Edtharan

I would disagree with this. You can have two parents and love them both equally and with all your heart. So why not love more than one God too?

We have dedicated neuons in the brain that aid us in understanding the motivations, needs, actions and thoughts of others. These are called Mirror Neurons and are essential in our brain's "Theory of Mind" (which is us knowing that other people are different to us and have different needs and desires and see the world differently). This Theory of Mind allows us to see the world from another person's perspective, and we can "put ourselves into their shoes" (so to speak) and look at the world how they would see it, including seeing our own actions from their view point. The upshot is that we can know that certain actions would annoy us, and we can see that if we performed those actions, it would annoy others equally. As a social species with a large group size cna complex interactions, this is an essential skill to have and any advantage one has with this will convey quiate a significant advantage to those that have it. It means that they can better co-operate as a group and have less infighting among them (so more energy is able to be spent achieving goals). So the Conscience is the brain's "trick" to help us work together as a social species.

Here is a question: Imagine, as a child you had a Goldfish as a pet, and then it died. Which would you rather occurred: A) Your parents tell you that it died or B) Your parents replace it with an identical one without your knowledge leaving you to belive your goldfish never died. In other owrds, would you rather live your life with truth, or would you rather live a lie. Under Athiesm, we try to determine what it truth and what is a lie. This is done by eliminating any assumptions that can not be proved with evidence (and by evidence I mean data that eliminates other - if not all other - possiblities). As there is no such evidence for the existance of God (it either doesn't eliminate the possiblity that God dosen't exist or the data itself is not true), as an Atheist one can not acftep the existance of God. This is similar to Agnosticism, but with an important difference: Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve if the evidecne is uncertain wher as Atheists take the negative (ie: disbelieve). So to answer your questions directly: 1) When asked not to believe, Atheism is offering the knowledge that you are only accepting what can be shown to be true and real. It is saying that just because someon believes something to be true does not make it true. After all, I might believe that all the money in your bank account should be mine, this does not make it true, if it did, I'd be both extremely rich (as I'd believe that all the money in all bank account is mine) and extremely poor (as everyone else would believe the same). 2) For this we have to avoid the assumption that the God you believe in is the real God, simply because there are Gods that other peoiple believe in and to answer this I can't just answer it for a specific God. It is actually this fact that there are other Gods that people believe in that provides my answer. In all religions that demand a bliefe in a God or Gods, they are quate strict about belife in false Gods. They take this as being worse than belife in no God. So, as we can't determine if any Gods are the real Gods (or that there is any Gods at all), then the safer option is to not believe in any God at all (until he/she/it/they actually make it clear to all). Of course, if no Gods exist, then you will have been right all along. 3) This is assuming that God exists, and if God doesn't exist, then rejection of God is better than living a lie. If God does exist, then rejection of him can be seen as a protest at his past actions. See, in christianity, God is supposed to be Omnipitent (that means that there is notthing that He can't do) and Oniscient (that is He knows everything). What this means is that He has the power to do anything. And by this I mean anything (that nothing is imposible), not just a real lot of things. For instance: He would have the power to stop people committing sin and still allow them to have free will. Yet, He apparently allows us to commit sin and cause suffering. The only conclusion is that He wants us to suffer and commit sin (and therfore spend an infintie amount of time suffering in hell for it). To me this is pure evil. Here is an example that will make this clear: Imagine I am in a car at the top of a hill. I have complete control over the car if I want to, and the car start rolling down the hill towards a group of school children that can't get out of the way. Now, I could put the brakes on and stop the car from hitting them without harming the car at all or changin it from being a car. But instead I don't use the power at my control (ie hit the brakes) and let the children get hit by the car, after all it wasn';t me that started the car rolling, or put the hill there or caused gravity to exist. Would you see me as an evil person for doing what I did? I certanly would. All it would have taken is for me to push the brake and stop the car and I would ahve saved all those children. Would you see me doing such a thing as a Good act? I would. So, If someone has the power to prevent harm and is given the opertunity to do so, is it not right for them to prevent harm if they are good? So, now look at God. He has the power to prevent all suffering and harm (nothing is impossible for God) without contravening our Free will... ... but He does not do so. In effect he chooses not to apply the brakes and lets the car hit the children. I would reject such a God on the basis of Moral and Ethical grounds. So if the christian God exists, He must be Evil and I don't want to worship evil, and by that I woudl reject Him. 4) With the christian afterlife, I would not considder it hopeful. Just say that you make it to heven but someone you love does not and goes to Hell. That person you love will be in Hell for an infinite amount of time, and so suffer infinitely. To me, if I was the one to go to Heven, this would be Hell: Knowing that some one I loved was suffering infinte suffering. So there is no way that the christian version of Heven would be considdered Heven for me. I would prefer non-existance (and non-existance to all - because at least they woudln't suffer) to that. Also, a non-afterlife gives meaning to existance. If you had an infinite amount of time to exist, then any finite amount of time is meaningless. So if there is an infinite afterlife, then nothing that occurs, none of the people that are alive or have lived or will live should any meaning to you. However, if life is finite and there is no afterlife, then every single moment that you ahve is the most precious thing you ahve, and the people you meet, the people that existed (and allowed you to exist) and the peopel that come after you (if at least to remeber you, or the cause you had in their existance) have great importance. So an afterlife means that nothing that occurs is of any importance, but no afterlife means that everything you experience, everything you do has great importance. And, I find that very hopefull. Just because something/one says that christianity is based on love does not make it so. If it is, then sure, it makse sense, but first one must test the assuption. The question is: How can you tell if someone is lieing to you? The answer is easy: Check to see if what they say is real or not. In other words, you test the assumptions and data they give you. Looking at christianity and looking at the Bible, I can not see how the idea that it is based on love can be true. I can see how it is based on fear and revenge (exodous 32:14). So, no. I can't see how the God of Christianity loves us. Remember, God is supposed to have infinite power and knowledge which means that there is nothing He is incapable of doing, including what to us is imposible, even going so far as to resolve any and all paradoxes, and still level them as a paradox (the old: Can God create a stone that He can't lift. Yes, and then He lifts it). So it is possible for God to eliminate any and all suffering without it causing problems for any plans He has or affecting our freewill (or anything). But as there is suffering, it means that God has chosen not to eliminate it, or even cause it in the first place. This is not love in any way shape or form. If God exists, there is no evidence that He loves us. The reason that these people of faith that act horrifically at all is proof that God does not exist, or that if He exists does not care for us is because He has the power to stop the suffering of the victims without causeing any disruption to His plans (or whatever). The only reason, if God exists, is that He wants those victims to suffer, and that is not something that comes from love. -Well it doesn't have the hipocracy of a God that is supposed to love us but dose nothing, even though it is within His power to do so, to stop us suffering. -It attepts to determine what is lies and what is truth by using rational thought. -It offers a real reason for hope and meaning in our lives. -It gives us a basis for real morality and ethics, not some arbitary rules (what is morally wrong about mixing cloths of different fibers). -It doesn't attempt to suppress our indipendance and free will (yes, this is rather ironic that God apparently gave us free will, but for most of its history, the church, has striven to keep people ignorant - and still does - so act to restrict free will). -It bases it conclusions on what is right, not what sounds right (truth is more important than a nice sounding lie). There is a lot more, but this post is getting too long.

