Mr Skeptic

The algorithm of evolution is a type of genetic algorithm, but it is based off the laws of nature. Since there is no evidence of intelligent entities ever making laws of nature, there is no reason to expect the algorithm of evolution to have been designed. There is however evidence of algorithms that demonstrate intelligence. In disagreeing with me you proved my point. You cannot use "poor" as a modifier for a binary state. "That's a poor 1" "That's a very good zero" don't make sense. So if function is binary how can some things function better than others?

Well, electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment. The magnetic field generated by a moving electron (rather than its intrinsic one) will look very different -- I think it was circles perpendicular to the motion of the electron, with their density falling off as 1/r^2. If you move several electrons in a circle, you again get a magnetic field similar to that of a magnet.

No one is saying modern lungfish are our ancestors. This does not make sense, and also shows a deep lack of understanding about the theory of evolution. It would be kind of like me trying to disprove the genesis account by saying that old men with long white beards don't seem able to create a universe. So, you and your cousin are descended from a common ancestor. This does not mean you are descended from your cousin, nor that your cousin is descended from you, nor that your grandpa is dead, nor that your cousin should look exactly like you. Evolution is a theory of common descent, not of pixies and fairies magically turning frogs into princes or whatever you seem to think. Like your great-great-great-great grandfather, they are dead. That does not mean that you and your cousins are not descendant from him (cause where is he?). Replace your magical ideas of what evolution is with common ancestry and you will have a better understanding of what scientists are saying. He's right, there is no such thing as species. We just pretend there are, for convenience. If you think otherwise, feel free to define what a species is.

I'm not really seeing the connection between an ozone layer and an atmosphere, nor between an ozone layer and oceans. The way ozone is formed in our atmosphere is UV light hits oxygen (O2) turns it into a different allotrope of oxygen, ozone (O3). This of course requires the presence of oxygen. The ozone layer blocks UV light, light which can damage complex organic molecules. But small inorganic molecules for the most part wouldn't really care, especially since most of them will be in the lowest energy state anyways. For example if you split H2O you get hydrogen and oxygen, but these two will spontaneously react to form H2O again given enough time or a catalyst. Generally, I've been hearing that the early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere. Since oxygen is an oxidizer, it would have trouble surviving in a reducing atmosphere in any significant amounts, as it would instead react with something. The same would be even more true for ozone. Another effect that the ozone layer has is to modify the heat conveyed by sunlight. By absorbing some sunlight far up in the atmosphere, it will slightly reduce the temperature that reaches the surface. I suppose that could have a slight effect on ocean formation, but then you have to explain where all the oxygen came from (the standard explanation is from photosynthesis in the early oceans).

I'm pretty sure he meant 500,000 Zimbabwe dollars (about 10 US dollars). I'm guessing people will value their organs differently depending on how old they are, for example. Very young people would get all $_$ at any significant amount of money and also due to not being paid as much, and would probably vastly under-price themselves despite them being able to get the most use out of their organs.

No, not even all the laws in the Bible. See for example the killing of homosexuals, the forbidding of certain foods, the requirement to leave farmland fallow every 7 years, the whole concept of "unclean", the forbidding of worshiping any other gods. Some of these laws are based on hate, some on practicality.

Some people don't draw the magnetic field lines that are within the magnet, but as you suggested, they are there. The only real difference would be a slight distortion since for example the magnet can be longer.

He's right though... copying DNA (look up PCR) is a fairly simple process, at least if someone hands you the ingredients as in my case. Easier than making a pie in my opinion. Of course, if I had to get the ingredients myself that would be a different story, but the same would be true for the pie.

Well, I suppose it depends on what specific flavor of Christianity you follow. Historically, God has been invoked to explain various things such as rain and lightning, etc., and such belief has been an impediment in trying to find real explanations for said phenomena. This is especially important in medicine, where to this day many believe it is God who has the power to cure (with some not even taking their kids to the hospital when seriously ill). There is also the reality that prayer does not get answered (when tested scientifically, so as to eliminate various biases). Oh and of course, that there is no reason to believe that the god you are worshiping exists, is the correct god, etc.

What correct predictions has he made about the structure of the universe?

Interesting thought.

Well, maybe you can compare the odds of the old man being "St Joseph" or an agent wondering why a bunch of people were digging a grave in a remote location? Also, why should we trust an account from a retard?* *Seriously, offering their hat to someone who tried to kill you and is running away?

Well, I think it could be zero. I don't really understand the maths, but basically it is that gravity cancels out the positive energy. Seems a bit strange to me, but I can't really say one way or the other. Zero-energy_Universe

Urine is essentially a waste product, the stuff from your bloodstream that was discarded by your kidneys. For the most part, drinking your own urine seems like it would do nothing more than force your kidneys to discard the same stuff twice. Historically, in the early days penicillin was very rare and expensive, and you could get second-hand penicillin by drinking the urine from someone who took some. The same should apply to most medicines or drugs, those which are discarded via the kidneys rather than metabolized. Of course, I'd prefer to just up my dose of the drug by taking more of it (with the doctor's permission) rather than trying to recycle it via urine, but to each their own.

Asyncritus, the claim is that lungs are homologous to swim bladders. Your argument that lungs are not homologous to gills is entirely misdirected (though true).

Briefly, believing in something does not make it true. Christianity does not offer eternal life, Islam does not offer an afterlife with 70 virgins, Hinduism does not offer rebirth -- such "offers" are, as far as anyone can see, delusions. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Some delusions are good -- for example, many people have delusions about their sexual prowess, but such delusions help them succeed. Sometimes delusions are detrimental. We offer truth, for whatever that is worth. Of course if you believe that God exists and that His offer is true, then it is obviously a good offer. But what you said was "When a Christian asks you to believe in God and preaches the Gospel etc to you, they are offering you a hope in Eternal Life." -- that is, you have to look at this offer from the perspective of a non-believer because you are offering it as a reason for belief. A non-believer would view the offer of eternal life as a nice delusion, while a believer would view atheism as offering a nasty hopeless delusion. Consider that worshiping the wrong god is worse than not worshiping any at all. The safe bet is to not worship any gods. Also, atheism offers a hope for (nearly) eternal life whereas Christianity seeks to deny anyone eternal life.

Yeah, I too am constantly surprised at how some people actually seem to care about celebrities. As if the random uninformed opinions of a bunch of pretty people were of any value.

As far as I know, the laws of nature and of math function exactly the same on the same item, and do not check what the source of the item was. Were a computer identical to the ones humans made to appear due to some freak accident, it would function identically to the one made by humans. A rock made by humans functions the same as a rock made by natural processes, etc. I see no reason why it should matter where an item came from -- it will function the same. You could instead conclude: 1) Information can come from non-intelligent processes 2) Genetic algorithms are intelligent You treat functional as if it were a binary descriptor. Some things are more functional than others, some so poor that they can barely be called functional.

It depends on the power source.

I make plenty of infrared light in my brain.

I'm not sure we can even do it. We have yet to solve the equation for thee or more point masses being acted on by Newtonian gravity. There's very few quantum systems that are exactly solvable, and planets aren't one of them. Not to mention the absurd computational resources that would be required if it were possible.

That's an interesting question. What powered early life or pre-life? Photosyntesis might work, but without the ozone layer the possibilities would be limited, I think to a few meters underwater where it is neither too dark nor too much UV. In any case, without repair mechanisms UV would be even more deadly. On top of this photosynthesis might be overly complicated. I think this leaves photosynthesis as an unlikely option, although some of the chemical components could have been created via sunlight. Chemosynthesis could be very simple if there were a constant source of chemical food -- little more complex than a battery. Geothermal vents could provide a constant supply of chemicals for this. It would also seem very consistent with other attributes of life, such as the membrane potential. A third possibility would be heat based. When doing PCR we use heating/cooling cycles instead of the various proteins used to separate DNA strands. It could be provided extremely simply by convection currents from geothermal vents, but it would be a rather meager energy source.

Nope, that would make it an ill-defined unsolvable problem. If you want that, you need to mention how much longer the minute hand is. Not good enough, that misses over half of the solutions.

Your equation looks right, though myself I would have set the kinetic energy equal to the gravitational+friction rather than how you did it. Maybe you and the program have a different value for g. Sounds like the sort of thing your difference between g=10 m/s^2 and g=9.81 m/s^2 would give.

The bolded parts contradict themselves. Something is unfalsifiable if and only if it makes no real predictions, which precludes it being tested or empirically validated. In any case, I too have a theory of everything but it does not fit in the 140 chara