http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y
Why do you agree or disagree with this video?
Printable View
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y
Why do you agree or disagree with this video?
You don't know? God was created by... Supergod! :superman:
Something as great as God can't just happen by itself.
This is what I have been saying for years minus the Physics.
You mean god was created by transformers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
http://img.tesco.com/pi/entertainmen...090_DV_L_F.jpg
No wait, you mean this
http://www.ebsqart.com/Art/69/29793/275_275.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
That was fuckin entertaining, probably because i have no idea of any of those subjects. Imagine your own infinite energy source that runs your house at high capacity?:lol::lol::lol::bowdown:
It is forbidden by the sacred scrolls to show false images of Supergod! He looks like this... :superman: Shath ye be not falsifieth thine true Pacman formeth of he!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
God having a creator is a paradox because god is supposed to be the creator of "all"
Hence "Fairy tale within a fairy tale,".Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Isn't the whole universe a paradox?
All that we know is what the universe has shown us. So it's not foolish to believe God may not have a begining or an end. He created the universe, so he must have existed before-outside of the universe's time/space. Anything about "inner space" is speculation.
Man created god, not the other way around.
Believe what you would like to.:) I apologize for putting my own beliefs in my post, it is a touchy subject.
God himself created God. Therefore there are no paradoxes.
That is under the presupposition that he created the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
He created the universe so he must be able to create the universe. Lol.
The only real fact about the universe is that it exists...
The only way to make sense of Creator theories, or the more general idea that time and the universe began, is to close the loop: we created God who created we who created God.
We are talking about "creator" God. A supernatural force.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
But who created the God who created God? To me infinity is very mysterious. There has to be a secret to infinity. How does something become infinite in the first place? How can everything start, if there wasn't one thing it branched from? But then again that one thing had to come from something? I don't get it. Logic doesn't make sense at this level. We have infinity down as forever, but what initiated infinity?? What caused space time? And what caused the thing that caused the space time? How can forever come out of nowhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I haven't read the thread or watched the video. Just throwing out my idea.
God did not have to be created. To be God, he would have had to create time along with this Universe, and because of this, there could have never been a "beginning" or "before".
That doesn't answer anything, look at my last post. How could God come from nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Uh, yeah, it answers everything. The whole concept of "nothing" and "something" comes from this physical Universe, which God created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
So God is now The Fairy Tale within a fairytale... Within a fairy tale!!1Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Um.. Who created God? He magically appears? I don't see any logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
God was created out of our fear of death and why My mother died and why my two best friends died and.................
Answers would be nice. But fables will do.
You don't see the logic. That's the problem. It doesn't mean the logic is not there. Think about it.. If God exists, he exists. That's redundant for a reason. Let it sink in. Do not think of God as a beginning or an end or a middle or anything yet. Just know that he exists. That's as simple as we need to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Now, if something exists, however it got here or why, but exists outside of time, then does that something ever need to be created? There can not be a "created" phase because that would imply a specific point in time. There can not be an end or a beginning or a middle or anything in between. That implies time. If God created time, then God is outside the boundaries of his creation, that being time. He has full control over it. For that reason, God can just "exist"; he does not need a creator. Nothing created him. He just "is".
Totally agree. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Plain and simple, God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
not even looking at this from the point of view as a christian or an athiest, but an outsider looking in on everyone's beliefs, I find it funny that athiests think God can't exist because he can't come from nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
yet athiests believe in the big bang theory
pretty much the theory that everything came from nothing :roll:
if you look at it logically, whether you're a christian or not, the Big Bang theory and the belief of God are both just as unlikely to be true as the other.
so while you ask "so god magically appears?" you can also ask "so our universe itself magically appears?"
God creating our universe and a Big Bang creating our universe are essentially the same concept when you look at how it came to be.
They both supposedly came out of nothing and both supposedly created our universe.
the reason athiests believe in the big bang theory is because... well...
it's not God who did it
but as far as how existence was created in the first place, who said it had to be created? A circle doesn't have a beginning, does it? if it doesn't sound logical for existence not to have a beginning, then please, logically explain how existence came to be, and how there could possibly be nothing
˛Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Whatever helps you sleep at night. :roll: The wonderful thing about evidence is that it doesn't require 'belief'.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
- The Big Bang Theory
- Cosmic microwave background radiation
- Expanding universe
- Redshifting of light due to velocity and perspective of observation
- Hubble's Law
Educate yourself. Please.
Quote:
If the general theory of the Big Bang and expansion of the universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter somehow suddenly created? If so, then how did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods, created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question - where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step - and conclude that the Universe always existed, that there's no need for a creation because it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with questions that were once only treated with religion and myth.
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Eventho you're interested in science and probably are quit knowledgable, lagunagirl has a better understand of the universe than you imo. Besides, you fail to make a point.
The real question you are asking is 'Can something come from nothing?'
And the obvious answer is 'No.'
Therefor, the only conclusion is 'Everything always has existed'
This means, there is no beginning, there is no end. There are only cycles.
The Big Bang theory is a linear theory. But the universe is circular.
Obviously, everything goes in cycles and circles. If you haven't noticed this yet, look up in the sky and see it with your own eyes.
As above, so below.
If you want to know how God created the universe, then look into yourself, and see how you create your dreams inside your mind. Thats how God creates the universe inside his mind. But God is only mind, and nothing else. Everything is mind. The mind is nothing but energy, and we are much like dreamcharacters. Matter is an illusion. e=mc˛.
As within, so without.
The God theory of the universe implies two things.
Everything is energy.
Everything is connected.
These two things will be the greatest discoveries of science of all time, which will reveal all the secrets of the universe.
Actually, the Big Bang has been incorporated into both linear and cyclical cosmologies. The point of the Sagan quote is that neither approach requires or is improved by the assertion that someone 'did it.'Quote:
The Big Bang theory is a linear theory. But the universe is circular.
Obviously, everything goes in cycles and circles. If you haven't noticed this yet, look up in the sky and see it with your own eyes.
As above, so below.
Oh ok, I didn't get that point.