The problem with this is you can also say that "Lord of the Rings" has equal weight to the bible as it has many moral and social issues and guidance in it. It is of course, not litteral-historical, but the there are truths in it (friendship, loyalty, standing against injustice and evil is a good thing, etc). By stating that the Bible is not a literal-historical truth, then you are saying that the Bible is a work of fiction. This then raises the question of the existance of God: Is God just a fictional literary device? It rasises the unconfortable (for believers) question of wheter or not God is real or fiction. Actually, this sort of answers your initial question: "Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?" The answer is: To avoid ambiguity and unanswered questions. If you don't use rigourious methodolgy in determining if a question is true or not, then it leaves open the possiblity for anyone to indert the answer that suits them best. This ambiguity means that what you have is not a truth, but an oppinion. Because you have taken the position that the bible is not a litteral-historical truth, it leaves open any work that is not a litteral-historical truth to be substituted as equally "true" according to your criteria and "Lord of the Rings" has equal footing in that respect. In another thread I described waht I meant by evidence: That it is a methodolgy to differentiate which of several positions are true or not. If you argue a point, but the arguments you give allow someone to reach a different (or even contradictory) conclusion than you do, you really haven't successfully argued your point. As a better example: In the Bible the first commandment is: You shall have no other Gods before me. Now, for the sake of argument we will take that as true. But, imagine you are discussing God with someone and you putforward an argument that they should belive in your God. But, because you don't use arguments that preclude other Gods from being worshiped, or that they argumentsd don't properly describe your God, the person you are discussing this with ends up believing in the wrong (or false) God. So, even if you accept the Bible as truth, you are under a form of obligation to make sure that you pass of the belief in the correct God, and the only way you can do that is to use a rigiours methodology that eliminate the posibility of a mistake. That is: That things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

Before I get started, I'll describe what I mean by evidence: Evidence is data, or an argument that distinguishes two or more positions from each other and removes at least one from the posibility of being true. Thaty is "evidence" allows you to determins which arguments are true or false. If something does not do this, then it is not evidence. The really big problem with the Shroud of Turin is that the "image" on it is not what you would get if it was actually used as a shroud. It is, in fact, the type of image you would get if it was a photograph, or a drawing/painting. In computer graphics they commonly have to create an image (called a texture) to put on a face. To do this, they use something called a UV Map (there are plenty of resources on the web so you can see what these look life if you don't know - just google for it). This proves that the image on the Shroud of Turin could not have been formed by wrapping it around the person's face. Therefore, if the image on the Shroud of Turin could not have been formed by its use as a shroud, then it clearly is not a real shroud, and therefore can also not be a real relic. Of course, 700 years or so ago, when the shroud was "found" (or created), they didn't know about UV Maps, so it is not suprising that they made that kind of mistake. This pre-supposed the existance of God (and that he loves us). If it is possible for such a God tyo exist, then it is equally possible that a God exists and He hates us). As this "proof" assumes the conclusion of the proof, it makes no sense and therefore is not proof. There is accepted proof that life can get started and develop without the need for a creator (or other God), so this does not provide evidence. This is because the existance of life does not distinguish whetehr life was created by a God or occured by natural processes because the existance of life does not eliminate one of thes posibilities. On the other hand, if life can be shown to have started by purely non supernatural means, it does not mean that God doesn't exist, just that He/She/It/They had no direct influence in it. This is an incorrect useage of the thermodynamic principals. As this is a misrepresetnation of them it doesn't qualify as proof. The reason systems tend to degrade over time is that there are many more states that are "disordered" than Ordered (it is part of what defines ordered and disoredered). Also, this only applies for a closed system (that is a system that has no external inputs. True, a God would act as an external input if a God existed, but for Earth, we have the Sun as an external input, and even gravity (so long as there are things to fall down that is) as an external input, so Earth, and Life on Earth are by no means a closed system. As there is an external input for us, it is possible to decrease entropy on Earth without ther need for a God to do so. This, also therefore, does not constitute as evidence. So by this you mean that God has left proof that He exists. Well then, please give us some. remember, to count as evidence it has to remove the posibility that the Non existance of God is a valid posibility. If it doesn't then it is not evidence. As you have stated that you believe this to be true, then you must have such evidence. Ignorance of facts is not proof. In this, Anton Flew, did not have knowledge about how life could have arrisen from matter, but now we know of at least 6 different ways for this to occur (the main problem is in working out which way was the way it started on Earth, not that it was possible) and he let this ignorance act as evidence for God. As ignorace is not evidence (because it does not distinguish between truth or falseity of the different posiblities), he has applied reason incorrectly. Just saying "I don't know how it works" is not a good reason to believe in God. I don't know how the engine in a car works. Does this proove Gods existance, as "I don't know so only God could know and as only God could know and they exist, then God must exist" does not apply proper or correct reason (by it's very nature it disregards reason for ignorace). Since your argument was that Athiests do not apply proper reason, and the example you put forth was a clar example of missapplied reason that lead to belief, then I think you need to either review your argument, or at least get a better example (one that actually shows someone using correct reason to arrive at belief).

