Question for Atheists...

[TagliatelliMonster]

The sun's purpose is to supply the energy to make our world operate.

No.
The sun just emits high energy photons.
That energy goes flying everywhere, not just to earth.

On earth, there just happen to be processes like photosynthesis that take that energy as input.
The sun is not there "for the earth".

Start taking the things with purpose away

Again, you are using the word "purpose" very differently then how it is defined by a dictionary.

These definitions do not fit the function of the sun in the earth's biosphere.

If you can not see purpose, take each thing away and look for the changes to determine if a purpose is being served.

"function" is not synonymous with "purpose".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess you also say that about all your possessions... including your house.
"Oh, these things weren't made for a purpose. We just happened to fit nicely in."
Sounds like somthing the frogs would say... if they could tell us.

I bet you already understood this was a strawman before you even hit the "post reply" button.

 

[nPeace]

AI makes non-invasive mind-reading possible by turning thoughts into text

Advance raises prospect of new ways to restore speech in those struggling to communicate due to stroke or motor neurone disease

www.theguardian.com

Even considering how little we know about the brain, we are even able to take these first baby steps in building "brain interfaces". This here is tech that looks at physical brain activity and converts the thoughts into text.

The thoughts = the brain activity.
"reading" the brain activity, allows for outputting the thought in text form.

This is only possible because the thought = the brain activity.

In other words.... thoughts = physical (as physical brain activity).

It's possible to know my desires... if I tell you. I can put them in words, but that does not change its nature.

Says the person who's rather fundamentalist religious doctrine literally requires her to believe that some kind of immaterial ghost / "soul" is hiding somewhere in the body and uses that assumption to be so certain that thoughts are not physical.

I don't believe that.
I know though that scientist agree with the fact that there is spirit, although they call it something else, like electromagnectic fields, etc.

 

[nPeace]

I bet you already understood this was a strawman before you even hit the "post reply" button.

I thought it made sense to put strawman against strawman.

 

[nPeace]

Well, maybe if you could find a *good* reason. You know, one that is based on logic, observation, and understanding.

Been there. Done that. Now, I'm just

tired.
It's a lot easier to search for what I already posted to you.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to post the observation of a small 'dog' evolving to a whale.

 

[Polymath257]

Been there. Done that. Now, I'm just

tired.

You always seem to get tired just before you give evidence. From what I have seen, you have *never* given actual evidence.

It's a lot easier to search for what I already posted to you.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to post the observation of a small 'dog' evolving to a whale.

And why would you expect such to exist if evolution were true?

Yes, there is evidence that whales evolved from land animals (the middle ear is one characteristic that shows a connection, but there are others). But a small dog? no.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess you also say that about all your possessions... including your house.
"Oh, these things weren't made for a purpose. We just happened to fit nicely in."
Sounds like somthing the frogs would say... if they could tell us.

Things in my house were mostly made by humans and for human purposes. The universe at large is clearly NOT made by humans. And, while the sun definitely benefits humans, to claim that is the purpose of the sun seems rather egocentric.

 

[Polymath257]

It's possible to know my desires... if I tell you.

Or, if you think them and a machine reads those thoughts. that is the point here: a machine/brain interface that allows reading thoughts.

I can put them in words, but that does not change its nature.

No, it doesn't. The thoughts themselves are processes in the brain.

I don't believe that.
I know though that scientist agree with the fact that there is spirit, although they call it something else, like electromagnectic fields, etc.

Um, no. There is a HUGE difference between a non-material, non-physical 'spirit' and E&M fields. For one, E&M fields don't have thoughts.

 

[nPeace]

You always seem to get tired just before you give evidence. From what I have seen, you have *never* given actual evidence.

That's not your honest observation. No.

And why would you expect such to exist if evolution were true?

Yes, there is evidence that whales evolved from land animals (the middle ear is one characteristic that shows a connection, but there are others). But a small dog? no.

I call it a 'dog'. It doesn't matter.
That's evidence that animals are similar.
Your belief that it is evidence whales evolved from land animals, is a subjective opinion, quite similar to what you claim evidence for God, amounts to.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not your honest observation. No.

Yes, it actually is.

I call it a 'dog'. It doesn't matter.

Yes, it very much matters. Dogs are a type of carnivore. The ancestors of whales are not.

That's evidence that animals are similar.

Yes.

Your belief that it is evidence whales evolved from land animals, is a subjective opinion, quite similar to what you claim evidence for God, amounts to.

Not even close. We have actual fossil evidence of several stages of the transition to whales. The 'small dog' stage is only one step, not the whole sequence. We have the timing of the different stages as well. We have the genetic evidence as well (How Whales Evolved From Land To Water, Gene By Gene). We have no such evidence for a God.

It shoudl be pointed out that the genetics shows that certain genes are present in modern whales, but inactivated by mutations. Can you explain why that would be if whales weren't the result of evolution?

 

[nPeace]

Or, if you think them and a machine reads those thoughts. that is the point here: a machine/brain interface that allows reading thoughts.

The point here, is that mental and physical, are not the same.
Whatever it's called, the natures are different. That's why it's debated.
They can't pin it down to just physical.