First off, I'm not Atheist. The big bang isn't the answer to the universe.. If you see any timelines with the big bang you get a "?" mark. No one knows what was before it, but logic says something can't come out of nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
I believe in a supernatural force, but I'am merely questioning what was before God. A circle doesn't have a begining.. WHO MADE THE CIRCLE? And how does "God" even come to play. It seems as if he came from nothing. This is what I think the biggest mystery in science. I don't know the answer.. But does that mean people are just going to give up on it? Seeing how the moon was once sought to be divine, science debunked it, and it has debunked a whole bunch of shit.
To ChaybaChayba, what are you talking about? We are saying that we don't know what came before the big bang, and that the universe is pretty much a whole mystery. Stopping at "God did it" is the most bullshit answer. Thousands of years ago what was the moon? "The heavens" The sun? "divine god", the center of the universe? Earth??... and when science takes the courage to really see whats happening you just stick with "God did it".
If the extent of her 'knowledge' about the universe is only so far as to say that atheists 'believe' in the Big Bang theory because it doesn't postulate the First Cause as a God (which it doesn't NOT say either, it's just not implied) as if it were an alternative 'creation myth' for 'the religion of atheism' - then no, she doesn't know more than I do. That's completely absurd and a little insulting.
I give creedance to the theory because the evidence at hand supports it. Not because it fits my godless view of the universe. Atheists (or any intellectually honest person) go where the evidence takes us, and build our world view on what we find. We don't invent evidence to support our predetermined world view - that's ass backwards. Whether the model is linear or cyclical we may never know, but I'm fine with slapping "I don't know" on it instead of inventing God into it's place so I can say "Phew, glad we got that sorted". That is intellectually dishonest.
To ignore the work of the thousands of men and women of science that have come before you is really to spit in their faces. They all deserve better than that, and you owe it to yourself to learn what they spent their lives discovering - knowledge.
Nice input. I totally agree, all of this definately shows that God was the source of the Big Bang, which as a christian myself, I believe that the Big Bang actually occurred and the Universe is finite and not infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
that's the thing with this though, how do scientists prove this? for one example, how they prove the universe is expanding? they give these reasons that make it sound logical, but can they actually see the universe expand? have they reached the edge of the universe, then gone back later to find it was further away? have they actually physically seen that the universe has expanded? no. not saying it isn't expanding, not saying it is, it's just that what the scientists are saying are only theories. They can't know for sure. we're too small and the universe is too big. all we can do is make logical assumptions when it comes to the creating of the universe, because we weren't there when it happened (if it was created at all)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
So this is about belief, whether you have evidence or not. You can believe the evidence of what a scientists assumes happened, or you can believe your own experiences telling you that God exists, but whichever it is, it's based on your belief. I dont know how you can think that belief doesn't come into this
it's RELIGION!
oh btw dreamworld, I know you're not an athiest, I'm sorry I implied it there though, I didn't really mean to. I was just taking a question and making a comment on it
Why don't you try reading the articles I listed instead of glazing your eyes over and quoting them? The answer to every question you just asked is right there in the links - stop being lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Stop thinking like a layman. In science, theories are more powerful than facts because they group and explain a large number of facts and models. A theory in science is not a guess I had while looking through a telescope and scratching my ass.Quote:
scientists are saying are only theories. They can't know for sure. we're too small and the universe is too big. all we can do is make logical assumptions when it comes to the creating of the universe, because we weren't there when it happened (if it was created at all)
This is not about belief. You can go out and do these tests yourself if you have the right equipment. Belief denotes a requirement of faith. You don't need faith (belief without evidence) when you have evidence - because you have evidence to support your claim!Quote:
So this is about belief, whether you have evidence or not.
So sitting around having little thought experiments (I use the word thought loosely, because you don't seem to have put much into this post at all) in your armchair is worth more than actually studying the world and Universe around us in peer reviewed scientific scrutiny to better the understanding of the human race via the quest for knowledge?Quote:
You can believe the evidence of what a scientists assumes happened, or you can believe your own experiences telling you that God exists, but whichever it is, it's based on your belief. I dont know how you can think that belief doesn't come into this
it's RELIGION!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Here they are again - Read them this time. I know they are very long articles but nothing worth doing in life is easy, get used to it.
- The Big Bang Theory
- Cosmic microwave background radiation
- Expanding universe
- Redshifting of light due to velocity and perspective of observation
- Hubble's Law
If you don't get it, don't criticize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Also, stop it with this notion that acceptance of scientific fact immediately negates your belief in God. It's a false dichotomy (a false choice). Off the top of my head having read this recently, something like 70% of polled scientists of academia believe in a god in some way, form or another.
You don't have to stay ignorant for the sake of keeping your faith.
More like 7...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Ironically, 7 is pretty spot on :p and that's 10 years ago in the USA. Here in Europe, you're dealing with figures around 1%.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Dude, look at yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
I'll pin it down to a brainfart on my part, cheers for setting it straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
I don't want to get into a debate. I'm just going to say that the Big Bang does not involve "something coming from nothing". Remember, before the Big Bang there was also no time, and because of that the matter and energy in the Universe does not need to have a beginning, just like God. Think of it like the very center of a black hole. All the energy and matter of the entire Universe was condensed into that one spot, and then it exploded into what we have today.
You seen that funky dude in the mirror? You should check him out.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Everyone is different and everyone comes to his/her own conclusion based off what they are willing to believe. The crazy thing about it all, is the fact that you have some Theist and Atheist that comes to common ground on certain events i.e., a Dynamic Universe, The Big Bang and the universe as finite. Then you also have some Theist and Atheist that believes the universe is Static, infinitly big. Either way in the end the only real difference is the fact that one believes in a creator where the other doesn't but the principles that are within could utimately support both areas and it does in some instances. I was arguing this same point in almost the same fashion as Alextanium to an Atheist in another thread. It's pretty amazing how the situation could be reveresed, but it is what it is my friends.
The problem is that with the creator view, one has to make extra (baseless) assumptions.
Occam's razor.
And Darwinians Evolution and Abiogenesis is not a baseless assumption? It would be wise to smell the Sh** that you're shoveling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
No, they are not.
Organisms change.
This is observable.
Those changes determine what organisms live.
This is observable as well.
The organisms who live then determine the gene pool that will be carried on.
This is just common sense.
Abiogenesis is proven through biochemistry.