Wouldn't it be considdered slavery? In the movie, Truman, was owned by the corporation and forced to work. This, to me at least (I don't know about american law and how that works), seems to be a form of slavery.

It kind of depends on what is ment by "eternal". If it is taken to mean "really long", then it is probably possible. If it is ment as "Infinitely long" then definitly not. The reason it can't be infinitely long is that if the universe will eventually contract in a "big Crunch" then that would destroy any life and thus life can't be infinitely long. If the universe expands for ever, then the distribution of resources (energy and materials for repair) gets too spread out to support life and it will also end. If the universe does neither, then entropy will eventually overwhealm and life will end. So, no infinite life. However, a finite, but very long life might be possible, and we are perhaps seeing the first possibilities of it with current medical science. Craig Vetner and his reasearch team has recently unveiled a synthetic cell that they can program with DNA designed and made by them. Of course it is extremely early at this stage, but such a systerm might allow us to clone our cells and fully repair the DNA in them (current cloneing techniques and stem cells can't do this). Then, using tissue engineering techniques (eg: using 3D printing of live cells or scaffolds for stem cells) it will be possible to re-build organs from the body and transplant them back into it and avoid rejection. Also, it will be possible to slowly replace damaged cells from an organ (like the brain) with stem cells (most likely created with Vetner like cells for full rejuvination) by injecting them where needed (this can currently be done with stem cells - although I am not sure if it has been done in humans yet) as the body has some ability to direct and move these cells around a bit. Using these types of techniques it should be possible to allow the body to survive quite a long time (so long as the infrstructure exists). If we look to hypothetical technologies (that might be possible), then there is, of course , computers and Moore's law (every 18 months computing power for cost doubles). This means that by around 2050, computers will be powerful enough to store and run a human brain. They have already simulated a Cortical column (the basic processing structure of the human brain) on a super computer, so this does seem like it might one day be a possiblity. So a finite, but long life might be possible within our lifetimes, but this is only a might.

The "images" we "see" in our mind (and yes, even what we see with our eyes too), are not like a camera. Just because we can see or imagine seeing an object does not mean that there is "light" in our brains. What is happening is our brains are processing information, and it is the result of that processing that we percieve (but not as light, instread as the processing of the result of the processing). With a computer, if you unplug the monitor, the computer can still work and can still run a 3D game (like an FPS). This means that the computer does not need to produce "light" (from the monitor) to process the information about a 3D scene that would normally be outputed as a visual system. So to process visual information (as the 3D game does) you don't need "light" to do so. Thus, there is no reason that the brain needs to have "light" to process visual information either. This means that just because you can visualise something in your mind does not mean that it actually has to have any phgysical reality or involve any physical construct. When you visualise those two lines, you are not creating two lines, but you are processing information that "tricks" your mind into seeing two lines, even though there is nothing there. It is just information, not lines. I can imagine and even visualise many things that don't exist (like flashing neon unicorns), but that does not mean they are real in any way. What it means is that my brain is capable of simulating the same information that it would recieve if such a thing did exist, not that it does exist.

The reason why I called your argument a strawman is that you werere presenting Moontanman's argument as one of probability. He wasn't. It was an argument about evidence. As this is a complete mis-representation of Moontanman's argument, it is in fact a Strawman.

Think of probability here. If life has a probability of existing (call it 'X'), and the probability of a sentient species writing "Hamlet" as 'Y', then the probability of another species writing Hamlet is X * Y. So the chances of a species existing is greater than the chance of a species existing and writing Hamlet. As the chances of a species specifically writing Hamlet is small, the chances of a species existing and writing Hamlet is corispondingly small as well. So your "Hamlet" argment is really just a strawman.

