ProHypster

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.

This statement is false. This statement is also false. A HUGE falsehood that can be easily disproved by using Google for 30 seconds. 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 And then this is how scientists react in a newspaper, VERY scientific: EDIT: Also this does not help at all to conclude that evolution is a fact. 2. Witmer is crazy if the first quote proves the second. 3. The species could have been extinct vegetarian animals.

Sorry, but that is just not true. There is a smallest possible particle that is undivisible, it's not called the atom though, they didn't name it so because it's undivisible, they named it in honour of Aristotle's theory. The rest you CAN answer scientifically....in another two thousand to a billion years. Of course What is reality might be a little easy for science to answer but first calm down there and answer the Baby steps scientific questions like: 1. The Goldbach conjecture. 2. The Riemann hypothesis. 3. The conjecture that there exists a Hadamard matrix for every positive multiple of 4. 4. The twin prime conjecture (i.e., the conjecture that there are an infinite number of twin primes). 5. Determination of whether NP-problems are actually P-problems. 6. The Collatz problem. 7. Proof that the 196-algorithm does not terminate when applied to the number 196. 8. Proof that 10 is a solitary number. 9. Finding a formula for the probability that two elements chosen at random generate the symmetric group S_n. 10. Solving the happy end problem for arbitrary n. 11. Finding an Euler brick whose space diagonal is also an integer. 12. Proving which numbers can be represented as a sum of three or four (positive or negative) cubic numbers. 13. Lehmer's Mahler measure problem and Lehmer's totient problem on the existence of composite numbers n such that phi(n)|(n-1), where phi(n) is the totient function. 14. Determining if the Euler-Mascheroni constant is irrational. 15. Deriving an analytic form for the square site percolation threshold. 16. Determining if any odd perfect numbers exist. All of these remain unanswered. But surely we can skip algebra (The easiest subject of science) and debate the beginning of the earth

Gregor Thresher - As Days go By (Original Mix)

All I see is: Red Green Blue Yellow

Showing how he looks like

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.... A famous philosophical statement that was made much earlier than the same scientific statement and explained the world a bit was when aristotle stated that there must be an atom, the smallest possible particle that is indivisible through rational thinking. 2000 years later science finally found discovered the atom.

I am a musician/producer and I use wallpapers to inspire me so I change wallpapers when I'm working on a new track. My current wallpaper:

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.

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.

Why why why??? Just for that, +rep

That's just stupid, I learn something every day. No, proving something is easy. You need to convince me rationally.

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.

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.

Philosophers try to make these on purpose to help people achieve the truth, and that's what philosophy is all about, to get to your own truth for the questions which can't be answered by science or can be better answered in philosophy

Hamburglar, those types of question take 10 years of reading and analyzing the bible, some years of scientific/mathematical and logical development of the brain through training and lots of personal experience. I think you are not going to get them just with information from other peeps Just saying. - Socrates

Welcome to basic philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem *Note Plato's theory.

Hmm... I apologize, I may have gone too far with that second post. It's not up to me to judge.

Thank you for putting emphasis on it! *Being a jerk*

Another great game. *Thinking how to get the message through to some people on the debates not only to think fast and logically to post obvious things, but deep and smart and post something I don't know.

Hmmm.... more Aks/Tanks sold good for Ukrainian economy.

Ok. Just wanted to know.

Is there anything I said that does NOT logically follow from what YOU said? That's an OLD joke, by the way. I heard it from Pulitzer Prize winner Annie Dillard. Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?" Depends. This is apparently how British schoolkids see America: http://www.omgfunnypictures.com/the-u-s-of-new-calitexas-217500.html Are you kidding? I'm 39, and wayyyyy too immature to ever have kids. I still collect action rfigures and comic books. I do have a 4-year-old nephew I'm grooming as an apprentice, though. He'll be just as smart and evil, but more ambitious. In 30 years, he'll be running this planet. That's not the jerk part, the jerk part that time was the inapropriate placing of " " Can I ask you something? Do you like your job, DoomShepherd?

Wait actually, Bjossi, you think the universe had a starting point and will have an ending point?