OLAADEGBU:


Why do the heathen rage...?

May FSM open your eyes of understanding, so you may know the glorious life that obtains in the pastafarium.

FSM loves you and will forgive all the atrocious utterances against the pastafarians.

OLAADEGBU:


Why do the heathen rage...?

haha, projecting your emotions as usual

Ray Comfort, the banana man? lol

http://truth-saves.com/ray-comfort-banana

BaEnki:


My brain was not design sir, it's an adaptation, adaptation that depends on various variables including genetic make up, genetic mutation and environmental factors.

Joker.

Brain is The Household of Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding in Godsphere. Only The Righteous can have Brain, for them are Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding. The Atheists who hate God, for God is Love, Wisdom, Knowledge And Understanding and loves only those who love Him, can never have Brain. They are just spending hundred years to prepare for extreme insanity.

No. There's Wire tapping in their heads.

I can see Biafra, Bokoharam, Corruption and Fulani Herdsmen connection in their heads.

Pastafarian:


haha, projecting your emotions as usual

Ray Comfort, the banana man? lol

http://truth-saves.com/ray-comfort-banana

Reserve your copy of the 'Banana man', its coming out soon. Don't miss it.

akintom:


May FSM open your eyes of understanding, so you may know the glorious life that obtains in the pastafarium.

FSM loves you and will forgive all the atrocious utterances against the pastafarians.

Is that your response to the OP?

You are a funny fellow. You started this thread just so you could demean atheists. Any answer that is given to you here is just for you to have leverage to demean.

No matter, I will give you the answer you seek.

All brains are a result of evolutionary processes. No brain is intelligently designed.

LordReed:
You are a funny fellow. You started this thread just so you could demean atheists. Any answer that is given to you here is just for you to have leverage to demean.

No matter, I will give you the answer you seek.

All brains are a result of evolutionary processes. No brain is intelligently designed.

If the brain is a result of evolutionary processes, which are random and purposeless, then it means that the brain was not designed for thinking, and that your thought processes are nothing more than the sensation you get when there is a rearrangement of atoms inside your skull in a certain way, for probably physical or chemical reasons. But if it so, how can you trust your thinking to be true? Is there a particular arrangement of atoms termed "true"? And if because of this, the thinking of the brain cannot be trusted, then one cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism, or to anything else. I therefore need to believe in GOD, before I believe in thought.

DoctorAlien:


If the brain is a result of evolutionary processes, which are random and purposeless, then it means that the brain was not designed for thinking, and that your thought processes are nothing more than the sensation you get when there is a rearrangement of atoms inside your skull in a certain way, for probably physical or chemical reasons. But if it so, how can you trust your thinking to be true? Is there a particular arrangement of atoms termed "true"? And if because of this, the thinking of the brain cannot be trusted, then one cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism, or to anything else. I therefore need to believe in GOD, before I believe in thought.

This is just a philosophical word salad, with no regard for facts.

That something is random and purposeless doesn't preclude it from being limited by prescribed rules. Our observations has shown that among the factors that drive evolutionary processes, utility plays a role. The more useful an evolved trait is the more likely it will be passed on to the next generation.

I said evolution and you bring up design. Of course the brain wasn't design for anything, it evolved! What we call consciousness also evolved.

I can trust my thinking to a certain degree because we all share a reality which we all agree on certain things eg the sky is blue, drink clean water, etc. To say that because the brain is not designed therefore is unreliable is nonsense.

You just tried what is called wuruwuru to the answer. You started with strawman arguments, knocked them down and declared God. LMFAO!

LordReed:
That something is random and purposeless doesn't preclude it from being limited by prescribed rules.

What are the rules limiting a random process that started randomly, and who prescribed the rules? How do the rules affect the products of the random process?

Our observations has shown that among the factors that drive evolutionary processes, utility plays a role. The more useful an evolved trait is the more likely it will be passed on to the next generation.

How does this unverified utility factor affect my point that evolution cannot produce a brain designed for thinking?

I can trust my thinking to a certain degree because we all share a reality which we all agree on certain things eg the sky is blue, drink clean water, etc. To say that because the brain is not designed therefore is unreliable is nonsense.

I cannot believe that random processes brought atoms together to form the brain, only to believe the sensations of the brain.

DoctorAlien:
What are the rules limiting a random process that started randomly, and who prescribed the rules? How do the rules affect the products of the random process?

The rules are the physical laws of the universe. Nobody prescribed them, they are a result of the outcome of the event we call the big bang.

The products of a random process limited by physical laws will be able to be described by those physical laws.

How does this unverified utility factor affect my point that evolution cannot produce a brain designed for thinking?

Your point is useless if you keep saying design. Evolution doesn't design, I think you need to wrap your head around that.

I cannot believe that random processes brought atoms together to form the brain, only to believe the sensations of the brain.

What you believe is your business. What is real however is independent of your beliefs.

LordReed:

The rules are the physical laws of the universe. Nobody prescribed them, they are a result of the outcome of the event we call the big bang.

LOL. Where were the laws during the Big Bang itself? Oh, I forgot! The Big Bang itself violates the Laws of nature. And if we adhere strictly to the Laws of Nature, the Big Bang would be imposssible.

The products of a random process limited by physical laws will be able to be described by those physical laws.

Your point is useless if you keep saying design. Evolution doesn't design, I think you need to wrap your head around that.

What you believe is your business. What is real however is independent of your beliefs.

The bolded very much summarizes it. What we believe is our business. But what it is true remains true, whether we believe it or not.

DoctorAlien:
LOL. Where were the laws during the Big Bang itself? Oh, I forgot! The Big Bang itself violates the Laws of nature. And if we adhere strictly to the Laws of Nature, the Big Bang would be imposssible.