Actually you did the quote is (emphasis mine): "However, contrary to your assertion, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that indicates the necessity of a creator for both the universe and life in it." Yes, you are arguing for the necessity of a creator. And backed up by references to the Nobel Prize winning Scientist who developed those theories. So they are not just stories, they are "stories" with direct, repeatable evidence to support them. You have claimed evidence to support your "stories" of a "necessary" creator, but have not provided any. So, if we are going to use rational argument here, then a story with supporting evidence is far better than one without it, don't you think? Actually I know you think that because that was supposedly your counter argument against me: that there was no supporting evidence. But I provided it and if you choose to ignore it, then that does not make me wrong. The existence of such research projects do not support my claims, but the results of that research project would. As the research projects do support my claims (as my claims are based on the results of that research). No. the Turing Machine is an abstract description of how mathematical functions can be combined into algorithms. Specifically how one set of symbols are translated into another set given a set of rules. Yes, you can make a physical Turing Machine (your computer is a rather special one - it being a universal Turing machine), however, the physical structure of such a machine is irrelevant: If the system has a certain set of properties, then it qualifies as a Turing machine as the Turing machine is the lable3 given to systems with those properties. So, Turing machines are no more "designed" than PI or the square root of 2. It is just the physical implementation can be (but doesn't have to be) designed. Ok, here is a really simple thought experiment (you can do this for real if you want though). The one thing is you are going to have to be the "engine" because I have simplified this in order to make the point. It is perfectly conceivable that such a system could exist naturally, but to get such an explicit example would require a contrived (but perfectly feasible to occur without any outside set-up). 1) Take a bunch of drinking straws (or bits of string will do), around 10 will do for now. 2) Randomly cut them to different lengths (you could start them all off at deterministic lengths, but randomness will do here for simplicity's sake). 3) Find the shortest straw and throw it out (in terms of evolution this is selection). There are ways that this can occur without human intervention. 4) Using one randomly selected from remaining straws cut a fresh straw to a similar but not necessarily identical length (in terms of evolution this is reproduction with inheritance and variation). 5) Repeat steps 3,4 and 5 until you can no longer cut the straws (ie they are the full length of a fresh straw). For selection in natural systems this can be thought of in terms of the old joke: How fast do you have to run to avoid being eaten by a lion? -> Faster than the slowest guy (because the lion will catch the slowest guy and not need to keep chasing you). The lengths of the straws can be an analogy to the speed of the runners (maybe because they have longer legs). So in a natural system all you need a lion to chase and eat slow runners and for the fast runners to breed (with variation and inheritance) and you will get Natural evolution without the need for any designer. Wow, I just disproved your counter argument: that evolution can not exist without a designer behind it. Slow runners get eaten by lions, faster runners breed and pass on their faster running, as there are less slow runners in the population (the have all been eaten by the lions), and the fast runners are passing on the genetics that give them fast running ability, the population as a whole ends up evolving to be faster runners. Now, I have had people try counter arguments against this and I will pre-empt the most common ones: 1) The lion and the prey could have a designer. Ok, yes, they could have, but as your argument was that evolution could not occur without a designer, lets just, for the sake of argument here, assume that it is possible that lions and prey can exist without a designer. If, under this assumption the results of the situation remain unchanged, then a designer is not necessary. A brief thought shows that in no part of the lion/prey situation requires a designer to step in and intervene, then if lions and prey can exist without a designer then a designer is not necessary for the lion/prey system to produce evolution. Again, this does not say that a designer does not exist, just that the existence or non existence of a designer is totally irrelevant to evolution. As your argument was that evolution could not occur without a designer, then this proves your argument false. Therefore: Evolution does not need a designer. As a Turing Machine is just the translation of one set of symbols into another set of symbols according to a set of rules, then does DNA show the properties of a Turing machine. DNA is transcribed into RNA. However as RNA has a different set of bases, then this constitutes a different set of "Symbols" So, here is the first Turing machine: DNA to RNA RNA is then transcribed into proteins. Now, proteins are a completely different set of symbols and it takes more complex rules than for DNA to RNA, but there is an exact set of rules that can be used to perform this, so here again is a perfectly good natural Turing Machine (number 2) As evolution acts on the information on the DNA, then changes to the DNA result in changes to the organism. Then the change in genetic code from one organism constitutes as a change in symbols (as the ordering of the symbols is also considered a translation in terms of Turing machines). This means that the variation (one of the key processes of evolution) is demonstrably a Turing machine (along with many other biological processes). Since your question was about if evolution used any Turing Machines, then Yes, Evolution itself is a Turing machine (not necessarily a universal Turing machine, but it could be). Actually, according to Turing Machine theory, any true Turing Machine can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. So, if evolution is really a Turing machine, then a Universal Turing Machine must be able to emulate it. in other words, can evolution exist on a computer (computers are implementation of the Universal Turing machine specification). As I have personally implemented evolution on a computer, and I know of hundreds of other examples (from aircraft design, circuit board design, car design, traffic routing, the routing of data packets in networks, the design of factory layouts, etc, etc etc - pretty much most technology now days has had some part of it developed by evolutionary processes running on computers) then I know that computers certainly can implement evolution. This proves that evolution must be a Turing machine as any algorithm implemented on a Universal Turing Machine must be able to be implemented on a Turing Machine (even if that Turing machine has to be a Universal Turing machine). This it is also equally fruitless to speculate, (or more so, postualte) the existence of a designer that exist outside the system of the universe. So according to this argument, it is only worthwhile to postulate a designer that exists within this universe, but then Cap'n Refsmmat augment still stands: Who created that designer (or is it turtles all the way down). This leaves you with 3 choices: 1) Accept that it is worthwhile speculating about external entities and conditions (which means you have to respond to Cap'n Refsmmat argument). 2) Accept that external entities and conditions are meaningless, which means you have to talk about designer in this universe, but then you still have to respond to Cap'n Refsmmat argument. In either of these cases, you have to respond to Cap'n Refsmmat argument. 3) Accept that your argument is flawed and a creator is not necessary or required and there is no logical argument for a creator. You know what: they have looked for them and found them. We call them the Physical Laws and the people looking for them Scientists.

