Afterall we are just brains, and the brain could be the physical version of you(just as the flesh if your reality) in this life as a immortal soul in some other reality. Do you rather believe in flesh and heart than brain and soul?
Europe is illegally occupied by the US
No.Do you believe in the everlasting soul and immortal (non earth) life?
Since I have no way of proving or disproving this I'll go with what can actually be observed.Afterall we are just brains, and the brain could be the physical version of you in this life as a immortal soul in some other reality.
I believe in flesh, heart, and brain of course. The soul? Some intangible quality that can not be proven, dis proven, or observed? No, I don't believe in that.Do you rather believe in flesh and heart than brain and soul?
Originally Posted by SWM
1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
2. There should be no assumptions regarding the origin of the money in the given example since there has been no statement regarding the origins of said money
3. The whole point about assumptions is completely unrelated to the particular discussion regarding facts that was being made.
I'm not arguing against evolution as a fact. I believe evolution is a fact.
But I acknowledge that I might be wrong in my beliefs, and if so, then evolution could not be a fact.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Originally Posted by SWM
I believe in intelligent design, but that doesn't mean it had to be G-d. It could have been alien intelligence.
Source [Ars Technica | Tracking adaptation as bacteria evolve]
As a side note, this experiment aroused the ire of the always amusing Conservapedia, which proceeded to become a part of one of the most hilarious examples of actual experts spanking internet "experts" that I've ever seen. I would highly recommend reading Lenski's exchange with the site's founderRichard Lenski has made a living watching bacteria grow, and it has now got him into the National Academies of Science. Lenski has turned patience into a virtue by starting an experiment in 1988, and continuing it to this very day: growing E. coli under poor conditions and following how they evolve in response. In that time, 12 individual lines of bacteria have gone through 44,000 generations, with sample populations frozen down every 500 generations. The experiment has not only allowed him to track the evolution of the bacteria, but to reconstruct its history through these frozen samples.
His election to the Academy gives him the right to publish a paper of his choosing, and he chose a good topic. The bacteria are growth-constrained by low levels of glucose, and most lines have evolved so that they burn through the glucose as quickly as possible, then wait for the next daily infusion. About 33,000 generations in, however, one line of bacteria did something else entirely: it began to digest the large amounts of citrate present in the media. This is more startling than it sounds, as E. coli is sometimes defined by its inability to metabolize citrate.
A quick look into the frozen stocks revealed the citrate-eaters first appeared at about 31,000 generations. They began to grow at the expense of their normal cousins, but then dropped again as the sucrose-eaters adapted a bit. By 33,000 generations, however, a further adaptation sent the citrate-eaters on the road to dominance.