I don't know what you mean by "we can not separate intelligence from something that supposedly is only observable."
I think you underestimate the learning process and the role faith functions with it. where did you get the idea that you can seperate water into h2o? Certainly not by looking at it and deciding that's the case. Somewhere along the way someone told you that water was made up of h2o. Why do you believe light travels at 186,000 mps while sound only 740 mph? Did you design experiments to test these theories? Have you in youin your 25 years of exstence ever observed a cow give birth to a whale or any other aanimal give birth to another body type?
Human come from the womb with a very basic operating system. Personality tendencies may be somewhat coded for however ident
ical twins have different perssonalitess and there is not enough genetic code to store our belef system in a single cell. Peronality seems to be acquired during maturaion. Try as hard as we may there are no two people like the Wrigley Cheing gum twins. lol
When performing science you of course need an intelligence (i.e. humans) to observe nature and do science.
Yeah! Other than tht Mrs Kenedy how did you like the ride through Dallas. Intelligence is the elephannt in the room so don't minimize it.
That's the point. To observe, or understand anything ingtelligence comes first.
But, just because you need intelligence to formulate the idea or observe that two hydrogen and one oxygen atom bind together to form water doesn't mean that an intelligence is therefore necessary for the natural process of covalent bonding to occur.
Try observing it withou intelligence! try this tet. Open a book in a language you don't read and write and see the importance of intelligence.
You need to define natural for me because you guys seem to think its some kkind of magical power that has aalways existed. Please explain how nature can do a better job of designing something. Am I wrong in assuming you are a part of nature and yet you can't go into a lab with all the raw ingredients of an abimal and make a cell that will grow up to be a horse but suposedly nature can.
This seems to be the fundamental flaw to your motif of 'evolution contradicts itself by needing an intelligence to formulate ToE to begin with'.
I can take you on a tour of a car mfgr company and you can see humans put togehr cars from scratch. And yet when it comes to evo all we get is stories of how it allegedly happened. Where is the beef? Evo is supposed to be observable tetable and repeatable or it is not science. I appreciate you faith in Darwin! LOL
In science an observation is not limited to observing an event as if we were literally watching a movie". Observing the effects of phenomena count as observations.
I agree but phenomina is a causative agent so you are contradicitn yourself. Lets agree to call anything when we observe both cause and effect an event for clarity. So then evoluutuion is a cause and not an effect. In your sentence the phenomina (cause) was not observed only the effect has been observed. Agreed?
This is kind of key when dealing with forensic science when investigating a murder scene or something. While we don't have video or eyewitness accounts of the murder we can piece together a scenario of what did happen based on observing the effects/evidence of what was left behind as a result of said event.
We'd like to say we can do this with a great deal od acccuracy but DNA test has exonerated more than one "guilty" person.
Evolution does a similar thing in that we don't have a video or human historical written record of what happened millions and even billions of years ago, but we can observe things in the present to construct a model of what did happen.
We are not all knoowing except for you when it comes to God's existence. LOL We can be wrong as we are finite sources of information.
This is kind of key when dealing with forensic science when investigating a murder scene or something. While we don't have video or eyewitness accounts of the murder we can piece together a scenario of what did happen based on observing the effects/evidence of what was left behind as a result of said event. Evolution does a similar thing in that we don't have a video or human historical written record of what happened millions and even billions of years ago, but we can observe things in the present to construct a model of what did happen. Furthermore we can empirically test such models (i.e. science) by predicting what we should observe when looking at various genomes and transitional fossils as an example. The creationist argument pitting operational science against historical science is much ado about nothing.
OK Shakespeare. Then you can predict based on genome studies when the next phenotype will occur and so scince will be there to video some animal giving birth to a diferent phenotype. Show me a video or picture of this happening.
Evolution doesn't say that offspring should be a different body type than its parents; such ideas are antithetical to ToE and would disprove ToE. One of the key ideas of ToE is that each generation is a slightly modified version of the generation before it.
Still no eyes in the ack of my head annnd nosignnnnnns any are evolving.
The fossil record does not support this claim withou a lot of mental gynstics (spin). We have a few frmae of the movie and the rest of the movie is missing or an artissts rendition.
On one level I agree completely, if I understand what you are saying. I'm sure you are familiar with the notion of weak versus strong atheism, and why almost all atheists are weak atheists? You may be more familiar with the synonymous terms of agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism respectively
On the other hand we do have to decide whether or not we will behave as if God does exist or does not exist. While I may technically be agnostic on the existence of God, our actions demand that we behave as if one model of reality is correct and the other false. For example I will either have to sincerely pray to Yahweh tonight or not, and by not praying to Yahweh I am effectively taking the position that Yahweh does not exist, however implicit that admission is. This is one reason why I prefer the atheist label over the agnostic one. Or, for example, the Muslim requirement of praying five times a day at specific times with a specific code of conduct. I assume you do not observe this Muslim practice, and by not observing this practice your behavior demonstrates that you do not believe Allah exists.
Baloney. Drop your double standard. Who makes anyone do anything except their mind?
Three years ago did I have to exist or not exist to you? Did you have an opinion one way or nother? You are idoctrinating yourself with nonsense effectively denying your own individuality. You are capable of creating any belief you wish, and that's what you have done. You created all this including you claims of who can' or can not exist. It would be a good idea to think about your thinking! What's the point of craering non existet beings?