Yes, you are correct. If you look at it on a molecule by molecule basis, it does occur in a stochastic way, but as large amounts of these chemicals are involved, then the chance of these reactions occurring rises to an almost certainty. Of course modern Nucleotides are far too complex and require cellular machinery to produce them, but they are not the only nucleotides that can exist. For example: Phosphoramidat DNA (which can spontaneously polymerise). You might have heard of Dr Jack Szostak from Harvard Medical School. He has been doing research into this. Also this is a good (but simple) over view of the process: You can probably skip the first 2 minutes and 40 seconds. As early Lipid vesicles are permeable to the monomers, but impermeable to the polymers, then it stands to reason (without the need for citation) that if you have monomers that spontaneously polymerise inside the vesicle, then they would not be able to get out again and so an accumulation of them would arise inside the vesicle (but see again the work by Dr Jack Szostak). I was not stating that RNA or (even DNA) specifically were the polymer chains, but was stating that certain Nucleotides can spontaneously self polymerise. I mentioned RNA and DNA because they too are nucleotides as well. Again, see the work by Dr Jack Szostak Enzymatic activity is not necessary for the basic system to work, just that if there are any strands that do show such activity it would give likely give that vesicle an advantage over others (which leads to evolution). Also enzymatic is not the only source of advantage that would increase the information content (the "careful construction") of the polymer stands. Remember, at this point evolution is "kicking in" and favouring order over randomness in the nucleotides polymer strands when that order gives an advantage. As the system I was describing does not require RNA, just Nucleotides (which there are hundreds of different types, not just the ones found in DNA or RNA). And, as I did not specify that, this has been your assumption, which amounts to a straw-man argument (ie: you were not arguing against my claims, but your own creation from your incorrect assumptions). Also in the system I described, there does not need to be anything active within the vesicle to cause this. The outside environment (in the form of kinetic forces to break apart the vesicles and occurring chemicals like the nucleotides and lipids) would supply the vesicle with the th9ings it needs to grow and replicate. This is why this is not life, but the precursor to life (hence why it is about how life got started). Even the final system I described would not be life (FTR: I never said it was), but it does show evolution and many of the qualities that life has (growth, replication, etc) but it can't self replicate. However, any change that allowed self replication would be a massive advantage to that vesicle as it would allow it to replicate without outside help and thus expand into environments that the non-self-replicating vesicles could not. All that is required to do this is to allow the nucleotide chains to be able to be separated and joined by internal chemistry (ie that it produces) rather than through external means as the vesicles I described. Logical Falacy: Ad Hominin You used an ad hominin attack stating that "Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the existence of this evidence". You are claiming it is our "difficulty accepting the existence of the evidence" that is our cause of our inability to accept your position. So, as you have asked of me: Citation please. What is the evidence you have for the necessity of a creator. As I have already shown, it is possible that life can spontaneously form through just chemistry (and even gave references to the researcher directly working on that method after you asked for them - I didn't at first as I thought it fairly easy to check them with just a simple google search, let alone going to scientific journals). Yes there has: Benoît Mandelbrot, John Conway, Roger Penrose, and many other mathematicians studying complexity theory (because that is what complexity theory is all about - complexity from simple mathematical rules). Of course, not all simple systems will produce complex outcomes, but it is certainly possible to do so. For the record: I never stated a closed system. That is an assumption by you, thus another straw-man argument. I was not specifically trying to use it as an example of DNA (another assumption by you. At that at that stage I was talking about that simple systems can create complex outputs. Actually if you want to know, if you use the right encoding system, you will find your own DNA sequence within the Mandelbrot set (ie: instead of displaying it the values as colour values, you display it as ASCII characters values). But that is a complete aside, all the Mandelbrot set was meant to do was to show that from simple systems you can get very complex outputs. So, if you want to talk specifically about evolution then all you need are 3 rules (or functions if you prefer): 1) Replication of the selected with inheritance 2) Variation with replication 3) Selection of the variation with competition Note that Variation does not have to be random variation, it can be deterministic variation and that Selection does not have to be from within the system, but can be imposed from outside the system (this is usually called artificial selection as opposed to natural selection). These 3 very simple rules are all that is needed to produce evolution. These 3 rules can be encoded into a Turing Machine. Turing machines are an abstract concept that mathematically encapsulate certain functions. As long as the hardware they are implemented on can perform those functions, then any combination of those functions (algorithm) is allowed. This means that Turing machines are "hardware independent" and that if two turning machines can perform the same basic functions, than an algorithm designed for one of them can be (with some degree of modification) be adapted to run on the other. So all that is needed to prove evolution must be true is to show that living systems can perform the 3 functions needed for evolution and that they are arranged in the correct algorithm. So: - Do living systems replicate with inheritance: yes - Do living systems have variation from generation to generation: yes - Do living systems show selection with competition: yes - Do these functions exist in the correct order to create the algorithm: yes. In other words: Evolution of living systems is a mathematical fact. It can also be mathematically shown that the algorithm of evolution has the property of complexity from simple systems (ie: the 3 rules in that algorithm). As the system (evolution of living organisms) has been shown to be algorithmically true and internally consistent, there is no need for any outside agent (god, human, alien or otherwise) to be invoked to explain it. Of course, this does not rule out there being an outside agent (as I explained above), just that it is not necessary.

