Search results

sounds good to me most atheists i know feel no need to disprove god. i would suspect theists feel the need, if they do, to prove god in order to validate their own beliefs. our minds are complicated as a by-product of evolution. as for souls, what souls? i have seen no evidence of any soul...

perhaps this will be of some help... a simple whois search shows the company owning the domain is 3B SOFTWARE INC. taking that and going to the BBB, you can search about them - here''s the pertinent information i came up with: BBB Rating: C- # Reasons for this rating include:Number of complaints...

my parents what makes you think my awareness is the product of a 'who'? it's one of the functions of the human brain when i die or suffer serious brain injury.

sorry, i have to correct this - i mixed notes with some other calculations i was doing. the average speed of light would have to be 2.283million times faster than it is now.

it was an act of generosity to you... distance light traveled - 13.7 billion light years source you quote age of universe - 6000 years thus, the average speed of light would need to be 2.535 million times faster than it is currently.

i said 13.7 billion light years away... if all the matter of the universe was within 10,000 light years, it's gravity would have long ago ripped our solar system apart. a young universe requires that you deny gravity. about as valid an answer as "the Great Green Arkleseizure did it"; it's a...

short version - in Japan a new kind of flavobacteria evolved with a new gene that allowed them to digest nylon. this new gene formed by a gene duplication mutation (ie. a pre-existing gene made an extra copy of itself) followed by the new copy undergoing a frame-shift mutation causing it to have...

yes, i know that - and never ask for proof of god - merely evidence. science is in the business of explaining, not proving. with that in mind, let's take a look at your arguments... demonstrably wrong. case in point - nylonase. nylonase is the product of a gene duplication mutation followed by...

answer: not applicable. it is not the resposibility of the sceptic to decide what evidence would be accepted and then for the claiment to go out and look for that evidence - it is the responsibility of the claimant to make the claim, defining whatever in it needs to be defined, then present what...

we aren't asking for evidence based on your beliefs, we're asking for evidence your beliefs are based on.

of course they aren't going to travel to the author of the paper's lab - they'll use the details provided in his paper to duplicate the experiment, after all, objective evidence doesn't rely on the observer for its truth. and yes, some junk does make it through and get published - and later it...

except that in serious peer-review, the objective is to reject the paper. it begins with the asumption that it's wrong and has to show itself to be correct via empirical evidence, whereas with the bible, the opposite happens - it's assumed true and no evidence is required to back it up.

short version of how we know that's wrong - Big Universe+Constant Speed of Light=Old Universe (we can see things at 13.7 billion light years away). The only way to get around this problem is to deny gravity. We know we're right about the size of the solar system, we've sent probes across it...

wrong and shifting the goalposts (as well as a strawman). if cows produced whales, that would disprove evolutionary theory. if a new species evolves from a previous species, that is evolution - since it is a new species from a previous species, it falls under the defintion of the old term...

wrong - back in the days that science actually used the terms, that's what they meant. if it was below the level of species it was micro; at or above the level of species, it was macro. once we discovered that they were the exact same process in every respect, the terms got dropped from...

wrong. the correct definitions were: microevolution - evolution within a species macroevolution - evolution at or above species level, including formation of new species apparently, you never researched it http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html...

not only are they not interchangeable - they're both out of usage. science no longer uses micro and macro evolution since it was discovered that they are the exact same process - it's just evolution. has been that way since the 1960's - try to be a bit more up to date. on a secondary note -...

no, it doesn't. all evidence indicates that energy in the universe remains a constant. evolution is a theory and a fact, from which many hypotheses are made (all of which end up being correct when tested). also, i didn't say a thing about evolution - what i described, although highly simplified...

no, energy does not "die away". as previously mentioned, the energy of the universe is a constant. it's a bit more complex than that. to form life, a series of processes have to occur - particularly, lipids, nucleotides, and amino acids have to form and come together; then self-replicating...

exactly - matter can be created - there's no law of science saying it can't. as far as where the energy came from, there's no evidence that suggests it wasn't always there. and natural explanations work quite well, and much better than supernatural 'explanations' do. there is also so far no...