The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Everyone of them will have two wives; the marrow of the bones of the wives' legs will be seen through the flesh out of excessive beauty.

I wonder how the women feel about that :rolleyes:

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

I wonder how the women feel about that :rolleyes:

No, I wonder how the MEN feel about that. I can guess how the women feel about it;) Tis not for me thanks, one is quite enough.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

I wonder how the women feel about that :rolleyes:

They will be happy

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I note that you haven't had time to reply to my post, which I'm posting again here, lest it disappear beneath the frantic waving. Brian, you're more than welcome to offer an opinion on JC's posting's too.

========================================

> [wolfsbane] I've 'opted out' primarily because JC was best qualified to do to as he is
> doing, spanking evolutionist ass and pointing them in the right direction.

Out of interest, in reading JC's replies (which I assume you do from time to time), does JC come across to you as somebody with a firm grasp of techincal detail, a talent for clear and unambiguous writing and a willingness to answer questions honestly and completely?

I apprecaite your patience, robin. Things have been busy.

Yes, an affirmative to all these. With the qualification of course that no one is perfect in anything. But he certainly seems to have given an honest and painful defense of the truth - as the gnashing of teeth and scorn from your side seems to attest.

I think your problem is with the truth, rather than his presentation of it.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

But he certainly seems to have given an honest and painful defense of the truth

Such as the practice of copying and pasting from an online encyclopedia with random sentences of his own tacked on?

How is that honest?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Absolutely not the case. You entirely ignore the fact that you also look at the world, and determine what it is necessary for the Bible to say - that is, how the Biblocal passage can be tied into the world around us.

On the contrary, we bring the questions raised about the world to the Scripture to see what it says about them. Maybe it is silent. Maybe it is clear. Maybe it is difficult to tell what it is saying. But we don't make it say what we want it to.

That danger exists of course, in the secular as well as religious field: we are prone to make the evidence fit our frame. But it is not a principle of Biblical exegesis.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Alas, you completely fail to see the contradiction between what you claim ("raw nature moves it just the opposite way") and what is observed - that for example, sugar or salt crystallises out of solution - the less ordered becoming more ordered.

There is nothing that materialist evolution needs to account for when we can observe in the kitchen that what you say is so obviously false. The question is, why do you cling to this clearly ridiculous notion, which a seven-year-old can demonstrate to be untrue? Is there a reason why you need it to be true, perhaps?

A seven-year-old would have some excuse for this folly, but from a scientist I can only assume it is paradigm or spiritual blindness.

For a scientific a response to the crystal objection see:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#crystals
especially Question 2: What about crystals?

This paragraph perhaps summarises it: A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

A seven-year-old would have some excuse for this folly, but from a scientist I can only assume it is paradigm or spiritual blindness.

For a scientific a response to the crystal objection see:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#crystals
especially Question 2: What about crystals?

This paragraph perhaps summarises it: A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Er, yes. That was the point. To say that entropy always increases is to describe the system as a whole, not any localised region. Locally, entropy does not have to increase, as long as overall entropy increases. Creationists appear to ignore this rather important point, in order to claim that order and complexity can never increase.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Respiration and photosynthesis cascades work at almost 100% energy efficiencies!!!!

Wicknight
Photosynthesis uses approx 3%-6% of the available solar energy converted into bioenergy. Scientist believe that the actual process of photosynthesis has a theoretical limit of 11% efficency

Could I gently point out that Incident Solar Radiation is about 1 Kw per m2. Any plant that would attempt to capture ALL of this radiation would spontaneously burst into flames!!!!

Photosynthesis is therefore CORRECTLY DESIGNED to use a fraction of Incident Solar Radiation. A by-product of this design is that photosynthesis can still occur at light intensities of less than 10% of Standard Solar Incident Radiation – which leaves solar panels ‘at the starting blocks’ on this one.

The various components of the Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades such as the Krebs Cycle are ‘molecular machines’ that are amongst the MOST EFFICIENT energy production and transmission systems known to science – and they work at almost 100% efficiencies!!!

I would also make the point that perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors. For example, an Ant brain is PERFECTLY fit for the purposes of the Ant and ditto for an Elephant brain. However, an Elephant Brain is completely unfit for an Ant as is an Ant brain for an Elephant.

The Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades ARE indeed perfectly designed – and they are miracles of nano-engineering!!!:cool:


Wicknight
Despite what you and wolfbane believe there is no some great atheist conspiracy in scientific circles to just get at religion.

The reason why people are fighting to keep ID out of the class room is because it isn't science

In America you can't just demand that something that isn't science be taught in a science class room just because you mistakenly believe it supports your wacky religious viewpoint. That is against the constitution, and the principle of separation of church and state.

It's very convenient, I’m sure, to declare anything that you don’t like to be “non-science” – and then ban all discussion about it!!!:D

Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.

Personally, I would encourage my children to fully evaluate all sides of an argument before making up their minds. I believe that it is counter-productive to isolate children completely from any paradigm – ‘forbidden fruit’ can be very attractive !!!!

The ban on the teaching of Creation Science and Intelligent Design in American schools is actually ‘a blessing in disguise’ from a Creationist point of view.

The ban means that the only ‘origins explanation’ allowed to be taught in US public schools is pure Materialistic Evolution.

Paradoxically, this fact means that because Christian parents are under no illusions about what is being taught to their children in school, they therefore ‘take steps’ to ensure that alternative scientifically valid Christian ‘origins explanations’ are ALSO taught to their children OUTSIDE of school. This is one of the reasons why Creation Science and Intelligent Design are so vibrant in America today.


Originally Posted by J C

Modern Medical Science has discovered that the Human Appendix contains lymphatic tissue which helps to moderate bacterial populations within the intestine. It’s role is thought to be particularly important in preventing peri-natal gastro-enteritis.
The Appendix functions in a similar way to the Tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal.
Interestingly, Tonsils (which are now known to play an important immuno-defence role in fighting throat infections) were also considered to be vestigial or useless organs back 50 years ago as well!!!

Scofflaw
Well, as we move away from the Creationist roots of science, I would expect our ideas to become more rational...

Could I gently point out that it was EVOLUTIONISTS who invented the lists of so-called ‘vestigial organs’ – that have now turned out to have useful functions!!!
Creationists have always maintained that everything has a purpose in God’s Creation.:cool:


babyvaio
Some Christians worship man named Jesus as God, yet Jesus (peace be upon him) was just a creature, with all due respect, and God's Prophet.

ALL Christians believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
It is therefore NOT idolatrous for Christians worship Jesus Christ – although ironically, He doesn’t demand that we worship Him.
He actually asks us to BELIEVE in Him and to LOVE Him!!:)


Wicknight
Perfect design is perfect design.
The hint, in case that point escapes you, is in the use of the word "perfect" in the sentence

Design that does enough to be useful and get by is simply adequate design. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work.

The hint that escapes YOU is in the word DESIGN which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “the art or action of planning the look and function of something”.

In general all living things are aesthetically pleasing and function perfectly – and thus they are perfectly designed.

Any imperfections that have ‘crept in’ to either the aesthetics or the functionality of living systems are due to The Fall.:cool:


Wicknight
Its almost as if some kind of natural process developed the human eye! What a shock!

Question. What ‘Natural Process’ do we observe developing the genetic information for Human Eyes?

Answer. NONE!!!


Question. What ‘Natural Process’ could account for the spontaneous generation of the biochemistry of Human sight?

Answer. NONE!!!


Asiaprod
I think he is writing a book, and we are his research.

Not a bad idea!!!!

I could call it :-
“Walking with Evolutionists!”

Or a less populist title like :-
“A study on how Atheists react when their worldview is threatened!”

Or a more populist title like:-
“How Evolution finally became Extinct!!”:D

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Such as the practice of copying and pasting from an online encyclopedia with random sentences of his own tacked on?

How is that honest?

It was designed to see if Evolutionists would 'nit pick' the Encyclopaedia Britannica – and lo and behold they (or more accurately YOU) did !!!:D :eek:

It also saved me a great deal of time and energy – which after all, is what online encyclopaedias are all about!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The various components of the Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades such as the Krebs Cycle are ‘molecular machines’ that are amongst the MOST EFFICIENT energy production and transmission systems known to science – and they work at almost 100% efficiencies!!!

