.

This statement is both nonsensical and false.

 

I suspect that you are merely repeating things that you have been told by creationists or read on creationist websites, since you have a history of quoting unqualified creationist sources. But I tell you again, whoever is telling you these things is LYING to you, either deliberately or in an attempt to falsely justify their own beliefs.

 

1. Anthropology is a subject I've actually studied, of course it's not 20 COMPLETE skulls now, it changes all the time:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

 

The bones of Peking Man discovered in the cave in the hill's north face include six complete or relatively complete skulls, eight skull fragments, six pieces of facial bone, 15 mandibles, 153 teeth, seven sections of broken femur, one broken shinbone, three pieces of upper arm bone, one clavicle and one wrist bone belonging to more than 40 individuals of different ages and sexes

 

And then this is how scientists react in a newspaper, VERY scientific:

 

A million-year-old skull found in Ethiopia confirms the theory that modern man evolved from a single pre-human species that developed in Africa and migrated throughout the rest of the world…

 

EDIT:

Also this does not help at all to conclude that evolution is a fact.

 

2.

Birds share a myriad of unique skeletal features with dinosaurs.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers

 

Witmer (2009) has concluded that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2]

 

Witmer is crazy if the first quote proves the second.

 

3. The species could have been extinct vegetarian animals.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

I suspect that you are merely repeating things that you have been told by creationists or read on creationist websites, since you have a history of quoting unqualified creationist sources. But I tell you again, whoever is telling you these things is LYING to you, either deliberately or in an attempt to falsely justify their own beliefs.

 

Actually I try to avoid creationalist websites, I see best to use the other argumenter's or his belief's roots against him. That was mere memories from past readings of a science paper. Very broad indeed, I didn't mean to make you look at the numbers as a fact.

 

EDIT: The only other one site I quoted is easy to use as "history of using creationalist sites"

 

I'm aware that their defense is often pathetic, I'm aware that most creationist' defense is pathetic.

 

Most true philosophers though believe in a God without the need of the bible, the bible further more explains the beliefs.

 

I mean look at most of the old school Greek philosophers, creationists even before the bible was made.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

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.

[ProHypster]

And just saying, roaming around on the website proposing factual evolution, wtf is this?????

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html

 

On another hand I want to show this:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3823037/Socrates-and-his-God

 

EDIT:

Please don't post a serious response to this and answer my previous points though.

[Axeldeath]

Physiscs 6th grade - "Nothing comes from Nothing" and "Something can't turn into nothing"

 

... Define nothing.

[danielsangeo]

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?

[ProHypster]

Physiscs 6th grade - "Nothing comes from Nothing" and "Something can't turn into nothing"

 

... Define nothing.

, Define Love.

[ProHypster]

As for "something" can't come from "nothing", from whence comes God/the Creator?

I'm not going to answer that, it's an easy explanation.

Your mathematical capabilities should allow you to write a perfect formula.

Get on with the challenge and come back once you've got it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: By now you probably went calculating. too bad that you actually didn't read my post where I actually mentioned it, the answer is there.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)