Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not at all hard to answer where intelligence came from. Intelligence in the form of trial and error is a very simple process, built into the very nature of life. Specialized nerve cells for carrying information is something that emerged not long after the first multi-celled organisms. Use of similar tissues, with a modified carrying-information function, is used to remember former trial-and-error experiments so they don't have to be repeated. A step or two further and it becomes possible to extrapolate from one trial to a similar trial. And so on. Intelligence becomes difficult to understand only if you try to imagine it all coming about at once in a single step. That's not how it happened.
Where did intelligence originate from ?
One might ask the same question about the intelligence behind intelligent design.
God of course he has always existed.
It's not at all hard to answer where intelligence came from. Intelligence in the form of trial and error is a very simple process, built into the very nature of life. Specialized nerve cells for carrying information is something that emerged not long after the first multi-celled organisms. Use of similar tissues, with a modified carrying-information function, is used to remember former trial-and-error experiments so they don't have to be repeated. A step or two further and it becomes possible to extrapolate from one trial to a similar trial. And so on. Intelligence becomes difficult to understand only if you try to imagine it all coming about at once in a single step. That's not how it happened.
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
Then Einsteins small brain means what? Or does the fact that women have smaller brains than men on the average mean that they are less intelligent too?
It's not at all hard to answer where intelligence came from. Intelligence in the form of trial and error is a very simple process, built into the very nature of life. Specialized nerve cells for carrying information is something that emerged not long after the first multi-celled organisms. Use of similar tissues, with a modified carrying-information function, is used to remember former trial-and-error experiments so they don't have to be repeated. A step or two further and it becomes possible to extrapolate from one trial to a similar trial. And so on. Intelligence becomes difficult to understand only if you try to imagine it all coming about at once in a single step. That's not how it happened.
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
Then Einsteins small brain means what? Or does the fact that women have smaller brains than men on the average mean that they are less intelligent too?
One might ask the same question about the intelligence behind intelligent design.
God of course he has always existed.
That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.
It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?
That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.
How can we prove that life ever did not exist?
How can we prove that God ever did exist?
It's not at all hard to answer where intelligence came from. Intelligence in the form of trial and error is a very simple process, built into the very nature of life. Specialized nerve cells for carrying information is something that emerged not long after the first multi-celled organisms. Use of similar tissues, with a modified carrying-information function, is used to remember former trial-and-error experiments so they don't have to be repeated. A step or two further and it becomes possible to extrapolate from one trial to a similar trial. And so on. Intelligence becomes difficult to understand only if you try to imagine it all coming about at once in a single step. That's not how it happened.
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
Then Einsteins small brain means what? Or does the fact that women have smaller brains than men on the average mean that they are less intelligent too?
That's exactly what it means. I think...
Give me a moment. I need to check with the wife.
It's not at all hard to answer where intelligence came from. Intelligence in the form of trial and error is a very simple process, built into the very nature of life. Specialized nerve cells for carrying information is something that emerged not long after the first multi-celled organisms. Use of similar tissues, with a modified carrying-information function, is used to remember former trial-and-error experiments so they don't have to be repeated. A step or two further and it becomes possible to extrapolate from one trial to a similar trial. And so on. Intelligence becomes difficult to understand only if you try to imagine it all coming about at once in a single step. That's not how it happened.
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
Then Einsteins small brain means what? Or does the fact that women have smaller brains than men on the average mean that they are less intelligent too?
Hmm,I wonder if that person knows that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,priceless.
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
Then Einsteins small brain means what? Or does the fact that women have smaller brains than men on the average mean that they are less intelligent too?
Hmm,I wonder if that person knows that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,priceless.
Hey, dont slam on my ancestors!
I'm sorry, where does Lightman say that the muiltiverse theory is "by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws"? You've not shown me where he says that."faith in a multiverse—by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws—is respected!"
Bravo! Skewered him!
This deserves the Edmund Rostand-Cyrano line: "Then as I end the refrain, thrust home!"
The text I've highlighted in bold is just completely wrong. You don't even know what you're talking about, but its very amusing to me so keep going! Its always funny to see someone who thinks they can understand general relativity and quantum physics without math, but its even more funny to see someone who thinks they understand it better than those who understand the math!
The cover-up is always worse than the crime...
...your crime, ignorance....
1. Alan Lightman (born November 28, 1948 in Memphis, Tennessee) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities.
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. The accidental universe:
Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)
3. In the article, Lightman explains the concept so that even a fraud such as yourself will find it difficult to obfuscate...
"Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.
….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.
Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."
So....not only are you a fraud and a dunce....
...but this: 'The text I've highlighted in bold is just completely wrong. You don't even know what you're talking about,....'
...pretty much defines you.
yes. Do you have a problem with it?Again: "to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile,..."
Did you understand that???
Multiverse?? Then 'to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile'!
Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?
I doubt the species who are a part of the 99.9% that ended up extinct would agree with the whole precision in nature view.
Or all the people who have died from horrible diseases for nothing. Unless God is trying to kill us with precision.
Death is just a part of life. Everyone and everything eventually dies, so dont get your panties in a wad.
amino acids could not form in water
So human beings are capable of creating art, music, and complex sentences because we have bigger brains?
God of course he has always existed.
That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.
It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?
That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.
How can we prove that life ever did not exist?
How can we prove that God ever did exist?
Would you rather I lie ?
Or all the people who have died from horrible diseases for nothing. Unless God is trying to kill us with precision.
Death is just a part of life. Everyone and everything eventually dies, so dont get your panties in a wad.
LOL! So nature is 'precise' - except when it isn't. Got it.
amino acids could not form in water
Wrong.
That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.
It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?
That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.
How can we prove that life ever did not exist?
How can we prove that God ever did exist?
Would you rather I lie ?
Personally, not answering for him, I would rather that you drop your dogmatism and think rationally.
Death is just a part of life. Everyone and everything eventually dies, so dont get your panties in a wad.
LOL! So nature is 'precise' - except when it isn't. Got it.
You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?
How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.
How bout the big cat family ?
How bout the four seasons we exp ?
How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?
How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?
How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?
Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.
Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.
LOL! So nature is 'precise' - except when it isn't. Got it.
You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?
How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.
How bout the big cat family ?
How bout the four seasons we exp ?
How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?
How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?
How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?
Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.
Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.
It's only precise for a period of time. The wrong size asteroid is going in the wrong direction, it's all over for the entire planet. But with your views on science, I honestly don't know if you "believe" in asteroids.
The wrong asteroid, the wrong disease, the wrong natural disaster, and it's all over humans even with the fact that we've only been on earth for a tiny percentage of its existance.
amino acids could not form in water
Wrong.
Demonstrate and please don't try to make me critique the Miller-urey experiment.
Would you rather I lie ?
Personally, not answering for him, I would rather that you drop your dogmatism and think rationally.
You might want to take your own advice.