If chemistry was like rolling dice, then these kinds of assesments would be valid, but chemistry is not like rolling dice - it follwos well defined rules. For example: Certain chemicals prefer to rect to others, and under cirtain circumstances. Because of this non randomness in chemical reactions, using a statistical analysis of the likelyu hood of a chemical reaction occuring is not a valid counter arguemnt to abiogenisis (evolution is not the creation of living systems). According to the laws of chemistry, if you have carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen and supply a certain amount of energy (not necesarily electrical, but heat, uv light and even kinetic will do) you will get increasingly complex chemicals of the type called organic (essentially carbon/nitrogen chemicals). These are precursors to living chemistry in that they are the basic components that go together to make living systems. Two groups of these that are important are the Lipids and Nucleotides. Both of these are known to spontainiously generate given some pretty common, and wide ranging conditions. Whatis interesting about the lipids (phosolipids especially) is that they have a Hydrophobic end (water repelling end) and a Hydrophilic end (water attracting end). The phycics of this cause the lipids to line up next to each other into a membrane and form vesicles (like a cell - in fact the cells you are made up of are made up from such phospolipid membrances). If these membranes encounter any free lipids, they will absorb them into the membrance and grow. Also enough agitation (kinetic action) can cause them to split into two (which then reform into two vesicles). So we have growth (when they absorb naturally occuring lipids) and division (when they split apart). However, this is still a long way from a living system. Next is the Neuclotides: these also occur natrually. Neucleotides will naturally polymerise under cirtain circumstances. Single neucleotides are able to pass through lipid membrances, but polymerised neucleotides are too big to do so. This means that single neucleotides will be able to enter or leave a lipid vesicle, but if the neucleotide polymerises inside a vesicle, then it will not be able to leave again. This means that over time the lipid vesicles will accumulate more and more neucleotides inside them in long chains. Another aspect of neuclotides is that the catalyse their own polymeriseation by binding to their pair (as in RNA or DNA neucleotide pairings - yes neucleaotides are the building blocks of RNA and DNA). As they form a paired chain the second chain polymerises and you get an paired neucleotide chain (which can then go on an catalyse another chain, and so on). At the momnet these chains are random strings of neucleotides and do not do anything useful, for the most part. However certain neuclotides do have some effects, like being able to produce lipids (or at least catalyse their production). If such sequences form, then the vesicles that house such chains will grow faster than others and therefore be more likelyu to split (effectlivly reproduce). Also some have the ability to encourage or block the uptake or removal of lipids in their vicinity and so a vesicle with these would be more likely to be able to steal lipids from other vesicles (become predators). Now we are getting itno evolution rather than abiogenisis, but the processes to reach this point are not random, follows the rules or chemistry and occur in quite a large range of circumstances. Of cources, the "chance" of it orruring randomly are quite astronomical, but since it isn't random, chance is not the correct way to evaluate this. The only evidece I have seen is flawed logic (namly the strong anthropic principal and the mistaken belief that complex systems can't arise form simple rules). It is certainly possible for very complex system to orriginate from simple rules. There is a branch of mathematics that deals with this (complexity theory). Take for example this: zn+1 = zn2 + c This is the formula for the Mandelbrot set. This simple rule defines the most complex thing we know of (it is actually infinitly complex - as I siad, the most complex thing we know of ). So what we have here is a very simple rule and this produces something so complex it could not exist in its entirety in the universe. It is more complex that the entire universe This is direct proof against the belief that from simple systems complexity can't arise (this belief is also used as evidecne against evolution and abiogenisis because they don't think a simple system can generate complex life). At the Big Bang what came into exists was Space and Time. There is nothing about that that says that nothing else existed at that point. It is therefore possible for the laws of the universe to exist, as well as energy to exist at the point of the bing bang. Accorgin to the known laws of the universe, it is possible that Space and Time can form from jus these two things (Energy and the laws of the Universe - specifically quantum mechanics). Inother words, the Big Bang is not "Creation ex Nilho", but just the creation of space and time from energy and the laws of the universe. It is onyl when you have the incorrect assuption that the Big Bang created everything (incluign the laws of the universe and energy) that it makes no sense.

The formula E=MC^2 only applies in very specific circumstances (non inertial reference frame - ie: that you are not moving reletive to the even in question). The full formula is: E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 where E = Energy p = momentum c = speed of light in vacuum

Taxation is no more stealing than a shop owner asking for money for the food you eat. the government provides services (or at least it should). This comes in the form of protection (police, army, emergency services, etc), infrestructure (roads, telecomunications, electricity, etc - or the oversight to ensure fair delivery of these) and so forth. This is what you pay the taxes for. The threat (or fins or imprisonment) for failing to pay taxes is to ensure that people don't free ride and let other people pay for the things they use. This is similar to when you don't invite a friend out to drinks when they never shout a round when it is their turn.

Another good Game is the "Ultimatum Game" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game ). I find this interesting in that the Nash Equilibriums are not what turns out to be the best solution if the game is played repeatedly with communicating agents (ie: they can tell the others what you chose to do in your last game you played). It turns out that when played like this, a more fair approach to the game nets a bigger win. This is because your reputation and the willingness of individuals to make small sacrifices for the group (rejecting unfair offers), even if the group's winnings does not reflect their own winnings, means that others will be more likely to offer fair deals to them or else they risk being rejected.

I don't think ignorance of the law should be an excuse, but if you are caught breaking the law, there is one factor that seems to have been left out of this discussion (although jackson33 did sort of bring it up): the arresting officer(s). Although we have people employed to create and pass judgment on those broght before them for breaking the laws, there is the police nad other persons society (or the leaders) have appointed to enforce the laws. These people have some discressionary powers to let people off with a warning if they think it is warrented (but not in all cases). IF they believe that harm does not come from the activity, and the people involved were truly ignorant, it is possible that they could be let off with a warning. Also, even though there is a law and the arresting officer does deem that action must be taken, no all actions lead to cout apperences or criminal charges. There is quite a degree of flexability in how the laws are enforced that if ignorace is truly involved, the full force of the law does not have to be invoked.

