I don't know, how can we detect feeling in another person, brain scan of some kind? Even then, the scan only indicates activity, not content. That's a toughie. Anyway, no reason to believe they don't have the feeling, unless some nefarious motive is possible. For the little, green men feeling, I wouldn't worry about it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
I don't know, how can we detect feeling in another person, brain scan of some kind? Even then, the scan only indicates activity, not content. That's a toughie. Anyway, no reason to believe they don't have the feeling, unless some nefarious motive is possible. For the little, green men feeling, I wouldn't worry about it.
Quote from Gabfly1:
And are you "too emotional" to understand the difference between the mere appearance of a designer as compared to the evidence of one? Evolutionary science is replete with examples of bottom-up tweaking as compared to top-down design. And some examples of this apparent "design" appear downright unintelligent because of evolution's work-in-progress nature through the eons, let alone the millenia.
Why would this designer create a human spine that is not designed for upright sitting, walking, and running? Did he want a multitude of people to suffer from back pain? Or is it a relic of our ancestry who walked on all fours? No it couldn't be that! It's too rational of an answer.
Superstition IS a..very strong... feeling.Quote from Ricter:
I don't know, how can we detect feeling in another person, brain scan of some kind? Even then, the scan only indicates activity, not content. That's a toughie. Anyway, no reason to believe they don't have the feeling, unless some nefarious motive is possible. For the little, green men feeling, I wouldn't worry about it.
Quote from Betapeg:
My point was, order can come from randomness. Chaos Theory explains this fact. Evolution fits perfectly into this natural principle.
The appearance of design is not evidence of design. I think Hawking understands this fact very well.
Why does there have to be a cause? You must understand that the cause-&-effect relationship that you are used to did not exist at the moment of creation. There was no time, space, cause and effect, etc. The laws of physics as we know them did not even exist. Therefore, there needn't be a cause.
But if you demand a theory on it, you've probably (judging by your post) have already seen some. M-Theory would say two branes collided culminating in a Big Bang. Whatever the theory, it certainly beats a "God did it" argument, which explains everything and yet, absolutely nothing. Why do we have day and night? "God did it." Does that really explain anything? No, there is a REASON why we have day and night (earth spins on an axis). God of the Gaps is a failure of human reasoning, pure and simple.
I have made the same argument...
God did not need to be created because there is no cause and effect when you are outside time.
You all really do not understand the science.
I use the word seem because the scientists do.
If they were to say our universe is designed they would be admitting a designer.
They say appears designed and then explain they since they speculate there are almost infinite universe you can rebut the presumption one would make if there were only one universe.
so there appears to be a choice...
you can see our universe appears designed or you can believe in a multiverse...
either way you have faith.
ricther its not a feeling...
its the fact that scientists know from multiple disciplines...
there was not enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth... and that our universe is far too tuned for random chance to have created the universe if there is only one universe.
The atheists do not accept the science.
here is a starter
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx-- a former mit professor or lecturer
--
below is an infidel website - which does provide some of the arguments from more than one side.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_hannam/fta.html
its the fact that scientists know from multiple disciplines...
there was not enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth... and that our universe is far too tuned for random chance to have created the universe if there is only one universe.
The atheists do not accept the science.
here is a starter
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx-- a former mit professor or lecturer
--
below is an infidel website - which does provide some of the arguments from more than one side.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_hannam/fta.html
do you understand that trials for important things like drug efficacy are designed to eliminate the effect of "feelings?"Quote from Ricter:
I don't know, how can we detect feeling in another person, brain scan of some kind? Even then, the scan only indicates activity, not content. That's a toughie. Anyway, no reason to believe they don't have the feeling, unless some nefarious motive is possible. For the little, green men feeling, I wouldn't worry about it.