No, it doesn't. The thoughts themselves are processes in the brain.

What Is a Thought Made of?
...there are two possible definitions of a thought. Either it's a part of the material world - physical patterns of electricity generated by the neurons in our brains - or it's a part of something else, some kind of cosmic consciousness that floats around the Universe completely undetectable by the instruments of modern science.

What Is a Thought?
What thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view.

Not sure, your word has any basis for acceptance.
When am I going to see something more than your claims? Anytime?

Um, no. There is a HUGE difference between a non-material, non-physical 'spirit' and E&M fields. For one, E&M fields don't have thoughts.

Who says spirit is non-material?
A different FORM OF ENERGY does not mean non-material... just because you don't know of it, nor understand it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to post the observation of a small 'dog' evolving to a whale.

Thus demonstrating an effectively zero understanding of evolution, even while possessing a great deal of enthusiasm to talk about it. Kind of like saying "Z times root X = Phi Beta Kappa -- boy I love math!"

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it actually is.

No. It's not.

Yes, it very much matters. Dogs are a type of carnivore. The ancestors of whales are not.

Hee Hee.

Yes.

Not even close. We have actual fossil evidence of several stages of the transition to whales. The 'small dog' stage is only one step, not the whole sequence.

Now, it's a "small dog"? You amaze me, Poly.

We have the timing of the different stages as well. We have the genetic evidence as well (How Whales Evolved From Land To Water, Gene By Gene). We have no such evidence for a God.

All still subjective.
Your evolutionary tree tells us as much. Your ideas don't mean the evidence support them.
We have evidence of a creator in the world around us, and the Bible. That evidence paints a different picture from what you believe.

It shoudl be pointed out that the genetics shows that certain genes are present in modern whales, but inactivated by mutations. Can you explain why that would be if whales weren't the result of evolution?

Now you are resorting to reasoning. Subjective. Agreed?

 

[nPeace]

Thus demonstrating an effectively zero understanding of evolution, even while possessing a great deal of enthusiasm to talk about it. Kind of like saying "Z times root X = Phi Beta Kappa -- boy I love math!"

Did someone say something?
Oh, it's Evangelicalhumanist. Hey.
Anything useful to say that I can respond to?

 

[Valjean]

I guess you also say that about all your possessions... including your house.
"Oh, these things weren't made for a purpose. We just happened to fit nicely in."
Sounds like somthing the frogs would say... if they could tell us.

Some things are made to purpose. Many of the things in everyday use were designed and manufactured by us, and for our benefit, but extending this artificial world of human technology to nature is a mistake.
Nature has no purpose. It has function -- unintentional and undesigned. It may resemble our familiar, designed, artificial world, but it is not.

 

[nPeace]

Some things are made to purpose. Many of the things in everyday use were designed and manufactured by us, and for our benefit, but extending this artificial world of human technology to nature is a mistake.
Nature has no purpose. It has function -- unintentional and undesigned. It may resemble our familiar, designed, artificial world, but it is not.

Why should I believe you @Valjean... just because you say so? Can you prove it's true?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Did someone say something?
Oh, it's Evangelicalhumanist. Hey.
Anything useful to say that I can respond to?

Nobody important to you, for certain.

Your comment, however, "still waiting for someone to post the observation of a small 'dog' evolving to a whale," does exhibit, as I said, precisely zero actual understanding of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution -- and yet you do say a lot about it anyway.

You may not understand this, but when you blather on about a subject about which you know nothing, it does not appear to speak of much actual intelligence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why should I believe you @Valjean... just because you say so? Can you prove it's true?

Can you prove you are real, and not a puppet projection from Dimension Q12, designed to spread evil?

 

[nPeace]

Can you prove you are real, and not a puppet projection from Dimension Q12, designed to spread evil?

Can you? What's the purpose of your question, if not to say we can't prove anything?
So why are persons coming on a forum and dogmatically says the equivalent of ?this is so, and that is so"?
How do you suggest we respond to that? Not. Prove it? Or should we say, "Oh. Okay. We don't know, So, maybe"?

I believe God is, because the design in nature speaks of a designer, and as said earlier - purpose.
If one believes different that's fine, but don't preach it as fact. Otherwise, I'll ask you to prove it.
You can't? Then why push it at people as if you know? Ego?

When I say you, I don't mean you Evangelicalhumanist... unless you are guilty.

 

[nPeace]

Nobody important to you, for certain.

Don't let the bluntness fool you.
Jesus was blunt when he had to, for a reason, but that didn't mean his targets were unimportant to him.

Your comment, however, "still waiting for someone to post the observation of a small 'dog' evolving to a whale," does exhibit, as I said, precisely zero actual understanding of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution -- and yet you do say a lot about it anyway.

I read small dog in a science paper. I also read wolf, in a science paper. I guess the authors were like me... not about calling big words like Pakicet... ouch. Bit my tongue.

You may not understand this, but when you blather on about a subject about which you know nothing, it does not appear to speak of much actual intelligence.

I know enough about what I speak of. That's why I speak of it.
...and yes, I have understanding.
The atheist try too hard with the demoralizing tactics. They work in warfare, yes, I know. So I understand your actions.