No they don't. Of the light they absorb for photosynthesis they only use it to 3-6% effeciency.
Most real world processes do not exceed 13%.
Effeciency isn't a comparison of how much they take in compared with how much there is available to take in, it is a comparison of how much they take in to how much is used usefully.

Could I gently point out that Incident Solar Radiation is about 1 Kw per m2. Any plant that would attempt to capture ALL of this radiation would spontaneously burst into flames!!!!

Hmm....

Assuming the plant has an area of about 100th of a meter squared I can't see how it would burst into flames. You are correct in that they don't absorb most of the light incident upon them, but doing so wouldn't make them burst into flames.


Also with this whole entropy thing, could either JC or wolfsbane give me a definition of entropy?
And then tell me how this effects evolution.
(And nothing ripped from the net please.)

Son Goku

J C wrote:

It was designed to see if Evolutionists would 'nit pick' the Encyclopaedia Britannica – and lo and behold they (or more accurately YOU) did !!!:D :eek:

Lame, you did it because you didn't know what you were talking about. Besides it was your random additions that were nitpicked, such as your doubt of the equivalence of Schwinger and Feynman formalisms.

J C wrote:

It also saved me a great deal of time and energy – which after all, is what online encyclopaedias are all about!!!:D

Saved you time doing what?
All you gave were random wikipedia quotes, which had very little relevance to what I asked. I don't see what the point of quoting sections of wikipedia about QED was, when I asked you about electroweak.

J C

Son Goku
Effeciency isn't a comparison of how much they take in compared with how much there is available to take in, it is a comparison of how much they take in to how much is used usefully.

I agree, and as Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades such as the Krebs Cycle are ‘molecular machines’ they are THEREFORE amongst the MOST EFFICIENT energy production and transmission systems known to science – and they DO work at close to 100% efficiencies in relation to the energy that they take in!!!


Originally posted by J C
Could I gently point out that Incident Solar Radiation is about 1 Kw per m2. Any plant that would attempt to capture ALL of this radiation would spontaneously burst into flames!!!!

Son Goku
Hmm....
Assuming the plant has an area of about 100th of a meter squared I can't see how it would burst into flames. You are correct in that they don't absorb most of the light incident upon them, but doing so wouldn't make them burst into flames.

Hmm.
Try focussing the Incident Solar Radiation on a sunny day using only a one thoudandth of a metre squared magnifying glass and see what happens!!!!
Compare the effect on a cloudy day – and you will see why Photosynthesis is DELIBERATELY (and perfectly) DESIGNED to use a fraction of Incident Solar Radiation!!!

Can I remind you that a large tree would have a total photosynthetic area of over a HUNDRED m2 and therefore it would have over a HUNDRED Kilowatts of Incident Solar Radiation falling on it. If it were to capture anything approaching 100% of this energy chemically in it's leaves it would rapidly run out of storage for the resultant sugars - or if it used a different chemical energy storage system it could spontaneously combust!!!:D

J C

Son Goku wrote:

it was your random additions that were nitpicked, such as your doubt of the equivalence of Schwinger and Feynman formalisms.

You also 'nit picked' the Graviton!!!

Scofflaw
To say that entropy always increases is to describe the system as a whole, not any localised region. Locally, entropy does not have to increase, as long as overall entropy increases. Creationists appear to ignore this rather important point, in order to claim that order and complexity can never increase.

Of course, Creationists accept that entropy can decrease locally by utilising external energy captured by intelligently designed mechanisms such as living systems and man-made machines.

The point about OVERALL entropy increasing is that the Universe, as a whole is ‘running down’ in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics – and thus it had to be ‘run up’ at some point in the past by some transcendent all powerful entity AKA God!!!!

The Big Bang tries to account for this originally low entropy state – but largely fails.

Direct Divine Creation does provide an ADEQUATE and COMPLETE explanation for how a low entropy Universe could arise.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

You also 'nit picked' the Graviton!!!

In what sense? I offered my opinion on an open question, nothing I said was a nitpick. Dyson's proof is not an open question, so they aren't even anagolous situations anyway. I suspected you didn't ask that question out of genuine interest, but instead as something you could use later.

Again I didn't nitpick Britannica, it was your random additions that were nitpicked, such as your doubt of the equivalence of Schwinger and Feynman formalisms. Something you offered no justification of.

And the encyclopedia quotes weren't from the area I asked you about.

Just admit you did something completely nonsensical.

Anyway, as usual make sure you answer this:
Also with this whole entropy thing, could either JC or wolfsbane give me a definition of entropy?
And then tell me how this effects evolution.
(And nothing ripped from the net please.)

Although I won't hold my breath.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The point about OVERALL entropy increasing is that the Universe, as a whole is ‘running down’ in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics – and thus it had to be ‘run up’ at some point in the past by some transcendent all powerful entity AKA God!!!!

The author does not support the conclusion.

J C wrote:

The Big Bang tries to account for this originally low entropy state – but largely fails.

How does it fail?
(And please, again, not the "OMGZ, tere wuz like nuthin then it exploded!!")

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Photosynthesis is therefore CORRECTLY DESIGNED to use a fraction of Incident Solar Radiation.

What? More nonsense :rolleyes:

The Creationist argument that if leaves processed any more light than they already do it would damage the planet is flawed for two reasons

1 - It isn't true. The process of photosystheis can easily process more energy that most plants do without damaging the plant itself. This is demonstrated by the fact that some plants are more efficent that others. The range of energy convertion ranges from 3% to 6% depending on the plant, where as the process can safely handle 11% with out damaging the process.

2 - The logic that the process can't be more efficent with harm is flawed to begin with because God isn't fixed to using the current process design. He could have used a much better over all design, since He is supposed to know everything

J C wrote:

A by-product of this design is that photosynthesis can still occur at light intensities of less than 10% of Standard Solar Incident Radiation – which leaves solar panels ‘at the starting blocks’ on this one.

More nonsense.

Photosysthesis has a theoretical max efficency of 11%, where as solar cells have been developed that function at over 25%.

The cheap commersial solar cells that originally could only handle 3 to 4% efficency have now been improved with a similar method to photosythesis and are producing 10% - 11% effiency.

So we are already well ahead of the plants, and we have only been doing this a few decades.

Oh yes and we aren't gods or perfect intelligences. Funny that :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I would also make the point that perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors.

In a perfectly designed universe there are no "conflicting factors". :rolleyes:

Or to put it another way, what did God have to worry about when designing photosystheis that He had no control over JC?

J C wrote:

The Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades ARE indeed perfectly designed – and they are miracles of nano-engineering!!!:cool:

Except we have already designed a better system ... in like 30 years.

Wow, God must be really dumb. After all He had an eternity to come up with this stuff, and He still couldn't make it work very well.

J C wrote:

It's very convenient, I’m sure, to declare anything that you don’t like to be “non-science” – and then ban all discussion about it!!!

They don't like it because it is non-science. Funny that isn't it, scientists not being happy about Creationists nonsense being taught in science class rooms

J C wrote:

Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.

Yes, right. And they haven't just spent the last 100 years trying to get evolution banned outright from schools. That was all just a misunderstanding was it ... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Personally, I would encourage my children to fully evaluate all sides of an argument before making up their minds.

I seriously doubt that, considering the lengths you will go to discredit evolution, including lying and constantly misrepresenting theories. It doesn't seem that you are particularly interested in an honest and far debate.

I'm still not sure you know or could actually explain the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution. Any time you have attempted to here you have got it wrong, so I don't hold much hope that you could teach it to your children.

J C wrote:

I believe that it is counter-productive to isolate children completely from any paradigm – ‘forbidden fruit’ can be very attractive !!!!

I think it is counter-productive to teach children nonsense ... but to each their own I guess.

Put you kids in a private school, you can teach them all the nonsense you want.

J C wrote:

This is one of the reasons why Creation Science and Intelligent Design are so vibrant in America today.

And one of the reasons why biotech firms are falling over themselves to get out of America and go to places like Europe, India and China where their students actually know how biology works.

J C wrote:

In general all living things are aesthetically pleasing and function perfectly – and thus they are perfectly designed.

