26

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
Wanted What to tell?
Anything, besides, that presence of "flying people" in a hypothesis stage should have some proofs. wink
How to distinguish divine revelation from an attack of a schizophrenia or a poisoning with an ergot?
Explicitly here. if it is short, influence such:
1. It is comprehended by the full knowledge
2. Not instantly, but in process of learning
3. Demands a special concentration, a spirit
4. Exterior manuals of the teacher and control are mandatory.
Local Kotjara
Not, does not roll, contradicts outputs in genetics
What relation has finding of new quality to genetics?:insane: to which contradicts?:eek: at what here a pig? You on level of mammals would go down, and, are not present - at once to .:D

27

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
Presence of "flying people" in a hypothesis stage should have some proofs
The Scriptuses (not important what religion) approach?
Explicitly here.
It is not necessary for sifting  and other glitches. Cases when the person goes mad because of hard work are frequent and starts to consider itself as the genius, the prophet, etc. As to distinguish?

28

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
The Scriptuses (not important what religion) approach?
No, it is too much garbage.:D
It is not necessary for sifting  and other glitches.
I wrote, gave the reference. After Ramhalja anybody did not describe more precisely.
Cases when the person goes mad because of hard work Are frequent and starts to consider itself as the genius, the prophet, etc. As to distinguish?
You to read under my link tried? Or to you for a long time and so all is clear?:rolleyes:

29

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
Decisions ad-hoc with which the human body - a sign of worthless designing abounds. It is a lot of normally them, when designing at all was not.
And what it is decisions?
Cases when the person goes mad because of hard work Are frequent and starts to consider itself as the genius, the prophet, etc.
Overheating of the central processor and program failure:gigi:
Or discovery "not " possibilities wink
Adding from 12/5/2016 14:35:
The Baby bird
What relation has finding of new quality to genetics?
Not  possibilities
90 % of genes - as though garbage. Whether and garbage? :-\

30

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Whether and garbage?
Apprx. I Will ask was specific. The second signal system has what relation to genes? wink

31

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

forevic
The Good answer to WHO gave Darwin. Natural selection, than not the decision?
Probability of a mutation
Probability of its fastening in first generation
Probability of fastening in the subsequent generations
The probability of that a meteorite does not fall to a head :-\
And if the theory  still and these finds explained, the price to it would not be
http://www.kramola.info/blogs/metody-ge … kem-i-dlya
Adding from 12/5/2016 14:57:
The Baby bird
The Second signal system has what relation to genes?
And who in a brain for it created operator? Vocal chords.
Yes-yes, all a method of natural selection:gigi:
Here  at somebody contacts in a brain, you look at it and telepathy opens
The brain is a source of electro-magnetic radiation
And why to it not to be and its receiver? Definitely given frequencies :-\

32

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
And who in a brain for it created operator? Vocal chords.
On a sofa you communication installed houses, and genetics  for importance.:D or you have links? wink

33

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
I wrote, gave the reference
I saw. It is not necessary.
You to read under my link tried?
Read, a question still in force. I there did not see anything essential.

34

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
That suits sifting  and other glitches
No.
"Glitches" at all so arise
Glitches arise very much differently. That is written under the link, is quite laid down in a pattern of a progressing schizophrenia with positive semiology.

35

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
On a sofa you communication installed Houses,
Communication with what?
Or you have links?
Links of that?
And why to the grandmother not to be the grandfather?
And for these explanations you are still small. To grow up it is a little :-\

36

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

forevic
The Good answer to WHO gave Darwin. Natural selection, than not the decision?
It from a series "the Wind blows, because trees ".
And what there is a natural selection? wink

37

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
Glitches arise very much differently. That is written under the link, is quite laid down in a pattern of a progressing schizophrenia with positive semiology.
It is written beautifully, but, to described Ramhalem, has the slightest relation if not to put the unique assumption that "dialogue" good luck it mandatory delirium and hallucinations. I will not compare outright the illness and influence signs described by Ramhalem. Any not prejudiced and a passing has enough.:p It is possible to mention only that fact of common knowledge that to some extent 84 % of the population of the earth good luck communicate. And norm define  the majority. The people recognized as the greatest minds of mankind good luck interacted. By any described medicine of "positive semiology" at them and in  it was not watched. :-\
Local Kotjara
Communication with what?
The second signal, vocal chords and genetics. Give the reference that such communication by someone,  you, is found out.:cool:

38

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
It is possible to mention only that fact of common knowledge that to some extent 84 % of the population of the earth good luck communicate
Clearly-clearly. Remove a word "rational" of the status, do not mislead people.

