Comments on: God vs. Science

By: Tercüme bürosu

Tercüme bürosu — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:03:24 +0000

Your comment contains very useful information about all thank you Tercüme büroları

By: inportb

inportb — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:41:00 +0000

Hm… speciation seems to be defined by reproductive viability, however. As long as two groups of organisms have no barriers to reproduction and produce many viable generations of offspring, then they’d be considered a species. Strains of bacteria that are drug-resistant belong to the same species as strains that are drug-susceptible, but that is still evidence of evolution.

By: antimatter15

antimatter15 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:20:42 +0000

About evolution, we haven’t seen any real “advanced” creatures evolve, like say from monkey -> homosapien. But we have seen the evolution of viruses, and bacteria, mutations that cause it to become drug-resistant.

And any type of darastic evolution, builds on top of the evolution of the smallest particles. Such as if 50% of all the cells in your body suddenly alter, then you have effectively become a new species.

By: inportb

inportb — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:25:16 +0000

See, the thing about the professor’s having a brain or not… one should not be limited to using the five senses directly. Because one knows what a brain is supposed to do, one can test for its effects. But it doesn’t have to be an indirect measurement at all — one can open up the professor’s head and ascertain that he does, in fact, have a brain. Or does not.

How would one test for the existence of that student’s God?

Now, we do accept the process of evolution on faith. Nobody’s seen it happen, pretty much. But that’s why it remains a theory. Nobody’s calling it a law of nature.

By: XWingz87

XWingz87 — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:15:13 +0000

We haven’t really _seen_ evolution as it continues, because we _shouldn’t_ see a process that takes millions of years in a mere few thousand years that humans have lived on the planet. Indeed, the theory of evolution would be completely flawed if we saw the process happen with our own eyes. But the fact that monkeys and humans have over 99% similarity in our DNA (I might be wrong on this statistic, but the statistic is a very high number nonetheless), I would argue, should be a very convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys.

As for the professor’s brain, while it is true that no one has seen it, we have strong reasons to believe that his brain exists. For instance, I can safely call my Dell XPS M1210 a computer, even though I have never opened it up and seen the transistors and the capacitors in it, it is made like any other computer, and it functions like a computer in every way; it is too similar to other computers to be called anything else. The professor is conceived the same way as every other human, and exhibits much similarity to other human beings. We have cut open enough human beings to know that there exists a brain in every human being, so it should be safe to assume that the professor has a brain.