"God", however, is in fact baseless speculation and is only ever "proven" through arguments from ignorance.
>< Yes, the evolutionary origin of species and abiogenesis are neither baseless nor assumptions. They are explanatory mechanisms, both logically consistent with a large body of facts and yielding new data via prediction and testable hypotheses. They have no existence other than the organization and generation of information--they are not a thing purported to be anywhere doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Is this the nature of your deity--an explanatory mechanism? A way of looking at things? I would say yes, and grant it some validity on that basis, but I don't think you agree with me there.
Yeah I could agree considering the nature of my God explains a lot of our nature as well especially in the information department. I'm curious what are these "facts" that determines the origin of life regarding abiogenesis?
Seismosaur: RNA as the basis for the origin of life is definately not observable. You may want to remember who you talking to buddy.
Apparantyl I am talking to a dumbass.
I must remember that you are immune to facts and reasoning...
The smell is actually quite nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Abiogenesis is based on assumptions, that's why it's called an hypothesis and not a theory. Still, those assumptions are not baseless.
Evolution on the other hand is an observable fact. Don't panic yet though, maybe if you close your eyes and count to ten it'll go away. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Instead of crying and showing your Whimpy side why don't you "Man Up" and tackle my questions head on with something intelligent to say, instead of the the same ignorant answers from you.
What questions?
All you did was assert that RNA is not observable.
I agree, it isn't. But the biochemistry backs it up, so calling it a "baseless assumption" is ignorance.
Why don't you attempt to learn or, at the very least, show consistency between your posts?
Internet tough guy! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I already answered the question, but I don't mind answering again: no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I've authorized Google to lend you a hand, so go ahead and do a search for "observed instances of speciation".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
And heres another just incase you think someone was making it up.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html
Read this. Please don't tell me it was the devil.
Again, the facts do not "determine" the theory. The theory organizes available facts and predicts unknowns in such a way that new information can be obtained and perhaps new technologies and methods derived for broader use. A theory is not right or wrong; it either works or does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Comparing abiogenesis to speciation through natural selection, abiogenesis is a much younger field with a smaller body of evidence behind it and less of an experimental and predictive track record. Will the theory we know now hold up for the next fifty or one hundred years? Who knows. As with any scientific theory, people are working tirelessly to disprove and revise it. After all, there's not much thrill or glory in tossing another corroborating datum on the pile; any scientist would rather find something new and radically different to get their name in the textbooks with Newton, Darwin, Einstein et al.
Man did I hit a soft spot... LOL.
It's late Im going to sleep, but when I get back it's on.
This will be interesting. :)
Don't forget to respond to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm
Don't forget to do the google search either, you just need to press "I'm feeling lucky".
Okay I’m back, let’s get down to it :goodjob2: Now whatever you guys do, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not pull a Wendylove on me and run for the hills when I get to an area that you are unsure of. Just respect the debate and come honest and say “Hell I don’t know?” I can respect that. I just hate asking a question and you people always tend to turn tail and run the other way, or try to pass any information off as being accurate when it’s not, just in hopes that I would leave, as though I’m going to accept that inaccurate information. Omicron tried that previously in another thread, and I had to call her/him out on it. Now that we got that out the way let’s get started.
I never said evolution is not observable, Next Generation gaming is definately something of an eye popper. Did you play GTA IV? OMG! That game is awesome, do you remember oddessy? So the real question is how does this compare with the Darwinian's model? What's your thoughts on Random mutation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
Attempt to learn huh? I can support that, reading is definitely fundamental, I’ve learned quite a few things during my existence on this rock. Let’s see what we’ve both know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
So exactly how does biochemistry back up prebiotic RNA as the main source for the origin of life?
Are you trying to pass off speciation as the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
That was well put. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Not sure what kind of response you were expecting but, Okay :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Hell i dont know.
I know, and man created him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
So you accept that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection and its offshoots are the most elegant and productive framework we have for uniting and expanding the disparate data sets of zoology, paleontology, virology and ecology, to name a few? That this body of theory reveals more about the realms it addresses than any other explanatory mechanism addressing those realms? And that abiogenesis may well follow suit in years to come?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
You're right, you just said it was a baseless assumption, that's totally different. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
No, why would you think that?Quote:
Are you trying to pass off speciation as the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution?
It's evidence for the evolution described in "Darwinism".
Quote:
So exactly how does biochemistry back up prebiotic RNA as the main source for the origin of life?
From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abio...ginoflife.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by The Origin of Life
So no. Not what you thought, huh?
Um, its kinda proof of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
You completely disregard a article which contradicts all you are saying. If you believe you are right, enlighten me. If you post illogical material, post away. At least make it look leet.
AFter your done with that read this. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html
*crickets*Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Everyone that says god can't create god. Then has to admit existence can't exist by creating itself. So in effect people who claim something can't create itself. All of existence is mocking them.....
But that begs the question: "Who created Supergod"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
SuperGod
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1072/supergodka8.jpg
evolves into...............................
MEGAGOD
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2561/megagodcc3.jpg
I think you're getting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Existence has always been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
So you agree with me. Sorry I thought you were saying that isn't possible. Because in my other thread you were arguing against it that's all. If it always was. Then it always created itself. Since it's the only thing that can cause itself.
But lets take a step back and look at the question posed in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
"Who created God"?
Such a question makes a hypothetical assumption that God exists. I'm going to assume that this is the God depicted by religion. Therefore, this hypothetical God is omnipotent (the God depicted by religion is described as being omnipotent: "having unlimited power").
Doesn't this imply that that he doesn't need to be created?
Your confusing the potential of ultimate power and it's possibility, with his question of using our own brain and discovering how it would actually work.
Is that in reply to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
yeah instead of worrying about god and how endless power can manifest any possibility you can dream up. Why not try to figure out how it can actually happen in reality with your own mind. That would have much more value than saying endless power can do anything. That is a simple equation anyone can do.
Consciousness is singular. Call it what you want.
Come up with an explanation on how he just appeared, or how he has always been.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Okay you sound a bit confused. You say no you're not trying to pass it off as evidence of molecules-to-man but then you turn right around and say it's evidence for Darwinians's evolution which is the same thing- Fish to MANQuote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
So which is it?