Are you attempting a strawman again or are you just being disingenuous? Who ever said that the big bang violated the physical laws of the universe? Such things come from believers with your universe transcending gods.

LordReed:


Are you attempting a strawman again or are you just being disingenuous? Who ever said that the big bang violated the physical laws of the universe? Such things come from believers with your universe transcending gods.

How could the universe come into existence from nothing? Can nothing give rise to something?

DoctorAlien:
How could the universe come into existence from nothing? Can nothing give rise to something?

Again, that position is from Believers who say God created the universe from nothing. The big bang is an event that set this universe into motion, what came before that event is unknown at this time.

LordReed, you asked who said that the Big Bang violated the physical laws of the universe. Hear Stephen Hawking: www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Check the 5th paragraph of that article. I did not copy and paste it because the copyright forbade it.

DoctorAlien:
LordReed, you asked who said that the Big Bang violated the physical laws of the universe. Hear Stephen Hawking: www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Check the 5th paragraph of that article. I did not copy and paste it because the copyright forbade it.

Maybe you should read it again. It's a comparison between the before and after states. In a before state yes the laws of physics would probably not exist but we can't even say what this state was. The big bang being the boundary event would highlight the difference between the two.

Read this for more clarity: http://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-first-law-of-thermodynamics/

LordReed:


You are a funny fellow. You started this thread just so you could demean atheists. Any answer that is given to you here is just for you to have leverage to demean.

No matter, I will give you the answer you seek.

All brains are a result of evolutionary processes. No brain is intelligently designed.

In your own words, you admit that your brain is not intelligently designed, no?

DoctorAlien:


If the brain is a result of evolutionary processes, which are random and purposeless, then it means that the brain was not designed for thinking, and that your thought processes are nothing more than the sensation you get when there is a rearrangement of atoms inside your skull in a certain way, for probably physical or chemical reasons. But if it so, how can you trust your thinking to be true? Is there a particular arrangement of atoms termed "true"? And if because of this, the thinking of the brain cannot be trusted, then one cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism, or to anything else. I therefore need to believe in GOD, before I believe in thought.

Way to go!

OLAADEGBU:


In your own words, you admit that your brain is not intelligently designed, no?

LoL here comes the disingenuousness I already anticipated.

Yes my brain, your brain and every other brain on this planet are not intelligently designed because they were not designed but evolved.

LordReed:


LoL here comes the disingenuousness I already anticipated.

Yes my brain, your brain and every other brain on this planet are not intelligently designed because they were not designed but evolved.

Speak for yourself. You have now convinced me that your brain is not intelligently designed.

OLAADEGBU:


Speak for yourself. You have now convinced me that your brain is not intelligently designed.

LoL! You obviously live up to your disingenuous nature quite well. LMFAO!

LordReed:


LoL! You obviously live up to your disingenuous nature quite well. LMFAO!

This is why the Bible says:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psalm 14:1).

LordReed:


Maybe you should read it again. It's a comparison between the before and after states. In a before state yes the laws of physics would probably not exist but we can't even say what this state was. The big bang being the boundary event would highlight the difference between the two.

Read this for more clarity: http://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-first-law-of-thermodynamics/

You're trying to perform semantic gymnastics here. Hawking says that at the singularity, all known laws of physics would break down. This is the same singularity wikipedia claims is a part of the planck epoch, in its article on "the initial singularity". So your "before and after states" is word gymnastics. Wikipedia affirms again in it article on "Chronology of the universe" that the laws of physics "may not apply" in the planck epoch, "the era immediately after the event which began our universe."

OLAADEGBU:


This is why the Bible says:

"The fool has said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psalm 14:1).

LoL more dumbness from a dumb book, since when did hearts originate speech? LMFAO!

DoctorAlien:


You're trying to perform semantic gymnastics here. Hawking says that at the singularity, all known laws of physics would break down. This is the same singularity wikipedia claims is a part of the planck epoch, in its article on "the initial singularity". So your "before and after states" is word gymnastics. Wikipedia affirms again in it article on "Chronology of the universe" that the laws of physics "may not apply" in the planck epoch, "the era immediately after the event which began our universe."

Here's the text:

Planck epoch
Times shorter than 10−43 seconds (Planck time)
Main article: Planck epoch
The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology immediately after the event which began our known universe. During this epoch, the temperature and average energies within the universe were so inconceivably high compared to any temperature we can observe today, that everyday subatomic particles could not form, and even the four fundamental forces that shape our universe—electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction—were combined and formed one fundamental force. Little is understood about physics at this temperature; different hypotheses propose different scenarios. Traditional big bang cosmology predicts a gravitational singularity before this time, but this theory relies on the theory of general relativity, which is thought to break down for this epoch due to quantum effects.

In inflationary models of cosmology, times before the end of inflation (roughly 10−32 second after the Big Bang) do not follow the same timeline as in traditional big bang cosmology. Models that aim to describe the universe and physics during the Planck epoch are generally speculative and fall under the umbrella of "New Physics". Examples include the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe.

Point out the part that you are referring to.

OLAADEGBU:


Why do the heathen rage...?

you always make me laugh. Is the atheist brain intelligently designed? Ok, no, it is 'foolishly not designed'. Are you happy now?


Stvpid questions

LordReed:


LoL more dumbness from a dumb book, since when did hearts originate speech? LMFAO!

Since you claimed that your brain is not intelligently designed, lets see what's in your mind.

OLAADEGBU:


Since you claimed that your brain is not intelligently designed, lets see what's in your mind.

LMAO! You just keep piling on the disingenuousness don't you. You won't answer my own questions but begin to cry when I ignore your disingenuousness. Oh yes that's that fine hypocrisy on display. LMFAO!

LordReed:
Point out the part that you are referring to.

It is near the beginning of the article:

"1. The very early universe – the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply; ..."