Dylan Cannisi

It changes the whole argument. An atheist believes in "nothing", but, that "nothing" is really nothing. They have biases just the same as any religious man. In terms of preaching they always have to prove others wrong, even though we as the collective human race don't have any real facts about where existence comes from. Being agnostic I have no biases, I refuse to say there is or isn't a god, you can't counter argue me by attacking my beliefs; but that didn't stop you from trying.

I just want point out that this is untrue it may have been awhile since I have read the bible, but, I do recall that the term scapegoat comes from a story in the scripture where a chief had placed the sins of the people upon a goat. A goat has no conscious thought according to the bible. It doesn't define the difference between willing or not, the party is a scapegoat either way. The thing that really should be looked at is the major contradictory in Jesus' self sacrifice; The bible says that life is precious and that it should not be made a sordid boon, but, Jesus goes right up and forfeits it. Another huge contradiction is Jesus summits to his fate because god willed it, but, right in the beginning in the book of genesis God created man in his image and free will to make their own decisions so when pontius sentenced him how was it gods will? When the book that is suppose to define moral relativity has a bunch of moral relativity in it, Who is defining it Man or God? I'm agnostic by the way.

This question has been festering in my brain for a few years now. The idea that evolution in humans took a misstep. I wonder does evolution (Explained by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace ) have something like a logic error in the programming of genes? The survival of a species relies on the weak mutations to die out and strong mutations to survive and breed, but, what if a mutation occurs (like that at the divergence from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis) that allows the specimen with weak genes to be supported by the one with strong? I don't mean anything ethical racial just the Homo Sapien Sapien as a race when I say weak. The key genes I'm referring to is the ones that allowed for Homo Sapiens to form civilizations. Will civilizations lead to a genetic evolution dead-end? Or are they a evolution sweet spot? Sorry for the anthropology and the philosophy in the genetics group, but, the question is pointed toward the question how genetics evolve over time.

It's a very interesting concept non the less, but, I doubt the normal silicon transistor can ever be as intelligent as a human. Human's make gray area decisions; we don't always answer yes or no, we sometimes answer maybe. When you have a physical object like a silicon transistor all it has is ones and zeros, it is incapable of being unsure. It also doesn't have the ability to rebuild and expand itself like the brain does over a period of time. The change in the human brain is very obvious, if you ask the same person a question during different periods in their life they will most likely answer that same question differently each time. The defining moment in computer engineering is to come, when we have a reliable transistor with more then true or false that is when computers will gain A.I. When the computer is able to build itself a new due to previous experiences and make different choices when in the same situation then the computer can learn. Another interesting concept that must be tackled is 'What is the Human Brain's Bootstrap program like?'. Assuming a human knows how to breath and beat it's heart from day one,(which is a pretty safe assumption) 'What are the pre-installed drivers and other programs like?'. The more and more you think into the process of thinking the more questions arise and you realize A.I. is a lot farther down the road than you may think.