So no, what? Are you agreeing with me stating that biochemistry doesn't back up prebiotic RNA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Is that what you've gotten from just that one little reply? I don't recall accepting anything from saying "very well put, thanks" If you want my personal opinion on it, I think it's a stretch. The effort's nice but the idea doesn't hold much weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
So what exactly is the contridiction? Because I don't see a contridiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
[QUOTE=Ne-yo;818667]Okay you sound a bit confused. You say no you're not trying to pass it off as evidence of molecules-to-man but then you turn right around and say it's evidence for Darwinians's evolution which is the same thing- Fish to MAN
So which is it?
So no, what? Are you agreeing with me stating that biochemistry doesn't back up prebiotic RNA?
1. No you dumbfuck!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
http://www.tolweb.org
You should be ashamed of yourself for being so ignorant!
2. Yes, but not what you thought. Prebiotic RNA wasn't trhe primary source.
3. There is nothing above theory! A theory explains something and is complete and coherent!!!
This is why Evolution is a theory, and Abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
Ignorant fools such as yourself always seem to cling to the laymen terms, don't they?
Why would something as eternal require an explanation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Had to edit: That same question could require what's the explanation for Atheism? You guys don't believe that anything of a higher power had divine intervention over life chemistry and that there is no reason for us even existing. So the question begs the explanation for the reason of Atheism.
No. He would not have been able to use his infinite power if he did not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
The same reason you obviously think we need something external to explain us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
So explain to this layman what was the primary source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
So you agree that abiogensis is just pretty much an Assumption right?
That doesn't answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nasse_1895.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
You can't explain atheism in the sense that you can find a certain fact which forever shows it to be true. To know "atheism" to be broadly and completely true with any kind of certainty is impossible without knowing absolutely everything. However, we can be atheistic towards specific religious claims and justify that by showing those claims to be false. That is the grounds on which atheism is justified. Obviously you can't apply this to unknown, vague or unknowable claims, in which case any reasonable person would simply reserve conclusive judgment. Remember, these atheists you're talking about only reject one more god than you do (as per that often quoted saying who I can't remember came up with it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Interesting indeed.:wtf: So give me an example of one of these false claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
No, I didn't think it likely you'd considered the import of what I was saying simply because you were unable to reply. I wagered you would let the pretty words slough off your preconceived notions without realistically reexamining the efforts of the entire scientific establishment for over a century to unseat Darwin's theory, the results being, "well, maybe survival of the fittest is an oversimplification, and this family split off here rather than there." My guess was you would continue to ignore the whole fields of inquiry unheard of in Darwin's time which flawlessly integrate with a theory he devised from surface appearances alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
The idea holds the weight of six-plus generations of investigation catalogued in detail, should you ever feel your ego can withstand their perusal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3...4289385zp9.jpg
Divine-Epic-Facepalm
"Molecules-to-man" includes Abiogenesis. This has been pointed out 10^99 times, so I'll just quote Wikipedia:
Quote:
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.
Oh Jesus.. They don't know, because there isn't proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
And this article shows how a lizard evolved and adapted to its surroundings in just a few years. Since you don't believe in evolution, how is it that it "changed".
God did it, duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Okay this is what get’s me. Now correct me if I’m wrong, Evolution promotes the belief that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. Am I pretty much on the right track here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
So what exactly is the purpose for pointing out speciation if it doesn’t show an any example of completely new additional information from a naturally occurring mutation or selection?
And as far as weight, let me just put it to you this way. You can go to any secular anthropologist and ask him to provide you with the most ancient evidence for spirit expression. They will confess that the most ancient evidence dates back to only 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. In the form of a moral code or religious relics, the most ancient finds have been primitive Venus Idol figurines from 10,000 years ago.
My 10,000 PLUS years compared to your 6 plus generations, you do the math.
Like I said "not much weight".
Look above, that reply to Taosaur is also yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
I find it silly that you people argue about the gods...
They are based on faith, and faith needs no science and no creator to exist: God and indeed the gods are all a matter of faith, so let them be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Dreamworld first- point out where I said I don't believe in evolution.
Second- It's evolved yes but where is the new genetic information?
Thrid- You failed to answer my question.
Ne-yo would you be more comfortable if I said evolution is God's ways of making us, without busting his ass so damn much?
"God the almighty", the "clock maker", "supreme creator" and the "unknowable", if he was perfect, why would he have "feelings" for us? Why wouldn't he create a natural process for us to live by, a plan so magnificent he doesn't have too peek in once in a while.
There is a difference between our theory of creation, and you theory of creation.
Ours is based on logic alone, while yours is based on the bible, and revised by logic.
We were born without nothing in our hands, nothing at all.. not even a bible. We were born with logic alone, and we should live by logic.
Eh, if you believe in evolution why are we arguing?
How hard is that Dreamworld? Seriously? How hard is it to answer a question? I hate when people dodge my questions. Hit me up when you ready to answer the questions I've presented to you. I'll be around :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
You haven't asked me one question..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
And what is your argument? Do you believe in evolution or not?
Are you kidding me??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Forget about man. :shakehead2:
You haven't asked me a damn question. Ask them now, and I will answer each one of them. I haven't read many of your posts not replying to me, and we haven't directly argued..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
No, seriously forget about it. It's not that hard to go back one page and look at my replies to you and see the questions. I really do not like repeating myself. So you can do one of two things. (1)Quote my questions to you and provide your logical response or (2)continued to evade them. The choice is yours my friend, all yours. :goodjob2:
In science we question things. Also both of us have no idea what eternal feels like, because our conscious has a beginning, and an end.Quote:
Why would something as eternal require an explanation?
What are you arguing then?Quote:
Dreamworld first- point out where I said I don't believe in evolution.
Almost everything is a theory because we do not know 100% how natural processes works. The bible is a theory, just like evolution. Global warming is a theory even though we can see the ice caps melting.Quote:
Proof of Darwinian's evolutionary model? Because I believe if we had proof and that much evidence it would no longer hold the title as just a "Theory" now would it?
