Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Farnhamia]

Tesla, you say?

The "balls" are in my court, now.

Is this even safe to talk about? I have heard of people being killed by the US government with direct energy weapons, just for studying this science lol. Just saying. But go ahead then.

I'm going to take that "lol" there are sign that you're joking. Have you produced a single on-line source backing up any of your claims?

[Agymnum]

You're not addressing the fact that the sun has enough radiation, light, and heat energy emanating from it to act as the catalyst for evolution.

And its irrelevant anyway. The sun is not the catalyst for evolution. The point is that The Ehrlich claimed evolution is false because of the second law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not, evidential because of the sun.

Correct. His point, however, was that if Earth was a closed system the Sun would not be able to act as the catalyst for evolution. Even using his own skewed concept of thermodynamics, his own point is incorrect, which I'm pointing out.

[The Ehrlich]

Is this even safe to talk about? I have heard of people being killed by the US government with direct energy weapons, just for studying this science lol. Just saying. But go ahead then.

I'm going to take that "lol" there are sign that you're joking. Have you produced a single on-line source backing up any of your claims?

Be more specific please? If you mean Tesla, then for one, many associates and relatives of his all died mysteriously of heart attacks at young ages and so on.

[Conscentia]

Really? Because it hits the Earth with more than enough energy to feed Humanity's electricity demands for a year every minute.

Electricity is a whole other debate I'll have with you when you've studied Nikolai Tesla and direct and free energy for a year.

Nikola Tesla happens to be my favourite scientist.

This isn't about electricity specifically. It's about the power needed to sustain intelligent life. The Sun supplies more than enough energy for intelligent life to exist on Earth. Every minute the Earth is hit with energy from the sun, and combined it's more than enough to supply the world with the electrical power it demands for a year. Considering that a human brain runs on about 20 Watts, less than light bulbs, It's quite clear that the sun is in fact enough for intelligent life.

Basically, you were very much wrong when you posted "The Sun is not enough to sustain intelligent life".

[Enadail]

And its irrelevant anyway. The sun is not the catalyst for evolution. The point is that The Ehrlich claimed evolution is false because of the second law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not, evidential because of the sun.

Correct. His point, however, was that if Earth was a closed system the Sun would not be able to act as the catalyst for evolution. Even using his own skewed concept of thermodynamics, his own point is incorrect, which I'm pointing out.

Heh, yah, I understand, but I don't like talking about it from the wrong direction

[Enadail]

I'm going to take that "lol" there are sign that you're joking. Have you produced a single on-line source backing up any of your claims?

Be more specific please? If you mean Tesla, then for one, many associates and relatives of his all died mysteriously of heart attacks at young ages and so on.

These are the kinds of random statements we're asking for sources for...

[West Angola]

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.

Now, there are a lot of things here that would offend many people who believe in God (or other deities). You treat the theory of evolution without a guiding process as "basic science" as if it were proven. Can you, categorically and right now, prove that God (or another force which might guide evolution) does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though evolution without a guiding hand is proven fact.

[Agymnum]

I'm going to take that "lol" there are sign that you're joking. Have you produced a single on-line source backing up any of your claims?

Be more specific please? If you mean Tesla, then for one, many associates and relatives of his all died mysteriously of heart attacks at young ages and so on.

The US is not going to kill us for talking about concepts its government doesn't agree with.

Proof of this is that I've been able to debate pro-Communist and pro-Socialist in public without being shot in the face or poisoned.

[Tlaceceyaya]

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.

Now, there are a lot of things here that would offend many people who believe in God (or other deities). You treat the theory of evolution without a guiding process as "basic science" as if it were proven. Can you, categorically and right now, prove that God (or another force which might guide evolution) does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though evolution without a guiding hand is proven fact.

Can you, categorically and right now, prove that the flying spaghetti monster does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though gravity without a guiding noodly appendage is proven fact.

[Farnhamia]

I'm going to take that "lol" there are sign that you're joking. Have you produced a single on-line source backing up any of your claims?

Be more specific please? If you mean Tesla, then for one, many associates and relatives of his all died mysteriously of heart attacks at young ages and so on.

Not about the dying, because that's bullshit. Have you provided any sources for anything you've said about evolution? Or are we to accept what you say because you speak three languages and are obviously smarter than we are?

