Search results

Because God is not against the practice.

This is not what they do. They are not trying to construct a specific protein randomly. Small changes occur until you finally end up with the protein in question. As an analogy, say you are living in 1800 and wish to predict what will happen today. The odds of guessing the right answer is near...

I'm talking about the concept of the big bang before they knew of the expansion. Sorry I wasn't clear. In other words, once they learned of the expansion, they put it in front of what they before knew as the big bang. Doing this did not in any way prove that science is not dependable, which is...

You've expressed the key point. A conscious agent can never know about such things as what consciousness is in its essence. Scientists don't claim to know what energy is in its essence; rather, they merely treat it as something that exists and can be described.

Apparently the necessary cellular framework was in place at the beginning the Cambrian explosion. And likely, a few key mutations triggered it all after that. I don't get why this is used to disprove evolution. Darwin didn't know about cellular microbiology so, naturally, he was mystified by...

You can go from each step via very small changes. It took a billion years before the first multi-cellular organism appeared. That's a long time for all the internal machinery of the cell to develop.

All you need at the beginning is a sac having contents inside different than outside, and that this sac splits into two similar sacs. Lipids almost automatically do this on their own.

I question that this proves what is claimed. It may just mean that the brain knows the conscious free will agent is going to decide soon. It doesn't prove that a decision was made by the brain outside of conscious free will.

Scientists haven't detected any evidence for God.

The early scientists were the Greeks and Romans. They didn't believe in a monotheistic God. Science did not derive out of Christian teaching and from the Bible.

The problem is that the so-called non-physical mind invents and imagines all kinds of things. There is no way to know which of these are true and which false without some evidence. So, you can't even poke the nonphysical with a nonphysical stick.

If a spiritual realm outside the physical realm has no evidence for it, why would anyone even consider it as an option for belief? And if there is some evidence, enough to justify belief in it, then the question is in the scope of science.

Even "proof" of a theory is based on mere evidence. Certain hypotheses don't have sufficient evidence at this time (and maybe never will) to be considered as true. I think consciousness is in this category. Just as we will never know what energy or entropy or space or time is; likewise for...

I think they don't know what consciousness is, but they know brain function is necessary to generate it. Therefore, they assume it emerges from brain function. This is true, I suppose, as far as it goes. Seems to me if something emerges, the possibility for its emergence must have been present...

I don't believe there is a contradiction. The expansion occurred before the big bang. Before they knew about the expansion, they postulated that it started from a singularity, but it doesn't. After the expansion ended; this is what they used to call the big bang. Just like with Newton's...

I don't think this is the right way to use probability. Rather, we should determine the probability that a mutation occurs (often). Each of these will generate a new protein. Some of these will prove useful. You don't have to design all species all at once. That would never happen. Each small...

I think there is more to profanity than people merely sharing that all aspects of our person-hood as humans are equal. They seem to be looking for ways to shock others. They would find new ways to do this once the body is fully accepted as it is.

Haha. Why do I want such things in my head? (The answer: I don't.)

Yes. The sets of things thought of as ugly differ from person to person. But I think everyone finds some things ugly. I'm merely sharing about a specific thing I find to be ugly.

No. Brick walls are made of atoms residing within the universe as it is. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but I think you are claiming that there is a dividing line somewhere down in the details of things designed. For example, you can design a chair without considering the...