Well, from Darwin's perspective 150 years ago observing small, relatively homogeneous populations in the Galapagos with a view of species influenced primarily by Noah's Ark--sorta. Not so much from our perspective now, given a more complete fossil record and DNA info on surviving species, most notably ourselves, as well as an improved understanding of the chemistry of reproduction. With the expanded data sets Darwin's theory has helped us to unearth, we find that sexual reproduction alone provides substantial diversity of traits as populations increase, only augmented by outright mutation. Recognizable traits are not simply passed along or discarded intact; they are synthesized and reconstituted through recombination of disparate elements, resulting in a continuous compounding of expressed traits which, in the presence of selection pressures which thin the herd and/or isolate reproductive populations, can lead to future generations which bear startlingly different resemblances to their ancestors (for instance, reptiles and humanity).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Okay, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I suspect I covered it above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If you were addressing someone who discarded what you call "spirit expression" or saw it as somehow insulated from scientific inquiry, your argument might hold a thimblefull of water, but as I see Genesis, the Upanishads, the Dreamtime, the Twelvefold Chain of Interdependent Origination et al. as arising from the same impulse and fairly corroborating Darwin's theory, I've got your 10,000 years PLUS(111) my six odd generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
See, now was that hard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Btw my original argument is not against evolution as a whole, just parts of Darwin's absurbed theory of evolution.
You are pretty much saying the same thing I just said up there. You could've saved all the extra typing by just saying yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
No you didn't cover it. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
You just went comletely over my head, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
This is a gross misinterpretation of the word theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
LOL :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Do you then accept that reptiles and humans have common ancestry? If not, do you believe that all species that have ever existed on earth were placed here more or less in their final form? If neither of these two, what is your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I can't "try again" unless you can state what you were saying more clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
You seemed to be arguing that human history of "spirit expression" is somehow at odds with evolutionary theory. I find that same history remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
No I do not. However I'm curious about something, who/what is this common ancestor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
No I do not believe that all species were placed on Earth in their final form. I believe that some species has derived from their kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Okay in short, I'm inquiring where is the new genetic information as a result of speciation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Consistent? How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I don't think you missed the point "omnipotent", I think you're just ignoring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
How can something that does not exist be omnipotent? God could not use omnipotence to create himself when he did not exist. Please explain what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
The whole 'omnipotent' argument is a strawman.
As is the argument made in the video.
An omnipotent god can do anything. Including not existing and still be omnipotent, and existing at the same time, since anything would be possible for an omnipotent god. This proves the limited idea of a non existent omnipotent god unable to create itself inferior.Quote:
How can something that does not exist be omnipotent? God could not use omnipotence to create himself when he did not exist.
Say an omnipotent god does not exist and it was true. That still does not limit the omnipotent god from anything of it's existence anyway because both would be possible in the face of omnipotence it does not present a problem. Nothing presents a problem with omnipotence. The only way you can accept a limited non existence only is to make omnipotence less than itself.
The real issue we are discussing as you say is how such a thing exists already not if it could.
Okay, this is just getting silly now.
Paddle back to the shallow end of the pool. Quick.
You mean this isn't the shallow end?
Of the gene pool, certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Enterer
So even if an omnipotent God does not exist, which seems to be the case in reality, an omnipotent God does exist? By that argument, an omnipotent Mickey Mouse exists, an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, an omnipotent this guy :shock: exists, and an omnipotent George W. Bush exists. An infinite number of omnipotent characters exist even though they do not exist since they are all omnipotent. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Now, an omnipotent being that existed in the first place would be able to make itself not exist while still existing, if omnipotence were actually a possibility, which it is not. However, it makes no sense to say that an omnipotent being that never existed, like the omnipotent dancing banana :banana:, exists because it is infinitely powerful and has the ability to not exist while existing.
Can you back that assertion up with anything? You can start by explaining where you get the idea that omnipotence is a necessary component of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I would also be interested in seeing a counterargument to what I said in my last post.
Here I edited it again. Trying to simplify it.
T=Reality
X= The omnipotent
Y= non existence of a god
C=existence of God
D=Impossibility
E=Possibility
X+Y+C+D+E = T.
Therefore T contains X
Given X=Y X=C X=D X=E
When Y+D = C+E Then C+E=C
When Y+E = C+D Then Y+E=Y
When T contains X
T=C
T=Y
Omnipotent is the only thing that can explain Original Cause so it's a component of reality. You should know that you have already demonstrated that with your statement existence always existed. That means an infinite cause. Which is Omnipotent. Why are you trying to be difficult? Are you arguing just to be difficult or something? You demonstrated this understanding and then you take it back now? What for? That is not consistent?!
I am being difficult by asking where you get the idea that omnipotence can just be assumed? I demonstrated understanding of that and then took it back? Uh, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Eternal existence is not synonymous with omnipotence. You made that up.
Your trolling is kind of amusing, but you said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is eternal and omnipotent. Then you said it is not. Why are you saying that it is? Earlier you said that he hid the WMD's.
I'd really loved to hear your attempt to tell me how existence can happen with no beginning without an Omnipotent cause backing it up. Your the one making things up here.Quote:
Eternal existence is not synonymous with omnipotence. You made that up.
What? I never said that why are you being a liar for? How am I 'trolling'. What does that even mean and how do I qualify for that? Do you not understand the equation written above or just don't want to look at it because you know it's the answer.Quote:
Earlier you said that he hid the WMD's.
Errr... It's the other way around. Speciation is a result of new genetic information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Minerva Logical Fallacy #umpteen+1: Burden of ProofQuote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
The onus is on the person making the claim to prove the claim, not the person who disbelieves the claim.
That's three logical fallacies of yours I've found on the boards in just the last 10 minutes. I can keep this up forever... By all means, keep going. It's excellent practice for my psych class I don't take.
Thats all very well......... but who created Mega God?Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
MegaGod
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2561/megagodcc3.jpg
evolves into..............
ULTRAGOD
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2116/ultragodmf7.jpg
Until...Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/s/mschelb/icons/alanwatts.jpg
You ruined the joke, at the best point! I was going to use the FSM next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Why did I ruin the joke, Alan Watts is the creator of MegaGod, repent.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49...630763l3od.jpg
You brought this upon youselves.
All jokes aside. Is that Ultra Ultra god? Start numbering them. It could possibly have the same equation as my 2+2=5 formula. Original God of them all =X.
