Battleground God

Beer/shots now?

@spankerchief

I commend you for using real information.
Suffering the fools that post links to Wankerpedia is beneath tiresome.
Also, the bacteria link posted by Mrjingles is proof of adaptation.
The part of the evolutionary hypothisis that does not come up to the level of being a theory occurs at the level where it is posited that it is the source of all the complexity and diversity of life.
I note many here decry the idea that there is more to learn as heresy.
Myself, mostly self educated. Missed entrance to 999 by one point.
I don't believe there is some dude sitting in a chair in the sky directing what goes on.
I do know however, that information does not self organize, and that for intelligence to exist it had to already be here as we did not create it.

@Senor_Smoke

middle_age_man,I believe spankerchief was being funny,quoting/ad-libbing the movie,"Taken". Also,spankerchief...You shut your meep mouth,talking about Ohio,mmkay?Don't think that everything you see in the news about OH,speaks for everyone. Also,dragonstaff...You shut your meep mouth,talking about the US,mmkay?I'd shove so many beers/shots down your throat,you'd be rendered the inability to speak,except to the glorious porcelain god. Yall come back now,ya hear

Duly noted. Still bullmeep tho.

tesco:
[Adaptation:] The part of the evolutionary hypothisis that does not come up to the level of being a theory occurs at the level where it is posited that it is the source of all the complexity and diversity of life.

tesco:
I note many here decry the idea that there is more to learn as heresy.

tesco:
I do know however, that information does not self organize, ...

tesco:
...and that for intelligence to exist it had to already be here as we did not create it.

Ah. The hallmark of the superstious retard--"X is True BEACUSE I believe X is True."

But feel free to sally forth your anthropomorphic misuse of the term "create" and your superstitious notions regarding manifestly apparent "design" while trying to deny that you're only asserting that you think everything--including human intelligence--appears to you to be "man-made."

Please, keep poasting!

@tesco

Loki makes a crude venture into sophistry, but should go back to the texts as he has obviously forgotten the basic principles.
The first failure was bringing his Brony creds to the table. His second was to dismiss the attack on his religion without even a spurious basis. Then he 'almost' touches down with a redirection thru the renaming ploy. Finally he uses big words he doesn't understand to give himself creds.

You almost got there, keep trying!

Aint no religion baby ...

And I take full credit for the big words I use, because I actually DO understand them.

I'm thinking it doesn't matter at all whether your projection is a function of your delusions or your paranoia.

You're still lolfritters in my book, cupcake.

Keep poasting!

It's matter that self organizes, the question I think is whether consciousness is an emergent property of that organized complexity or or something existing separately and expressing itself physically through it as intelligence.

@godevillivedog

That's an intersting question.
What IS consciousness?
When we incur a brain injury, what is the extent of damage required to make the "soul" that experienced things in that body not exist any more.
If you are teleported: Literally disassembled at the atomic level then reassembled els

-ewhere, is the "you" sensing things right now going to be at the other end, or is it just a perfect copy?

I have no doubt that the guy at the other end would be a real person with thoughts and feelings...I'm sure he'd be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN he was you.

http://youtu.be/wxDOpAM2FrQ

Let me get this straight.
So the consensus here is that the ability to assemble information and build a vehicle that can land on Mars is doubtless proof of intelligence, but the ability to assemble information and build legion of organisms so complex that we cannot build even one of them is proof of lack of intelligence?
Also, being self aware has little to do with intellgence.
Just look around!

LOLz! The jokes on me!

After all, I did tell you to feel free to sally forth your anthropomorphic misuse of the term "create" and your superstitious notions regarding manifestly apparent "design" while trying to deny that you're only asserting that you think everything--including human intelligence--appears to you to be "man-made."

You are indeed lolfritters!

Keep poasting!

@tesco

And just to cut off the boring part of your paranoid, delusional, and retarded response; I will set you straight on a few of things:
1) The consensus here is that the ability to assemble information and build a vehicle that can land on Mars is doubtless a product of human intelligence. Human intelligence has yet to be proven--your stupidity is sufficient cause to keep those working on that proof in doubt ... oh, indefinitely.

2) The consensus here is NOT that the ability to assemble information and build legion of organisms so complex that we cannot build even one of them is proof of lack of intelligence. The consensus here is that the presence of organisms so complex that we cannot build even one of them is not proof of intelligence; nor is it proof that they were intelligently designed, or incompetently designed, or designed at all.

For my own part though, I'll assert that IF all these organisms were designed--based upon the apparent purpose for which said "design" was executed, and the resultant form and function of his executed design--this designer's intelligence is fundamentally suspect.

"Just look around!"

3) The consensus here is NOT that being self-aware has little to do with intelligence. I suspect however, that a cart-before-the-horse superstitious paradigm has led you to misunderstand what the relationship between intelligence and self-awareness is.

If you think that intelligence is the necessary prerequisite for self-awareness, then you are failing to recognize that despite your own self-awareness, you're still a meeping retard.