So on one hand you are saying that it is going on all the time, and on the other you are saying that it can not be detected. So if you know it is going on all the time, how did you learn about it? See here is the problem, if you can know it is going on, then you must have evidecn that it does. If ther eis evidence that it does, then you can prove it. You can not have something that is not provable, and yet have proof that it is going on.

Yes it is a simplification, anyone can see that. But it is a simplifcation by necesity. What ydoaPs and the author of that comic were trying to do is to explain the basics of how game theory can lead to morality, not the complexities of how game theory can lead to morality. Besides, Prisoners dilema only covers one small category of game theory, there are many more "games" that have been identified, and I would say that the Prisoners Dilmena is not actually the best one for showing the complexities of it. A better example would be the "Ultimatum Game". In this the rule are one player gets a sum of money and then splits that how they like into two piles (the pile don't have to be even). The first player then decides which of the piles to give to a second player and which to keep for themselves. The second player then chooses to either accept or reject the offer. If the second player accepts the offer, both players get the money in their respective piles. If the second player rejects the offer, then neiter of the players get any money. (note: It doesn't have to be money but can be anything that can be shared between the players and would be benificial to have) Now, on first thought it makes sense as the second player to accept any offer the first player offers as something is better than nothing. Also as the first player it is in your interest to only offer the minimum amount that the second player would accept to them. In other words if this first thought is correct the second player would never get much mooney and the first player would hog it all. As a one off event, or if neither player could communicate their actions to a third party, then this is probably the best choice, however, if you repeat this game, or play it where players can communicate to other players about this, then it radically changes what is benficial to do. As the first player, if you offer good deals to the second player, and as the second player to reject unfair deals, and this is communicated tothe other players (or over repetitive plays), then you will get more money by being fair (and ethical and moral offers) than by being greedy. This is because you will more likely be offered fair deals (as the second player) if they know you will reject unfair deals. And, as the first player if you offer fair deals, then other players will not reject them. You might think that the prisoner dilema game does not apply easily to many daily situaitons (and that is true), but this game (the ultimatum game) is much more applicable to real life situaitons. For example: Every time you drive on the road, every time you pass another person on the street, and so on. This game applies hundreds of time each day. This game is about fairness and trust. Every time you trust someone, or expect them to be fair, the results of this game apply, and our society could not exist without fairness or trust. Living in a society would not be possible. Since this game does not rely on any spirituality, and it defines the core of what makes society possilbe (and also underpins most of the morality and ethics of religions, then this shows that religion is not needed for morality and that morality can exist without the need for religion. In evolutionary terms, this Untimatum game shows that if you live as as a solitary animal, then your interactions with other animals of your species should follw the behaviours of selfishness (and if youy look at the behavious of solitary aniamls this is how they behave), however, it also shows that if you live as a social animal then being fair and trustworthy is the better set of behaviours (at least with the members of your social grouping). As group animals that do better will be more likely to pass on their genes to new generations (and social species have advantages in certain environments over solitary species) then in terms of evolution fairness and trustworthiness will be selected for. This also shows that individuals in a social species will be selected against if they practice selfish behaviours as they can be ostracised by everyone refusing the deals they offer, even if they would be fair (or more than fair). In social species, the ultimatum game shows how both selection at the indivisual as well as the species level works to create morals and ethics by giving advantages to those that can be fair and trusted. In other words "packhood" gives the mechanism by which evolution works to produce morals and ethics. Packs hood does not mean a bunch of ravening wolves tearing things to shreds, but it menas that ther eis a definite and very strong selection pressure against imoral and unethical behaviour.

Déjà-Vu has already been explained. Our visual system has two circuits in the brain. A fast circuit that is used when urgent action is needed. It has very little in the way of processing to it, so identifying specific objects and such is not all that great. The other is a slower path that is the more commonly used one (for when an emergency is not needed). This has more processing done so the information we have about the environment is more rich in information. Now, if urgent action is not needed, the fast circuit is discaded in favour of the information rich slow circuit. If we don't need to act quickly then having more information is a better deal and the fast circuit is suppressed. However if urgent action is needed, then the processing of the slow circuit is canceled so that more resources can be given for the emergency actions. However, somtimes something goes wrong and we get a transitory glitch in this circuit and we don't discard either of the processing circuits. When this happens, we first become aware of the fast circuit feed, and then the slow circuit feed. We experience the same events twice. There are many such delayed action events that occur with our brains. The knee jerk reflex is one example as the reflex occurs quickly after the knee is tapped (this is the fast circuit), but we only become aware of it after it has occurred and the reflex is not due to concious control (this is the slow circuit).