Brace yourself guys, I am aiming for ten.
Yes, but where does Ultra God come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
UltraGod
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2116/ultragodmf7.jpg
evolves into..........
ULTIMAGOD
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/272/ultimagodac1.jpg
So... you're implying Chuck Norris is not the Ultimate God?
Expect a roundhouse kick related death soon.
I hope you like digging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
Who created Ultima god.
Your either missing the point or trying to annoy me. You will find out tonight or tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Psychology your point defeats your own belief system.
/selfpwnt
Yea but, its also a joke. Thats the pertinent thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
"2 + 2 = 4"
...
Did you lol at my joke?
Yeah, but not in the way that you intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
(Do I have consent to use your picture for the next stage of God?)
More research on my part reveals that mammalian ancestors were essentially reptiles, so the common ancestors of modern reptiles and humans were reptiles. For an explanation of the half dozen transitional forms in the known fossil record, look here. For a pretty picture, look here:http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1212439369Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
So are you saying there was a kind of prototypical reptile that developed into snakes and crocs and monitor lizards, or that each species we know now was always just one breeding population that never splintered, but they might have looked different before than they do now? In other words, are you saying that you accept speciation within classes, but not divergence into new phyla, or no speciation whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
As has been pointed out, that's a nonsense question. Both additional genetic material and new combinations of existing genetic material accumulate in any species that is multiplying its numbers and expanding its territory, simply via the volatility of sexual reproduction and interaction with a varied field of pathogens, symbionts, parasites and mutagens. The larger a population and the more varied its habitats, the more traits will come to be expressed within a species. When populations with different distributions of traits become reproductively isolated in habitats demanding different adaptations, they will eventually pursue such different survival strategies so far that they can no longer interbreed: speciation. It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing game, either; some species diverge only so far that interbreeding is unlikely, but not impossible, as with lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
We'll leave that for another thread. Suffice it to say I find scriptural literalism as irreligious as I find Intelligent Design unscientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Supernewimprovedmightygod!Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
If he didn't, then you explain who did. If you can't explain it, that will just prove that Supernewimprovedmightygod created Ultimagod.
# = reality
$ = Supermagicpumpkingod
@ = :banana:
($ + @) X :eek: = #
Therefore, :eek: is real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
don't you find it awfully pretentious to change your title to "student of philosophy" like that means shit. I'm a "student of philosophy" but i dont feel the need to bang it on my title. Do you expect to be somehow respected or what?
You really aren't a nice person, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Does my title bother you?
No, it's your terrifying thread titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=59538
You really aren't a nice person, are youQuote:
No, it's your terrifying thread titles.
Not to trolls. But you come at us with your nightmares, right? That is just not nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I find it interesting that a student of philosophy commits the most common logical fallacies while arguing a position in a debate.
Thus I assume the title is more of an armchair philosophy rather than an actual academic.
I'm not an expert I just have a competitive side. Feel free to point out the common logical fallacies.
I have already, back on page 5 of this thread. And again in this thread.
And in the thread where you posted that anti-depressant 'article' that pissed off a few people.
You misinterpreted my words and argued against something that I never implied.
When I said we don't care about the claim. That means we want to see the results not just the claim without the results.
The anti-depressant article I wanted to see what people had to say about it.
Logical fallacies?.. You tried to unjustify war using the word "love"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Not exactly. I asked if you didn't use love then what do you use to defeat terrorism. That's very different to what you concluded.
Love, logic, reason, conversation, anything else that a sane human being uses to come to a reasonable compromise isn't useful when dealing with people who so vehemently follow a crazy person that they are willing to blow themselves up lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I would be blown up if it meant other people would be safe...but I don't think I could blow myself up for the same reasons that terrorists do.
But you know, one man's terrorist is another's vigilante hero.
So it continues......Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
UltimaGod
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/272/ultimagodac1.jpg[/QUOTE]
evolves into........
GODSQUARED
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9...squaredds1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Nice picture. I’m curious why you guys don’t use the Archaeopteryx example anymore? Whatever happened to that crazy assumption of intermediate from reptile to bird? I’m here debating because there is a ton of room for it. There seems to be pitifully little evidence for evolution if indeed millions of species have gradually evolved through hundreds of millions of years. If this has happened, our museums should be overflowing with vast numbers of unquestionable transitional forms. There should be no room for question, no possibility of doubt and no opportunity for debate. However I’m debating against you, which means there so happen to be opportunity. Instead of these vast numbers of undoubted transitional forms that should exist, however, the case for evolution rests on a very few doubtful examples, one of which is your alleged reptile to mammal transition. This one should be fun indeed.
I think you need to ask yourself a very important question. Does the possession by a creature of some characteristics which are possessed by a second class of creatures necessarily indicate that it is transitional between these two classes?
Let’s get to this on a more logical basis. Now if I’m not mistaken Mammal-like reptiles appeared supposedly right at the start of the reptiles, gradually became more mammal-like through the Permian and Triassic, and finally culminated in the appearance of the first real mammals at the end of the Triassic circa. Based off evolution I’m extremely curious to understand why did these mammal-like reptiles become extinct? Especially considering they were the most numerous of all reptiles, world wide in distribution. Do you see the problem we are face with here? We have a contradiction in evolution to say the least.
Moving on, now while thousands of fossil reptiles have been found which possess a single ear bone and multiple jaw bones, and thousands of fossil mammals have been found which possess three ear bones and a single bone in the jaw, Why is there not a single fossil creature that has ever been found which represents an intermediate stage? This is one of many of my problems with evolution. Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium each possessed a full complement of the reptilian bones in its lower jaw, so I guess these creatures would also be considered intermediates between reptiles and mammals, allegedly possessing a mammalian squamosal-dentary jaw-joint in addition to the reptilian jaw-joint am I correct?
Now let’s look more into the picture you’ve presented which shows the more advance cynodont character on the scene providing transition, the infamous Cynognathus. I’m sure it’s safe to say that the accessory bones present show no reduction, either in size or complexity of this structure. It seems to be a pretty smooth transition in which I can completely understand why you went this route. However it’s not as smooth, in particular the jaw-joint isn’t quite as powerful as the Morganucodon. What’s up with that? I pointed out some flaws here. I’m not going to get into a lot because I can honestly rip this into shreds, however I’ll give you the opportunity to counter and we’ll move forward.