39

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

PZ1
And what there is a natural selection?
Who does not catch up, that simply eat, yet did not give descendants.
Local Kotjara
Probability of a mutation
Probability of its fastening in first generation

Probabilities not too big, but during millions years.

40

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Geon
Here, type, it
To you novels to write in style of a fantasy. Would have on bread and butter.:up:
Fracta1L
Clearly-clearly. Remove a word "rational" of the status, do not mislead people.
In essence is what to tell?:rolleyes:

41

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

forevic
Who does not catch up, that simply eat, yet did not give descendants.
And all?
And a competition?
In algorithm of natural selection it is provided that that the descendants leave the most healthy, including the one who is capable to compete to others.
The best male will manage the best female. And on the contrary. Struggle for possibility to select the best for reproduction and sort-it continuation too natural selection.
Infantile death rate - too the mechanism of action of natural selection. Freaks do not give descendants. The nature took care, that harmful genes, were not transferred in generations.
Eventually in the general wheel of life on the Earth  the sapiens the sapiens only one of gears with the built in mechanisms for realization of the function.

42

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Fracta1L
With religious bots to argue it is useless, so I stop.
Whether again that Nikonov?

43

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Geon
The creator takes away souls which have especially succeeded in this field from the world created by it, reversely building in itself to use stored tactics in opposition with Chasm aggression.
Here, type, it also is god who has created our and our world.

He is Michurin any it turns out, instead of God. It also turns out more stupidly the creations.

44

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
It is possible to mention only that fact of common knowledge that to some extent 84 % of the population of the earth good luck communicate.
That acknowledgement, what they communicate with any "god", will be? Execution of the learned rituals and dialogue with any subject - things different.

45

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
Fracta1L
Clearly-clearly. Remove a word "rational" of the status, do not mislead people.
In essence is what to tell?

- it nothing you, procrastinate the , but in any way determination.
You already "dipped" repeatedly in in different parts of a subject the Bible, the person, eternity... (A part 31) , all is not enough?
Fracta1L
"Glitches" at all so arise
Glitches arise very much differently. That is written under the link, is quite laid down in a pattern of a progressing schizophrenia with positive semiology.

Unambiguously!
And the Baby bird in a self-title rational and attempts to produce a senseless mere verbiage for determination directs obstinate fanaticism on  about  disorders of believers.
The Baby bird ;
Faith in god and mental diseases
http://scisne.net/a-1881
Mental disorders at religious rituals
http://www.psychiatry.ua/books/religion/paper31.htm
O.A.Panchenko, I.I.Kutko, V.N.Berezovsky
Kharkov, Ukraine
The people's commissar - Mental disorders with religious-mystical experiences: the Short manual for doctors - Narcology on-line
http://www.narcom.ru/publ/info/849
> An office of the expert in narcology> Narcology on-line> Mental disorders with religious-mystical experiences: the Short manual for doctors
The modern representations about mental disorders,  with the religious-archaic factor are stated. The clinical description of mental disorders of the archaic and religious-mystical content is resulted: religious-mystical states, delirium of obsession and sorcery, depression with a religious plot of delirium, delirium of Messianizm. The separate chapter is devoted a problem of psychiatric aspects of destructive cults.

46

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
The Second signal, vocal chords and genetics. Give the reference that such communication by someone,  you, is found out.
Began with god, and finish genetics:gigi:
And what for to you of knowledge on genetics?
forevic
Probabilities not too big, but during millions years.
And for how many millions and billions years a monkey to turn to the person?
Mutation - probability of fastening
Amount of mutations from one type to another wink
The pure statistics and anything personal
By the way, the Neanderthal man has the big differences from  in , and with pair mutations here will not get off at passage on  :-\

47

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Began with god, and finish genetics
"Genetics" you the first said a word what for. Forgot?:D
And what for to you of knowledge on genetics?
And what, it is forbidden?:eek: It at atheists and agnostics is solid setting that  a short course of own religion it is necessary nothing for the believer. And so it not so.:p

48

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

The Baby bird
"Genetics" you the first said the Word what for. Forgot?
Simply genetics  is not on friendly terms with the theory, from a word "absolutely"
It at atheists and agnostics is solid setting that  a short course of own religion it is necessary nothing for the believer.
Still the believer would know this short course of own religion, and that...:lol:

49

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

Local Kotjara
Knowledge on genetics?
And they, by the way, would not prevent before to write a nonsense from the yellow literature (about pigs , Neanderthal men and garbage) smile

50

Re: The creator (God) as purely scientific hypothesis.

By the way, atheists are too people believers, they simply believe that god is not present :-\