True. Except for the ones that don't function perfectly :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Any imperfections that have ‘crept in’ to either the aesthetics or the functionality of living systems are due to The Fall.

This would be The Fall of Man (to give it its full title) that had nothing to do with anything but humans and snakes???? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Question. What ‘Natural Process’ do we observe developing the genetic information for Human Eyes?

Natural selection.

Unless you want to explain why God felt the need to design 40 independent eye designs (was one perfect one not good enough?), or why He felt the need to not give us eyes that function as well as a cats at night time

Its almost as if a natural process was developing these things. What a shock! :eek:

J C wrote:

Question. What ‘Natural Process’ could account for the spontaneous generation of the biochemistry of Human sight?

The "spontaneous generation of the biochemistry of the human sight"?

What in Allahs name are you talking about JC?

This is what you teach your children is the theory of evolution? An eye ball just spontaneously forms out of the blue from a soup of chemical. This is what you think the theory of neo-darwin evolution says?

Do you just on purpose stop yourself from actually finding out and learning what the actual theory of evolution is because you might actually believe it then?

J C wrote:

“How Evolution finally became Extinct!!”:D

You don;t know what the theory of evolution is JC, so how do you know it doesn't work?

Maybe you should actually bother to read up a bit, because if you think the theory of evolution states that the human eye spontaniously formed out of a soup of chemicals you are either an idiot or you haven't bother to inform yourself. I think you can guess what my opinion is on that matter, but I suppose its best to give you the benefit of the doubt ....

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Hmm.
Try focussing the Incident Solar Radiation on a sunny day using only a one thoudandth of a metre squared magnifying glass and see what happens!!!!

And ....?

I wasn't aware God put a massive magnifing glass over the Earth back in the day JC

J C wrote:

Compare the effect on a cloudy day – and you will see why Photosynthesis is DELIBERATELY (and perfectly) DESIGNED to use a fraction of Incident Solar
Radiation!!!

Except modern solar cell design is already better ....

J C wrote:

Can I remind you that a large tree would have a total photosynthetic area of over a HUNDRED m2 and therefore it would have over a HUNDRED Kilowatts of Incident Solar Radiation falling on it. If it were to capture anything approaching 100% of this energy chemically in it's leaves it would rapidly run out of storage for the resultant sugars

Again the point escapes you JC :rolleyes:

If the tree could process 100% efficiency it wouldn't need a 100 m2 of leafs in the first place.

Thats like saying God didn't give us night vision because we can just turn on a light. But we wouldn't need to turn on a light if we had night vision.

J C wrote:

- or if it used a different chemical energy storage system it could spontaneously combust!!!:D

I'm going to assume that you actually don't understand what photosystheis actually is, and that all the science mumbo jumbo you have copied and pasted was from someone like Woodmorappe.

So just take it from me, it wouldn't "spontaneously combust"

babyvaio

A question for nature worshippers.

If (as you claim that) human evolved from monkey (thru whatever the number or human-monkey, monkey-human stages), then where did monkey come from? If you say monkey evolved from X, then where did that X evolve from?

In the end, what's the origin of life? And I kinda don't trust the idea of one-cell aliens, etc.

Post some real stuff. I'd really like to know in a few verses.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

But he certainly seems to have given an honest and painful defense of the truth

Well if by "defense of the truth" you mean "he lies all the time to try and discredit evolution to support his religious dogma", then yes I full agree with you there wolfsbane :rolleyes:

Just a few posts ago he stated that evolution supposes that human eye chemistry spontaniously formed.

I find it very hard to believe that JC doesn't know that the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution says nothing of the sort, since this is pointed out to him every time he comes up with some more nonsense that is supposed to be what evolution theory says.

So one can only assume he is simply out to discredit evolution for religious gains, and the fact that he is lying and misrepresenting what the theory of evolution actually says seems rather irrelivent.

I find it funny then that you believe JC champions "truth" ...

bounty

look at all those really long replys

so whos winning this thread?


The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy hmmm wtf only noobs believe that stuff

agnostic is best stance, no evidence about the creator, therefore no conclusions

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

If (as you claim that) human evolved from monkey (thru whatever the number or human-monkey, monkey-human stages)

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, about 3 million years ago.

babyvaio wrote:

If you say monkey evolved from X, then where did that X evolve from?