If you are trying to get to the bottom of where I stand regarding speciation, then maybe this will shed light on your thoughts. Speciation occurs and it occurs rapidly there is no doubt about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
How is that nonsense? That answer you gave me doesn’t explain anything regarding new information delivered, I’m actually a little disappointed that this answer came from you, because as far as I know mutations does not add new information to the genome and duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information. For one, mutations alter existing genetic information whether original or duplicated. Neither of them adds new information. Now don’t get me wrong, that is not to say that sometimes mutations can’t have beneficial outcomes, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but this is not an example of new information being added. Mutations alter a current functional system (i.e., nutrient transport) in the bacteria that is the target of the antibiotic such that the bacteria are no longer affected by the antibiotic. It has come at the cost of that functional system performing its original function inefficiently or not at all. To get from bacteria to man, there must be a mechanism to add genetic information such as genes to make arms, legs, and brains. You know what? As a matter of fact I like for you to show me an example of new information delivered to the gnome, not duplicated, not pre-existing and definitely not mutated. I’m talking spankin brand new information. The question at hand is, can you deliver?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Good way out :goodjob2: I'd leave that one alone also if I were you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
They are.
You, sir are just an ignorant bastard and/ or reject it.
Dude you need to take an anger mangement class, why are you always so emotional? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
I am perfectly calm... :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Okay if you say so, Good. Now you and I can pick up where we left off.
Remember these questions?
I'm still waiting on my answers from you.Quote:
So explain to this layman what was the primary source?
So you agree that abiogensis is just pretty much an Assumption right?
Now I know that this is completely unscientific but just from a purely unscientific logical position I don't really see how one could reject evolution.
Basically it's so simple. Information is transmitted down the generations and gets mutations and stuff. Nobody can deny that. There's not enough stuff on earth for everybody. Can't deny that either. So dicks have to fight for it and kill one another. So evolution must be true. That which survives... survives... and the rest rots in its own feces. So naturally they don't survive. And simply because the other guys survive... they become even more interested in surviving... because those that have an interest in surviving survive. It's like... 1+1=2. Pretty obvious. It's like... if you throw a bunch of sponges at a tight hole at the wall only those that pass through the hole will make it to the other side. They're probably smaller. They fit the hole. I mean, it's nice that we got all the evidence and stuff, but it was really quite clear from the beginning that Darwin was right.
And this also makes it quite clear why abiogenesis is a pretty intelligent concept. It just means the same as biological evolution. If stuff is more highly skilled in the skill of "existing", it gets to exist more... and because of that it must have some property that makes it exist more... and if it also has a mechanism to endow other stuff with that property... you just created life.
Go back a page or two.
Also what's with this stuff about microevolution and whatnot? That's pointless. Microevolution and macroevolution are basically the same process, you just put some arbitrary line somewhere to make it more lucid to understand. You can't say one exists and the other doesn't. That's like saying water is liquid and can make small waves up to 5 cm but not more. Doesn't make any sense. The wave-making is a process in and of itself, it's not limited by some arbitrary line you put somewhere. Science describes stuff, it doesn't tell it what to do...
What for? Why don't you just answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Really it's simple huh? You and I went head to head on Abiogenesis before, remember that? It didn't seem so simple back then, as you and Omicron were both stumped when I tried to get some logical answers out of you two. :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Abiogenesis doesn't = evolution. Evolution is after abiogenesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
No. No, I do not remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I know that, what's your point Sandform?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
Oh you don't remember? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Does this ring a Bell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Instead of answering my question you came back with the old common "I'm going to insult him" routine which is something you guys are prone to try. You say it's pretty clear, however you failed to explain exactly how clear is it really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kortikke
Well, please explain to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
- Generative Grammar
- Biochemistry of lipids
- History of Mozart's youth
- The origins of C++
Don't link to all the original sources. Actually spend a vast amount of time on writing it all down for me yourself.
Until then, life was created by a flying pirate with a butt for a head.
Why? Because if you can't explain it, that means I must be right.
:rolllaugh: That is it! I think we have finally found the real explanation for everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Neo just got 1-up'd in logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Ne-yo, consider how many creatures have ever lived on the earth, and then consider how many fossils we've found. Is there a bit of a difference? By how many powers of ten? Fossils exist for creatures that happened to be in a time and place conducive to fossilization. You can discard the dozens of transitional fossils we've found with claims of "They're not transitional enough," and "Why aren't there more of them" if you like. You can put your fingers in your ears and sing the theme song to the Flintstones. They're not going anywhere, and evolution was not founded upon the fossil record anyway; that record just happens to corroborate it in every detail, as does analysis of the DNA of living species.
My previous answer to your concerns about "new" DNA stands: symbiosis, pathogens, parasites, mutagens, and above all sexual reproduction.
So what exactly is your position, and why are you going to such pains not to state it? It sounds like I summed it up correctly in saying that you think speciation occurs only within classes, but cannot create new classes, so we had to start out with some kind of crocodile, some kind of snake, some kind of dog/wolf, some kind of cat, and each begat everything closely related to them. Is that correct? And if so, do you believe these progenitors walked out of the Garden, then later off of the Ark? Are the great apes, so clearly close relatives of ours, degenerative humans, or is a creature which shares 98% of our DNA different in kind?
what's GOD?
I know why the universe created itself. Because it was tired of being god. God is just one thing. Infinite light. Infinite light's is a really cool state to be in. But without darkness how can you know that you're infinite light? You can't experience yourself as it without darkness. Knowing is pretty cool, but experience is where its at. BUT BEING GOD gets pretty boring...
So god decided to separate himself up into the universe so that way there would be some darkness, some light, some space, some matter. Then he separated himself into different souls, and made them all forget that they we're a part of god and our separation allowed us to oneness, rather than know oneness.
Forgetting is great, especially when you forget you have 20$ bills in your jeans after doing the laundry. yea!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sephiroth clock
and the award for most spectacular out of their ass pulling theories goes to..
dang, I can't wait till I'm an old man and everything I say sounds wise and intelligent. But in the meantime, metaphorical story is the best way I can transmit meaning of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
At what point did consciousness become self aware?