But don't worry, the rest of us have recognized it for you.

Keep poasting, lolfritters!

@tesco

Loki, it is a sad state of affairs that so many exercise their minds so little that they are incapable of a relevant insult.
The fact that you are wrong, and blinded by your myopic belief system does not necessarily mean you are stupid.
I did not say that the consensus was that self awareness was linked to intelligence. Grammar, my man!
Rather than trying to adapt what i am saying into your belief system, (I have not brought religion into the discussion for 2 reasons. 1, I am not a religious person, and 2 it is not really relevant to my points) why not try to make a coherent argument?
If you do not believe that intelligence is the ability to gather information and use it to create solutions, then please tell us what you think it is.

If you're going to insist upon being both stupid AND boring, just do it elsewhere. Ok?

@tesco

Loki, I never apply my sword to the vanquished.

That's a convenient self-delusion considering how the vanquished don't apply swords to anything.@tesco

You are half by clever.
One such as you has no need for fear, as those falling behind will be consumed giving you a safe exit.

Precisely why I tolerate the existence of retards ... and then split.

@tesco

@ Loki, exactly why did you bring 'design' to the table?
Do you believe that the acquisition of information over thousands of years was 'designed' to bring about a mars rover? Or is your myopia so severe that you cannot see past your personal prejudices?
I clearly never mentioned 'design'.
While it is obvious that acquiring information and processing it for advantage creates better and better outcomes, there is no requirement that a plan or design has to be in place beforehand.
I realize that I am presenting a concept that can be difficult for one that hasn't gone beyond the adolescent fascination with curse words to deal with, but you haven't even tried.

@tesco

Also, the bacteria link posted by Mrjingles is proof of adaptation.
The part of the evolutionary hypothisis that does not come up to the level of being a theory occurs at the level where it is posited that it is the source of all the complexity and diversity of life.

Proof of adaptation, yes. Proof of evolution, also yes. You see, the two are not mutually exclusive. But I think its clear you don't have a proper understanding of either, nor how they work with each other.

This article gives a decent explanation.
Individuals can adapt, but it takes a whole population to evolve.

MrJingles; Have you not read Darwin's work?
His discovery that the exact same bird on different parts of the same island had beaks that were slightly different. The fact is that the population 'evolves' because the individuals adapt.
Adaptive 'evolution' is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that adaptive 'evolution' does not operate thru 'natural selection' in most cases.
The introduction of a food source (cows milk and humans is an example) causes adaptation without the requirement that breeding or lifespan suffer. That is exactly what happened with the bacteria.
Adaptation can be 'forced' (like we did with corn and wheat), but in nature this usually leads to extinction of the species.
Drawing a conclusion from a fact is a fallacy of high order. Concluding that adaptation accounts for our environment entirely is such a fallacy.

jesus is going to meep all of you up so bad

@tesco

His discovery that the exact same bird on different parts of the same island had beaks that were slightly different. The fact is that the population 'evolves' because the individuals adapt.

This is bullmeep, tesco. "Fit" individuals are "adaptable" in a very limited sense. For example if your arms are not long enough to reach the fruit on the tree of knowledge you cannot grow them longer to reach the fruit. You might one day figure out how to climb that tree and reach the fruit, that would be adaptation. Your children might be born with longer arms than you and be able to reach the fruit from where they stand, that would be evolution.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/31-finches.html

Myself, mostly self educated.

When was the last time you gave yourself a failing grade?

@meeproach

All right then, how do the offspring 'know' to develop longer arms? How did the offspring of people living in areas with cattle 'know' to develop lactose tolerance?
The answer is plain to see.
Even Darwin saw it until hubris overtook him late in life.
The vast intelligence that is nature is the source of our intelligence, all of the information needed to bring us about, and get a vehicle to Mars, always existed. We merely found it and applied it. And that is what nature does continuously.
Some create deities to explain the situation, at least they are trying to understand it. Others say it is all accidental and random, they are trying to ignore it.

Okay, one more time. Just in case you aren't actually simply some creationist troll. (And I'd bet good money that you are.)
Read the entry on the misconception that evolution is geared towards making improvements.
Evolution does no such thing.
It is simply small, meepulative genetic changes that, when combined with natural selection(being faster than a predator, better able to blend into your environment being more attractive to a potential mate or just better able to digest different foods) enables a species to survive and reproduce.
Darwin displayed exactly the opposite of the hubris of his time. He sought out answers when people such as yourself proclaimed that it was magic and that god meant for it to be mysterious.
You want to see hubris?
Look at the kid spouting doublespeak at our website who won't actually READ the peer-reviewed scientifically-proven facts laid before him.
The one who can only attack someone's character rather than back up his claims with any legitimate facts or sources to cite.

Bring us some solid evidence of your "background wisdom" hypothesis. Let it be peer-reviewed and tested.
If there are facts to support it, you would become instantly famous as "The Man Who Proved Intelligent Design"
Until that day comes, you are simply another ignorant mouthpiece(read: tool) for the superstitious, power hungry, meepbags that are making america the laughingstock of the scientific community.