You want a list of the different stages going back 4 billion years...?

I'm not sure Boards.ie will let me post a post that big. How about I just skip down to the end.

Approx 4 billion years ago energy from the sun and from the interal heat of the Earth, cause rather interesting chemical reactions to start taking place in the seas of Earth.

These chemical reactions cause the formation of self-replicating molecules. A self-replicating molecule is a molecule that will build a copy of itself given the raw material and energy (heat from the sun for example).

We know a bit about this process because we have been able to simulate it in a lab setting.

Now, like all processes, errors occur during the replication. These errors can result in a wide range of effects. If the effect benefits the molecule it willl lead to the molecule replicating better than others, and as such lead to this design of molecule eventual doing better in the largle but ultimately confined set of raw material.

This put simply was the start of life's evolution.

It is estimated that it took approx 2 billion years for these self-replicating molecules to evolve into simple cell structures, similar to modern day bateria, though probably not as complex.

Then things speed up a bit, as single cell structures turn into multicell structures and eventually into organisms.

Approx 65 million years ago modern mammals start to evolve, after the reign of the dinosaurs comes to an end.

Species similar to modern day humans evolve approx 150,000 thousand years ago.

Hope that clears some stuff up for you.
[/quote]

babyvaio wrote:

In the end, what's the origin of life? And I kinda don't trust the idea of one-cell aliens, etc.

The origin of life is chemistry. Chemical reactions taking place on Earth approx 4 billion years ago, that produced self replicating molecules.

babyvaio

To cut the long story short Wicknight, since when do (any) molecules have intelligence? Are you being serious? I hope not. We might agree on chemistry regarding the body formation (sorry, meant to use word creation, but you wouldn't like it :cool:), but how about intelligence?

How can intelligent creature evolve from (let's say) a creature with zerro/nil intelligence? Chemistry again? :cool:

BTW, don't say now monkeys have some intelligence, I still don't see them typing stuff that makes sense on the keyboars for instance. Also, how come only humans like we know the intelligent stuff? Why i.e. tigers never got so smart so we can talk to them, invite them for a coffee (you wouldn't like to see your wife swallowed by a tiger would you?), go to the outer space, i.e. two monkeys, two tigers and two humans, etc.

Some weird stuff here :cool:

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

To cut the long story short Wicknight, since when do (any) molecules have intelligence?

Ummm... what?

Molecules don't have intelligence. Billions of molecules joined together produce intelligence.

What do you think your brain is made of?

babyvaio wrote:

but how about intelligence?

Intelligence is a produce of the neural network that form the internal structure of your brain.

A human brain system is made up of approx 2 billion individual brain cells called neurons, forming trillions upon trillions of individual neural pathways. It is these pathways that form our intelligences.

External input (from your eyes, ears, touch etc) are feed into this system and these neural pathways "think" about what to do.

The brain evolved, just as all your organs evolved, by cells joining together to produce multi-celluar life forms and eventually tissue and organs to produce organisms.

babyvaio wrote:

How can intelligent creature evolve from (let's say) a creature with zerro/nil intelligence? Chemistry again? :cool:

Pretty much. The first multicell life forms started to designate purpose to individual clumps of cells. This is how the first tissue and organs forms, approx 1.5 billion years ago. Eventually certain organs developed into brain like structures. These brains, though quite simple to start off with, evolved into far more complex systems.

Even the brain inside say an ant is quite impressive. Our brain, which is much bigger, is possibly the most complex structure known to man, with billions of individual cells and trillions upon trillions of neural pathways.

babyvaio wrote:

BTW, don't say now monkeys have some intelligence, I still don't see them typing stuff that makes sense on the keyboars for instance.

Well if being able to type was a requirement for intelligence then human intelligence only developed in 1874.

Some animals, such as various Great Apes, as well as bottle noise dolphins have been observed to construct and use tools to perform certain tasks. This is a sign of planing, design and understanding, all traits of intelligence

babyvaio wrote:

how come only humans like we know the intelligent stuff?