The reason invertabrates can't grow to our sizes is because the breathing structures they evolved with are not as eficient as ours are in lower oxigen concentrations. Howeer, there is absolutly no reason that an alien inverterbrate would have the same lung structure (or any structure for that matter) in common with Earth based inverterbrates. It could be quite possible for them to have evolved a lung structure similar to ours (or completely different to anyhting found on Earth) and be able to breath as well (or better) as we can. This would then mean that you could get inverterbrates as larger (or larger) than us. Our eye placment comes from the fact that we decended from aniamls that needed to have acurate binocular vision. What about aliens with very different sensory aperatus. Might they use electro senses like many organisms do on Earth (sharks, platypus, etc), if they lived in an electricly conductive environemnt (like water) they might have such sense and not need vision. So even the assumption of eyes can't be certain. Even forward pointing limbs can't be taken as necesary. Look at birds. They effectivly use tehir feet and beak to manipulate their environment, and some birds are not just tool users but tool makers as well (that is able to modify an existing tool or found item to better suit their needs). There are tool using octopi that don't have just two limbs, or even specifically forwad pointing limbs, and yet they still manipulate objects in their surounding to extend the function of themselves (they use coconut shells as a mobile shelter - however IIRC they are not tool makers as they don't modify the shells at all). These examples of Earth based life that breaks your requierments for tool use seems to indicate that alien life would not necesarily conform to your constraints. No. A Humanoid is something that is similar to a Human (the "human" part of humanoid indicates this). So only by the loosest definition (and this is so loose that the term becomes meaningless) can you apply Humanoid to something like an inteligent preying mantis. Love that picture. Lnad crabs are very cool!.

But the purpose of my post was not to prove biological evolution. SO the fact that what I posted didn't prove it is to be expected. What I was attempting to do was to show that if you have micro evolution then you must have macro evolution as well based on the mathematics of algorithms. I even stated that was my goal. I did not state that my goal was to prove that biological evolution occurred. Later on in the post I did show that biological systems were capable of evolution by showing that they had the necessary "functions" to form the Turing Machine that performs the algorithm of evolution. Because I had established that if you get micro evolution you also get macro evolution based on maths (algorithms), then if one can show that life has micro evolution, then life must also have macro evolution. But, I did not set out to prove that life does have any form of evolution, only that if it did, then it must have both micro and macro evolution.

True, they are not designer to mimic biological behaviour, but the process that occurs. With Turing Machines, it is not the specific hardware that is important for the proof that an algorithm works, but that the process is proven to work. As far as the process of evolution is concerned, it has been proven to work. So any "machine" that performs those operations will perform the algorithm of evolution. All that then needs to be shown is that living organisms perform these operations, which has been done (reproduction, variation, inheritance and selection). So looking at living organisms without treating life as a special property (basically treat organisms as hardware of a Turing machine), then the processes that occur in living organisms performs the processes needed to implement evolution. The biological behaviours are secondary to the processes that make up the algorithm. Life can be seen as a biological Turing Machine. I did. Through non coding structures (like Non Coding DNA) the sequence can be modified without effecting the fitness. Also, as random variation does not have to occur, you can have deterministic variation to achieve this (yes with real biological organisms this would be extremely hard to do with current technologies - but in computer code it is quite trivial to do). There is a type of word puzzle where you start off with one word, then through modification you have to turn it into another word. Usually the3 puzzles have the constraint of a minimum and/or maximum number of changes you can make, but the game serves as a useful exercise. If you include non-coding (ie does not count when determining the viability or fitness of the word) section, then it is actually trivial to turn one word into another. eg (non coding in braces[]): Fun Fun[n] Fun[nn] Fun[nnn] Fun[nnn] Fun[onn] Fun[oon] Fun[ood] Fan[ood] an[ood] ah[ood] ah [ood] a hood hood hood good Good From Fun to Good (including capitals and viable words along the way). These could all have been done through evolution (and possibly in shorter time too) and depending on the selection criteria (but if you are going after a specific solution like this then you would be carefully crafting your selection criteria anyway). Remember, I said: In potential it can change, not that it would or has to.

Actually it is quite simple: Because it is a culturally based linguistic expression. There are many such cultural expressions that we use and not usually think about the origin or meaning of them. Why do people swear when they hit their thumb with a hammer? Why not just yell incoherently (well some people do), why use swear words at all? It is the same answer: Because it is a cultural linguistic expression. So the reason is that our culture has programmed us as that behaviour is the expected behaviour in that circumstance.

Yes, and evolution is a mathematical process none the less. The question for the science is: Does life perform the processes needed for the algorithm of evolution to occur? Now there is overwhelming evidence that it does, but, if there was some non varying but inheritable mechanism that defined species then this definition would not be subject to evolution and life would not be able to undergo Macro Evolution (but there is not evidence of this mechanism - but there is always the possibility that such a thing could exist, however remote). So, evolution as applied to living organisms is still science, but the existence of evolution and the fact that if the inherited information that describes an system is subject to micro evolution, then it must also be subject to macro evolution as long as no non varying encoding of the form exists. [quote name='Mr Skeptic;540510 That is patently untrue. There has to be a link of at the very least viable organisms connecting the two. Again' date=' you are right if you are only applying the process of evolution to current living systems, however, looking at the process of what evolution is, then any string of information [i']can, in potential[/i] be turned into any other string. The point I was making with this is that as DNA describes an organism, then you can't use differences in the DNA as a barrier to macro evolution, because the DNA in one organism could have been changed, through the process of evolution, into the other. With what I was describing in my post, you can't get hooked up on evolution only applying to living organisms. When you are looking at evolution as a mathematical process, the process applies to any system able to implement the functions needed to perform it. Whether this is in a computer program, by cutting straws or in word puzzles. The process I am talking about goes beyond just living systems. Evolution applies to much more than just living systems, and it is the similarities between these systems that demonstrates that evolution is not just a theory, but a mathematical fact, something that emerges from the fundamental functioning of the universe. The functions needed for evolution to occur is 1) Inheritance with variation 2) The inherited information describing the properties of the resultant 3) Selection If you have a system that performs these 3 function, then you will get evolution, and you will get both micro and macro evolution (unless there are other function that specifically disrupt these function). Also note that the variation does not have to be random either. You can have evolution occur with completely deterministic variation.