Creating a diety to explain "the situation" it is the complete opposite of trying to understand "the situation." I cant figure it out, so i will make up a magic man in the sky. It certainly is a heck of a lot easier, i'll grant.

Individual offspring don't develop longer arms within their life. They are born with a mutation (longer arms) that makes them more successful at competition for the fruit, and this genetic mutation is passed on to their offspring, etc. Ultimately, the less successful short armed will be starved out (and thus unable to pass on the short-arm trait) as the long armed are eating all the fruit.

Also, lumping the loosely defined term "theory" into the same class as "scientific theory" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what "scientific theory" actually means. They aren't the same and to suggest otherwise is sleight of hand commonly used by the intelligent design crowd.

@tesco

All right then, how do the offspring 'know' to develop longer arms? How did the offspring of people living in areas with cattle 'know' to develop lactose tolerance?

Where do you get this notion that offspring (or the offspring's genes, or nature, or whatever you're talking about) "know" anything?

I said "Your children might be born with longer arms than you.." as in possibly. Even with your obvious learning disability you must see that variation is critical to evolution and that variation is a matter of chance (even if that variation is expressed in how motivated some are to "adapt" the advantages of long arms or lactose tolerance or a proper grasp of simple Mendelian inheritance). If there were no variation, even in the sense of varying degrees of motivation to "adapt" the way you feel individuals do, we would all have "adapted" the most advantageous length of arms and be lactose tolerant and actually grasp the mechanisms of evolution equally well.

This conversation alone highlights cerebral performance variation, demonstrating the foregoing point.

@tesco

I think I'm stating to get where you're coming from. You're an evangelical Jedi and you want us to see that "The Force" guides all.

EVERYBODY IS GHOSTRIDER GISSE!

I wish. Ghostrider evolved his way out of here a long time ago. Or was that adapted to not being here? It's a variance we all lack, apparently.

tesco:
@ Loki, exactly why did you bring 'design' to the table?

tesco:
Do you believe that the acquisition of information over thousands of years was 'designed' to bring about a mars rover?

tesco:
Or is your myopia so severe that you cannot see past your personal prejudices?

tesco:
I clearly never mentioned 'design'.

tesco:
While it is obvious that acquiring information and processing it for advantage creates better and better outcomes, there is no requirement that a plan or design has to be in place beforehand.

tesco:
I realize that I am presenting a concept that can be difficult for one that hasn't gone beyond the adolescent fascination with curse words to deal with, but you haven't even tried.

You know what Cupcake? No one here gives a meep that you're the grand-meeping-dragon of your own personal illuminati lodge.

You're not presenting anything that remotely resembles a "difficult concept." You're just dressing up like a sensei ... you're presenting superstition, and then accusing me of being unenlightened because I'm "myopic", "prejudiced", and "adolescent."

Your tactics are clown shoes, and you're just retarded.

@tesco

tesco:
The fact is that the population 'evolves' because the individuals adapt.

tesco:
Adaptive 'evolution' is beyond dispute.

tesco:
It is also beyond dispute that adaptive 'evolution' does not operate thru 'natural selection' in most cases.

tesco:
The introduction of a food source (cows milk and humans is an example) causes adaptation without the requirement that breeding or lifespan suffer.

tesco:
Adaptation can be 'forced'...

tesco:
...(like we did with corn and wheat),...

tesco:
...but in nature this usually leads to extinction of the species.

It's makes sense that this should explain the extinction of Leprechauns.

And this is worth repeating to you:

"Not to mention unicorn scrotums. Although (unlike adaptation) unicorn scrotums are no part of the theory of evolution, they too fail to "come up to the level of being a theory occurs at the level where it is posited that it is the source of all the complexity and diversity of life."

You see, you could put literally ANYTHING that is not posited by evolution theory as "the source of all the complexity and diversity of life" in your assertion and you'd be perfectly right. For whatever that's worth.

Try "natural selection" on for size.

And don't even try to pretend they're the same thing by making some fatuously Lamarkian error regarding how the term "adaptation" is used in the theory of evolution."

You really ought to brush up on your sciences there little fellah.

@tesco

tesco:
All right then, how do the offspring 'know' to develop longer arms? How did the offspring of people living in areas with cattle 'know' to develop lactose tolerance?

tesco:
The answer is plain to see.

tesco:
The vast intelligence that is nature is the source of our intelligence,...

tesco:
...all of the information needed to bring us about, and get a vehicle to Mars, always existed.

tesco:
We merely found it and applied it.

tesco:
And that is what nature does continuously.

tesco:
Some create deities to explain the situation,...

tesco:
...at least they are trying to understand it.

tesco:
Others say it is all accidental and random, they are trying to ignore it.

And yet others, like yourself, misrepresent rational notions regarding nature, that are founded upon evidence and valid logic, in an effort to advance your superstitions.

Like I said earlier tesco, you're transparent.

@tesco

@tesco