Really?! Because I never once thought of that (sarcasm by the way, it can be beautiful). Yeah, I tried that already which is why I moseyed onto a forum here where I thought I might get an answer, seeing as how it had to do with science and all. But okay, apparently, to you, I'm too stupid to even figure out how to work a computer properly. Silly me.

You are correct, you did not ask a question. However, your answer only posed more questions, it did not answer any of them, which is why I said you only added more questions. It's simple critical thinking. For the comment below about Google, I did try this particular avenue and it did not solve the issue either. Now, in regard to my English speaking and writing skills, as well as my reading comprehension/critical thinking skills, they all work quite well. Also, the words written here along with my explanations stand on their own merit. I cannot help it if you are offended by them.

Hello, and first let me say I'm only catching the tale end of a lot of your comments here, so you may have already explained this before. However, I'm not sure why you keep talking about a particle in relation to evolution. Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from a particle. The Big Bang Theory does talk of a singularity that is assumed to be much smaller than the resulting masses that have come into existence since planque time (perhaps this is the particle you mentioned). But this has NOTHING to do with evolution, not the explosion, not planque time, not certainly anything before planque time since there is no way to analyze whatever happened to be here before, which means as far as we know there was nothing. The key phrase being "as far as we know". But, you are making a lot of grand assumptions here in relation to evolution since this events that lead to our being here only happened only AFTER the singularity appeared and NOT as a result of it. Not to mention, no where in the theory of evolution does it state that we evolved from anything other than a common ancestor to all ape species (including us). And that this common ancestor, through a variety of very small changes that lead to even larger ones, evolved from yet another different species. And so on and so on, back through time. Evolution is only an explanation of a body of facts that tracked and analyzed as many of these changes as have yet been found. And the reason we don't have all the information is that we are still LOOKING for it. Unlike anything to do with faith, which only has beliefs from that particular faith, not beliefs from knowledge (i.e. facts) which are present in all scientific fields of study. Please understand that the best way to argue in a subject matter such as this is to understand the subject matter itself in as much detail as possible. It does nothing to further understanding for anyone by coming to it without empirical evidence, which you seem to think of as rather suspect. Correct me if I am wrong please, but it would appear as though you are arguing for the exact opposite of furthering our understanding by saying we should rely more on faith.

Woo-saah, breath, and repeat, very zen-like. I like it. Unfortunately, there are only concentric valleys in my life that go ever downward, it seems. I had a peak once, when I was 23. Lasted two years. It was nice. Then the valleys started up again with their pesky pull. Translation: I'm a pessimist. And life becomes less disappointing as a result.

Welkommen! (Please excuse my bad Dutch, especially as you may not be but it's the closest thing to a Germanic type language I have experience with). Also, hi.

Maaaaan, I was all set and ready too. Only I didn't see any funny ones, just serious ones, which made me sad for all those people who still think an imaginary friend can give them immortality just by thinking it hard enough. I needed a laugh, too.

Hiiii!!!

I turn and walk away when I see any kind of religion in a profile, not my thing, never really was. And from the look of the posts, there are a lot more of us then I realized. Cool beans.

What would it take?

First, define God, and not with forty million definitions, one or two that are accurate would suffice.

Then, show me God, and not forty thousand, or forty thousand versions of him I should say, but with empirical evidence.

Then, show me heaven, then give me just five minutes of question time. At the end I'd probably believe one or more existed.

I simply wouldn't follow all of their rules.

Guess that's how it has to be then, since I'm a bit tired of trying to convince men older than my father I have every right to feel, just as I have every right not to feel, in terms of what I am attracted to. And that this feeling or lack of feeling has nothing to do with being an ageist.

Of course it is unethical in the way it was performed, yes. But ethical limitations change with consent, say if it were consentually performed on two humans. The implications in terms of returning function to a body that no longer had any, and by using something that was already essentially dead . . .

I'm just wondering if anybody else read about it as I did and whether or not it could get some of us off the hate train this thread seems to be more about, as opposed to calm intellectual discussions. Thank you for actually responding all the same. It was interesting to look through your source material. I hadn't had a chance to read more in depth on the topic other than an article that spoke only of the ethical violations, not much on the research, until I caught the video footage in a documentary on the scientist who worked on it, that is.

Think Daniel Craig circa Bond films, or Benedict Cumberbatch in Star Trek. That, my friend, is my idea of buff. Not so large I'm scared he'll crush me, but large enough I think he could carry me a mile.

And because I am a curious little bee, what do they call a muscular guy in Ireland? Anything in particular?

Ha haaaa, you're funny. I like you. And, WIN! Two orders, please! And just thinking here, but horses tend to live nearly forty years, so if a magical unicorn (being all magical) lives twice that long, he'll be round longer than the buff guy! lol

Intersite: You have great insight, sir. Just saying. :)

I don't think anybody on here, at least from the postings so far, understands that you meant Marx's capitalist views, not his communist ones. Nor do they seem to understand that each of these viewpoints can be analyzed separately, as well as being confused in how capitalism is utilized by this country and others. Not too many people on here are open to intellectual discussion, versus snide comments, misinformation, or the use of irrelevant information. I am even more deflated in my drive to try to hold curious discussions, debates, or hell, even just a civilized conversation on any sort of relevant social issue. At this point, I'm settling for hearing more diatribes than anything else. But good luck and let me know if you happen upon an intellectual conversation on any of these forums, as most seem to be about waging some kind of internet war with bad/old/false information, instead.

I think free will exists in small matters. I like both fresh rolls and pancakes, as well as waffles. I have the ingredients to make all three but would never finish all three so, yes, I MUST make a choice here, as in something that is predetermined out of hunger and the choices available, but it is my decision which one I choose. However, a great many things are either predetermined through DNA/genes/hormonal processes, natural environmental processes, or chemical processes we are not aware of enough to alter consciously on our own. So, these things cannot be a part of free will. Neither is it our own will being engaged if another species decided to wipe us out. So it is surprisingly limited, and this limitation can only be exploited to an extent. But it is not immaterial in terms of needing to be understood, I don't think, and s a conceptualization of the elements in willpower that do not rationally need to be usurped, such as food choices.

But, that's just my two-cent musings for the past twenty minutes.

From this post I take it you argue for intelligent design. however, the universe does not breathe as singular entity in and of itself, so it cannot be live. It cannot think since it has no organs and without that no mind or consciousness, it isn't, therefore, a thing to be driven by intelligence.

So, why do you really think it does?

I am a fan of Marx's view on capitalism, and I agree, so it was always a wonder to see capitalism so widely used as if it were the best benefit to any society. It offers temporary rewards for a select number of people, the amount of which grows steadily as an increasingly larger number of people are diminished by it. It also feeds the materialistic nature of the populace using it to irrational degrees, all for the drive of a system intended to offset any loss with a greater loss from the disadvantaged individuals in the society that perpetuates it.

I'm looking for an answer, or at least some formulas or calculation to try. I've no concept of math really but found the question too intriguing, so I asked here, which I hoped would garner some help to get to the answer, rather than just give me a whole bunch more questions.