Then we agree, you are taking the lazy approach and want to waste my time. A conversation is a 2 way interaction. If you aren't going to hold up your end, then you are wasting everyones time.
Right back to you - Demanding I do your homework is a conversation? Of course not. A conversation involves 2 or more people sharing thoughtful opinions and asking cogent questions. It requires the participants to actively engage, which means the participants need to have real interest in the subject and a willingness to learn. I am not your teacher, and I certainly am not your student. This is entertainment. If you write a post that sparks a conversation, great. But you cannot force someone to address your post, and the facts of the world do not change because a post is ignored.
BAttle3 claimed: "The science is weak in the entire issue. Look up "rapid evolution", rate of evolution, rate of mutation, mutation rate and evolution. Because observed mutation rates are too slow to support evolution there is a large amount of effort spent in trying to prove that mutation rates are actually faster than what is observed." And was asked: "And the science that backs this up is?" And has obfuscated since the with: "This is an easy subject to read about, its in the reviewed journals and there is plenty on the internet. If you are too lazy or uninterested to spend a few minutes seeking it out, then I'm not going to do lead you by the nose." And That approach of "if you can't respond to all of my requests then you have nothing" is a total fail. You want to converse, then converse. You want to be lazy and play games, then you are a waste of time. And: "Then we agree, you are taking the lazy approach and want to waste my time. A conversation is a 2 way interaction. If you aren't going to hold up your end, then you are wasting everyones time." And: "Right back to you - Demanding I do your homework is a conversation? Of course not. A conversation involves 2 or more people sharing thoughtful opinions and asking cogent questions. It requires the participants to actively engage, which means the participants need to have real interest in the subject and a willingness to learn. I am not your teacher, and I certainly am not your student. This is entertainment. If you write a post that sparks a conversation, great. But you cannot force someone to address your post, and the facts of the world do not change because a post is ignored." /Sigh... Battle3, we are all still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertion. Demanding others go find evidence and convince themselves of your point is the pinnacle of wasting the time of others. I mean it's one thing to post a link to something it's an entirely different thing to demand that people go find it themselves Honestly, I'm eager to see what you've read that convinced you. Now, to be honest, I'm familiar with something called "rapid evolution", but I'm curious to see how you think that lends evidence to anything you say. -Cheers
1.5 times the same information. Trisomie 21 means gene 21 is three times existing instead of only 2 times. Perfectly disordered. X-average=(1+6)/2=3.5; variance=(1-3.5)^2+(2-3.5)^2+(3-3.5)^2+(4-3.5)^2+(5-3.5)^2+(6-3.5)^2/6=(-2.5^2+-1.5^2+-0.5^2)*2/6=(6.25+2.25+0.25)/3=8.75/3; Dices do not have any memory - as for example the DNA is a kind of memory of biological organisms. The genotype produces a phenotype. This organism is able to reproduce the modified genotype only in case it survives long enough and sane enough to be able to produce and educate descendants - without or with the help of sisters and brothers and god. For example people who believe in god stay to be part of the gene pool while atheists die out?
Wrong! http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
Why avoid my question? It's a simple one that has nothing to do with possession of a truth belonging to one side or another. So yes, the truth matters, absolutely, but my question is how we arrive at the truth. Let me ask the question again. When pursuing the truth if you have evidence for a position and evidence against it, which to do you think (if either) is more compelling in learning the truth?
There are only two kinds of energy....positive and negative....one is truth, the other is B.S. and they don't interchange. Positive doesn't destroy, and negative doesn't create.
Mutations accumulating into functional complexities have not been observed. A process whereby a random mutation increases the functional complexity of a system has not been observed. Everything that has been observed indicates that matter simply does not organize itself into functional complexity via random processes. Everything that has been observed indicates that random processes always increase the stability and decrease the functional complexity of material systems. The above is not to say that it cannot happen; it just means that it has not been observed. It also implies that if such random events do take place, they are so rare that, even with the most distant estimates for the beginning of the universe, current complex systems could not occur. It is far, far more likely that the material-spatial-temporal universe has an immaterial-spiritual-eternal creator(s). But of course, as contingent beings, we don't know anything necessarily. The above is simply what I am currently left to believe.
Wow, I didn't realize the question was so difficult to answer. With all due respect, your answer is completely incoherent and lends evidence to the fact that you don't understand the question. That's fine, let me try an example. Ever hear the claim that the earth is flat? Stupid right? But there is evidence for that position. I mean real mathematical evidence. https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence Frankly, I think it's an excellent example of the limited value of positive evidence (evidence to affirm the truth of a claim). That is, there is limited value in evidence that tries to substantiate a particular position as true. That's not to say that evidence is not of the utmost importance, after all, to say something isn't true, someone first has to claim that it is and present evidence to that alleged fact. If you do the math that Flat Earthers offer, you might be surprised. Thie explanation, while overly complex does appear to fit. The Flat Earth Society claims lots and lots of evidence to support their position. The only thing I need to prove all that hard work wrong is to look at the moon during a lunar eclipse. That single piece if negative evidence (evidence that refutes the truth of a claim) dismantles EVERYTHING that any Flat Earther might claim. Another example. Let's say I treat my wife like a queen 29 days out of 30. On the 30th day I beat her. If I claimed to be a good husband, what evidence would prove the truth of that claim or falsify it? Do the 29 days of positive evidence offer proof that I am a good husband, or does my one day of beating her falsify that claim? The point is, positive evidence, while valuable, is only a start. Your claims have to stand up to scrutiny. First and foremost, can your claims be falsified? If no, you've not made a claim that can be considered true or false, you've simply provided an assertion. For example. The video's you posted proport to show evidence of god. Then pointing to the world around us as proof. If all it takes to prove something true is to point out the "obviousness" of a claim while acting incredulous, here try this as an example; Intelligent aliens live among us. To deny it is to ignore the obvious evidence all around you. Humans have been on this earth for thousands, tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of years and all we could manage up to the late 1800's was riding animals? But within the last 150 years, we've gone from horseback to traveling many times the speed of sound on a plane, traveling to the moon and sending vehicles out of the solar system. DUH. It's obvious that aliens must live among us and they are sharing their technology. Of course, they didn't want to tip us off, so they've fed us the information over some time, but it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that intelligent life has help humans become more technologically advanced and the proof, if you care to see it, is all around you and if you can't see it, that's just because you don't want to. See what I did there? Does that technique sound at all familiar? Even if there is a god, you can't use the "it's obvious evidence is everywhere" method, otherwise you'll find evidence for just about anything you want.
My point is that the framework to hold additional information can come into existence. The exact amounts are unimportant at the moment, most animals have a different number of chromosomes anyway. I'm not sure what your argument is here, or what the maths is supposed to show. Again, my point is qualitative, order can come from chaos if there is an orderly selection. I'm not sure if what you've written comments on that statement. There may be a correlation in that way, but I imagine there are other angles to it as well. For instance, there may be a debate on whether atheism is a religion or not, but biology doesn't care about the semantics, and atheism pushes a lot of the same buttons as religions do, so I imagine the deciding factor isn't going to be atheism.
As makers of things, we recognize things that have been made by design. As creative beings, we intuitively recognize created things. This is that from which religion extends. All over the world, people who never had any contact with each other, all made the same observation. They all understood, intuitively, heuristically, that this world is a creation and that we are creatures. Such an observation is perhaps the most common of common sense observations.