In the Infamous words of my great friend Universal Mind "The burden is not on me to explain any of those, it's on you to explain your claim". And that's the bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Consider this one instead. Let’s go back to your reptile-mammal creature. So, we have the first real mammals at the end of the Triassic right? At this time the mammal-like reptiles essentially became extinct, even though earlier they had been amongst the most numerous of all reptiles, world-wide in distribution. Since evolution is supposed to have involved natural selection, in which the more highly adapted creatures reproduce in larger numbers and thus gradually replace the less fit, would it not be logical to expect the mammals, triumphant at last, to flourish in vast numbers and to dominate the world? Just by evolutionary standards? This is where I was getting at earlier. You see the problem?
However something extremely strange occurred. For all practical purposes, the mammals disappeared from the scene for the next 100 million years. During this supposed vast stretch of time, the "reptile-like" reptiles, including dinosaurs and many other land-dwelling creatures, the marine reptiles, and the flying reptiles, swarmed over the earth. As far as the mammals were concerned, however, the "fittest" that replaced the mammal-like reptiles, they were almost nowhere to be found. Most of the fossil remains of mammals recovered to date from the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods, allegedly covering more than 100 million years, could be contained in two cupped hands. A few teeth represent most such mammals. How do you explain that? If evolution is supposed to involve survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers, the origin of mammals represents something very strange. Since they survived in very few numbers. If you ask me it seems evolution apparently occurred by survival of the unfit.
You’re still not giving me anything consisting of new genetic information. I was giving you the opportunity to retract that inaccurate information you provided previously. You are giving me the exact same answer with nothing concrete to support what you are implying. However I’ll demonstrate how each does not add new genetic information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Symbiosis – Two species having a mutualistic symbiotic relationship, which is either cooperative or mutually dependent. Existing information is either transferred and or copied - Where exactly is the new genetic information here?
Pathogens - One of two events are going to transpire within the gene (1) Variation is achieved by switching one of the several genes expressed at any one time (2) or by accumulating mutations in a single expressed gene, as commonly occurs in viruses. Either way, where exactly is the new genetic information?
Parasitic - Pathways are normally invaded by a strong induction of genetic encoding of protein, this would also be considered “Gene Expression” in which information is inherited from the DNA sequence ultimately transforming it into a functional gene product, i.e., RNA or Protein. Where is the new genetic information?
Mutagen – This is a change in genetic information and there is nothing added. I believed I already covered this. Mutations alter pre-existing genetic information, wether existing or duplicated. Where is the new genetic information?
Sexual Reproduction - This one here is just common sense, the genes are expressed, thus information is inherited from a pre-existing DNA. Are you at all familiar with the ‘epsilon goblin’ gene? Once again where is the new genetic information?
Why would you pass each of these off as deliverance of new genetic information? I hope your not telling some kid this stuff.
What's to state? I thought you already knew my position. I think it's pretty obvious Im definately not Atheist. So I must be a Theist right? If you want me to break it down even more which I don't see what difference it would make, in short I'm a Christian. :goodjob2: But definately a christian in the likes of which you've never come across before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Oh just an FYI. Chimps does not share 98% of our DNA, not sure where you got that information from but you may want to check your resources, because they seem a little out-dated.
as expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I can only hope you're being disingenuous here and don't really need me to spell this out. If 64 ocelots survive in a jungle with 74,000 lions, they may not be winning on your terms, but they've still survived. If the lions then disappear--say a mass extinction event knocks off everything bigger than a breadbox--the ocelots may well multiply. All the while, the fittest ocelots and the fittest lions were surviving, in their separate niches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Again, your idea of 'new genetic information' does not conform to reality. There's no need for shiny new chromosomes to pop into existence; the observable reshuffling, combination, insertion and extraction of genetic material by the methods I listed more than account for the diversity of genetic structure and expressed traits in the biosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
So what is this obvious-yet-unheard-of position you've once again avoided stating? Is it as I summarized, that speciation occurs only within established classes or orders, and that a single progenitor line of each class was crafted in a garden and later saved from flood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
So is your position that the great apes are all related but have a distinct progenitor from humanity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I just skimmed through Google for this and - holy shit - the Creationist nutjob lobby has Google-bombed this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Ne-yo seems to actually be right. But then again...Quote:
We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.
It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong.
From http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-trebled.htmlQuote:
In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
The article is from 2002, but there's also this one from 2006.
And Ne-yo, stating you're a Christian or an Atheist says nothing about your stance on evolution.
Taosaur I gotta tell you this is exciting don’t you think? This is exactly what debates are all about, you and I going head to head intelligently. Stuff like this just gives me a rush because I like observing how other people with intellect think. I would definitely say yourself, Universal Mind, Scatterbrain and Alextanium are definitely people I like debating with because there is a vast amount of knowledge and intelligence from you guys and that in itself just makes it all challenging and fun! I say we kick this one up a level!
No I’m totally sincere here. First of all, your Lion and Ocelot examples are inaccurate based off evolution. It’s widely accepted that Survival of the fittest are those that reproduce in large numbers. If you disagree with this then your perception of evolution has a problem. The Ocelots in this case would have not survived in a 100 million year plus time frame of survival of the fittest, against Lions. Com’on Taosaur you’re reaching a bit far here. They would’ve lost completely over the vast numbers of Lions in that time frame, there really is no if ands or buts about this. Keep in mind that Extinct of course means the last remaining members of that species has died or is presumed beyond reasonable doubt to have died. Let’s say all the Lions did become extinct as you mentioned something catastrophic erased them off the playing field and somehow miraculously only 10 Ocelots survived through this catastrophic event, at this point the Ocelots would be the winner’s right? I mean there is literally nothing more advance than them on the playing field anymore all the Lions have died, giving the Ocelots the opportunity to reproduce in large numbers. However then all of a sudden out of nowhere another advance species of Lions far more advance than the extinct ones appear on the playing field fully advanced from nothing. Having more strength, faster, more agile and far more intelligent. This also trickles down to the second part of our debate. Where did all the new genetic information come from? