0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CliveG on 31/03/2020 08:46:24Dumb Particles or Intelligent God. You know my vote (the latter of those two - for those with too many dumb particles to figure it out).And again Clive,Get a mirror.It takes fewer "bright" particles to understand a fairy tale thana physics book.
Dumb Particles or Intelligent God. You know my vote (the latter of those two - for those with too many dumb particles to figure it out).
I understand why unbelievers refuse to identify the kinds of specific evidentiary material they would accept.
Maybe BC is right in that a dumb virus can have the emergent property of "intelligence"
Results The mean ventilation rate was high whatever the technique used (24 bpm). A weak relationship between manual ventilation performance and the type of interface used was observed (p=0.0484). The overall rate of adequate ventilation was low even if we noticed a slight improvement when ventilating through an ETT (13.21% vs 7.5% of adequate ventilation). However, the rate of hyperventilation did not differ between mask and tube (79% vs 77%). A significant relationship is observed between professional category, the size of the hand squeezing the bag and manual ventilation performance (p<0.05).
Give me your proof of how and why the emergent property of intelligence comes from particles (dumb or bright). My dumb particles do not seem to grasp how your bright particles find this so simple.
It was not designed by humans but by Satan. He may be evil but he is not powerless and is not stupid. Do not underestimate the enemy.
Yesterday late afternoon I had a "feeling". We are fighting on two fronts which may become three or more. The obvious front is the virus, the second front is the global economy. The third front may be civil unrest (rioting and looting as in Italy South), and the fourth front may be outright war.
The way in which the virus has spread is unusual.
I understand why unbelievers refuse to identify the kinds of specific evidentiary material they would accept. It is easier to reject whatever evidence others present than to acknowledge upfront what has value. It is too bad. It is an old game and it is ineffective.
Quote from: duffyd on 31/03/2020 04:41:46I understand why unbelievers refuse to identify the kinds of specific evidentiary material they would accept. It is easier to reject whatever evidence others present than to acknowledge upfront what has value. It is too bad. It is an old game and it is ineffective.You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans.
The incredible complexity of the human body is more evidence of God...... the handiwork of an Intelligent Source ...
Quote from: jeffreyH on 31/03/2020 13:31:38Quote from: duffyd on 31/03/2020 04:41:46I understand why unbelievers refuse to identify the kinds of specific evidentiary material they would accept. It is easier to reject whatever evidence others present than to acknowledge upfront what has value. It is too bad. It is an old game and it is ineffective.You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans.Really?
It is not as though He makes it difficult to find him.
The incredible complexity of the human body is more evidence of God.
That fact of consciousness,
It is rational to believe Something, somewhere is responsible
We don't snap our fingers and create anything from nothing.
Quote from: duffyd on 31/03/2020 14:06:52The incredible complexity of the human body is more evidence of God.No.It isn't.There is a perfectly plausible mechanism to get this complexity without needing to invoke a God.Even if there weren't you still haven't actually moved things forward because , however complex a human might be, a God is necessarily more complex.If you don't want to think that complicated things "just happen", then you can't say that an even more complicated God "just happened".Your argument contradicts itself.