[Farnhamia]

Be more specific please? If you mean Tesla, then for one, many associates and relatives of his all died mysteriously of heart attacks at young ages and so on.

The US is not going to kill us for talking about concepts its government doesn't agree with.

Proof of this is that I've been able to debate pro-Communist and pro-Socialist in public without being shot in the face or poisoned.

*smiles and makes a note on a hand-held device*

[Ovisterra]

free energy for a year.

lolwat

If you're referring to those rotary magnet perpetual motion things, I can tell you they're bullshit.

[West Angola]

Can you, categorically and right now, prove that the flying spaghetti monster does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though gravity without a guiding noodly appendage is proven fact.

I don’t. I accept that his existence is possible, it is completely possible that he exists. Now, I would like the OP to extend the same courtesy to me and my fellows. Also, I never made the claim that he doesn’t exist, the OP made that claim I addressed.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.

Now, there are a lot of things here that would offend many people who believe in God (or other deities). You treat the theory of evolution without a guiding process as "basic science" as if it were proven. Can you, categorically and right now, prove that God (or another force which might guide evolution) does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though evolution without a guiding hand is proven fact.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

[West Angola]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

[Enadail]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

But you don't prove a negative. The claim "God doesn't exist" is the starting position, not the claim. "God exists" is the claim, and there is no evidence for it.

But more to the point, as by most religions definitions, "God" cannot be proven, being supernatural and beyond the bounds of science. But claims of what God DOES that relates to science can be shown to be irrelevant.

[Caecuser]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

Which God are we talking about here? There are several.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

I'm not discounting that possibility, but if you fail to provide any evidence for his existence in the first place, then the "prove he doesn't exist" question is irrelevant. I see what you're getting at, though.

[Farnhamia]

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

Which God are we talking about here? There are several.

Oh, you know, Yahweh of Edom, he who set a shrubbery on fire to impress some nomads in the desert of Sinai. That one.

[Mavorpen]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God does exist in the first place. For example, I could say there's a walrus in another room in your house, but when you go to that room, there is no walrus. However, I insist that you prove that there wasn't a walrus instead of me proving that there was one in the first place. It just doesn't work.

The OP made the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. I am not claiming that God exists, I merely wish that he acknowledge the possibility that God exists if he cannot prove he does not.

What claim did the OP make...?

[Ceannairceach]

Which God are we talking about here? There are several.

Oh, you know, Yahweh of Edom, he who set a shrubbery on fire to impress some nomads in the desert of Sinai. That one.

Also, who sired the sexiest son of a virgin this side of Jordan.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Can you, categorically and right now, prove that the flying spaghetti monster does NOT exist? Because if you cannot, then you cannot act as though gravity without a guiding noodly appendage is proven fact.

I don’t. I accept that his existence is possible, it is completely possible that he exists. Now, I would like the OP to extend the same courtesy to me and my fellows. Also, I never made the claim that he doesn’t exist, the OP made that claim I addressed.

I haven't seen anyone here explicitly state that it was 100% impossible for a deity to have any involvement in evolution whatsoever. If you ask most people here, they'll probably tell you that there is a possibility, but it's so low that there are no analogies to describe it, except space walruses or bonobos.
And the simple fact that there is a possibility for anything to be true (unless it contradicts a pure observation "I perceive the sky to be blue") means not at all that any of those tiny possibilities IS true. Probably no god, probably no walrus beneath the surface of Titan, probably no leprechauns, probably bonobos, probably no Quetzalcoatl, probably no Ba'al, probably no Zeus, probably no Odin, probably no Ra, probably no Brahman, and so forth.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, you know, Yahweh of Edom, he who set a shrubbery on fire to impress some nomads in the desert of Sinai. That one.

Also, who sired the sexiest son of a virgin this side of Jordan.

Yah, that guy. Never one of my favorites.

[Ceannairceach]

Also, who sired the sexiest son of a virgin this side of Jordan.

Yah, that guy. Never one of my favorites.

That hurts, Farn. Right in the crucifixion holes.

[Dyakovo]

Really? Because it hits the Earth with more than enough energy to feed Humanity's electricity demands for a year every minute.

Electricity is a whole other debate I'll have with you when you've studied Nikolai Tesla and direct and free energy for a year.

Who the tuck is Nikolai Tesla?