But Geoff's comments were irrelevant. Universal mechanics provide no interesting element to this debate. It's just stating the obvious, and trying to make that into proof for a higher being.
What?
Really?
I suspect that is because you don't understand universal mechanics and the fact they are the very things that make your computer operate, and a subject that is meant to be your forté.
Also interesting the depth of knowledge you displayed about neuroscience when Benedict introduced the concept of mirror neurons and oxytocin.
Didn't even hear so much as a peep.
It's cool tho, carry on bleating about evolution because as a debate it's not like it hasn't been had a 100 times on this site. I guess the familiarity of topics already debated does give some credence to your logic.
Registered: Dec 2002 Posts: 41886 - Threads: 1671 Location: London
Quote:
GMReq wrote on 23-03-2010 04:00 PM
What?
Really?
I suspect that is because you don't understand universal mechanics and the fact they are the very things that make your computer operate, and a subject that is meant to be your forté.
You have an incredibly poor understanding of computer science/computational neuroscience if you think that talking about universal mechanics is in any way a feature.
Quote:
Also interesting the depth of knowledge you displayed about neuroscience when Benedict introduced the concept of mirror neurons and oxytocin.
Didn't even hear so much as a peep.
I've already tried to explain fucking obvious GCSE science to Midas, and all he does is claim you are wrong, go off on a tangent, and refuse to listen to facts, as Allah didn't say it.
http://www.myspace.com/ThisIsPhase2 “It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
You have an incredibly poor understanding of computer science/computational neuroscience if you think that talking about universal mechanics is in any way a feature.
I've already tried to explain fucking obvious GCSE science to Midas, and all he does is claim you are wrong, go off on a tangent, and refuse to listen to facts, as Allah didn't say it.
Danny, you seem to miss the point entirely. The universal laws underpin the interaction of all matter, and this includes computers and neuroscience. Do you really not see that computers are possible because matter is structured in defined ways, and behaves in an ordered and predictable manner?
Besides, the debate is about an existence of a God, not about computer science/computational neuroscience. I know it is convenient to set the playing-field of debate to suit your strengths but it kinda sidetracks the search for evidence to support/refute a God.
Funny how you accuse Midas of using tangents when all you seem to refer to is computer science/computational neuroscience which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Registered: Nov 2008 Posts: 9667 - Threads: 158 Location: London
Quote:
DMX wrote on 23-03-2010 04:10 PM
I've already tried to explain f*****g obvious GCSE science to Midas, and all he does is claim you are wrong, go off on a tangent, and refuse to listen to facts, as Allah didn't say it.
Stop crying and lying.
Show me the post where you explain in GCSE terms what causes a mirror neuron to fire.
Let me remind you of your hosreshit GCSE answer:
Quote:
DMX wrote on 15-03-2010 05:03 PM
Why would you jump to the assumption that it's a "soul"? This retrofitting of science to match religion is beyond a joke.
![[HarderFaster] - Work Hard, Play Harder!](/images/mainbanner_top1.gif)
18-03-2010 22:54 PM