"Humans like we know the intelligent stuff" ... quite

As I said we aren't the only species on Earth that demonstrates higher levels of intelligence.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

A human brain system is made up of approx 2 billion individual brain cells called neurons, forming trillions upon trillions of individual neural pathways. It is these pathways that form our intelligences.

Again, to cut the long story short - emmm, monkeys also have (probably) brains formed out of billion cells, right? Yes? No? :cool:

And tigers also? And there are animals with bigger brains (and with more brain cells) that humans, yeah? No?

So tell me, why is it that they don't (i.e.) communicate with us? Why is it that they don't design things like we do?

You say Billions of molecules joined together produce intelligence.

Does that mean that also a piece of dirt will get intelligent if it consists of molecules?

And pls, answer my main question - why is it that only human have intelligence and yet living creatures have brain cells like we? Don't say now that that's because we have more cells that they do. That would be brainless to say. If that is your answer, then tell me - what is the required number of the cells so that the unit becomes intelligent? Would you say, i.e. monkeys would be intelligent like humans if they only had the same number (approx) of cell inside their brain... :cool:

Hmm, you never know...

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

emmm, monkeys also have (probably) brains formed out of billion cells, right? Yes? No? :cool:

Yes

babyvaio wrote:

And tigers also?

Yes

babyvaio wrote:

And there are animals with bigger brains (and with more brain cells) that humans, yeah?

Depends on what you mean by "bigger". In size yes, in complexity no.

babyvaio wrote:

So tell me, why is it that they don't (i.e.) communicate with us? Why is it that they don't design things like we do?

Why does a dog bark and cat growl?

I'm not quite sure what type of answer you want here babyvaio. Most animals do communicate with us, but not in the same manner we communicate with each other.

The reason they don't design things like we do is because they aren't as intelligent as we are.

babyvaio wrote:

You say Billions of molecules joined together produce intelligence.

No billions of brain cells (neurons) joined together produce intelligence. The cells are made up of molecules, but then everything is made up of molecules.

babyvaio wrote:

Does that mean that also a piece of dirt will get intelligent if it consists of molecules?

A "piece of dirt" doesn't contain billions of interconnected neurons. If it did it wouldn't be a piece of "dirt," it would be a brain.

babyvaio wrote:

why is it that only human have intelligence and yet living creatures have brain cells like we?

All animals with brains have some form of intelligence. We have very highly developed intelligence and sophisticated consciousness because we have a very highly developed brain.

babyvaio wrote:

If that is your answer, then tell me - what is the required number of the cells so that the unit becomes intelligent?

I have absolutely no idea.

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuch could chuck wood?

babyvaio wrote:

Would you say, i.e. monkeys would be intelligent like humans if they only had the same number (approx) of cell inside their brain...

Basically, yes.

bounty

i don't know how you manage it wicky, you're arguing with noobs my only reply to them would be:

go learn science!

babyvaio

Too bad guys. U just cant prove that even if u spend a lifetime. U cant even answer the basic questions. & u think u know it all.

positron

babyvaio wrote:

Too bad guys. U just cant prove that even if u spend a lifetime. U cant even answer the basic questions. & u think u know it all.

All I can say is "OH MY GOD"!! (No, I am not really thinking about God, its just an expression). Yeah, bounty is spot on - Go read (and try to understand) Science with an open mind, seek truth or whatever!

I don't know if the laptop in front of me was made in China or Taiwan! The label is missing. Now that there is nothing obvious to prove where this thing was made, will I just assume that God, one fine moment of the God time, made it out of thin air and threw it down for me to buy? Well, no one around me (well, there's no one here) to prove that wrong, and I wouldn't talk to Dell and see if they know how this was produced, so I think its really God who put this laptop together!

I now know what 'Devil' is - Its the element in us that doesn't allow us to rethink our beliefs when new facts and information surfaces as human race tru to figure out stuff around them! Everything else is God!!

Karl Hungus

By Odin's raven! :eek:

To quote Richard Dean Anderson, "That was a waste of a good explanation."

Sometimes I feel sorry for Wicknight. It's situations like this that make it look like he's not so much hitting his head against a brick as much as he's getting a good head first sprint and really slamming himself into it.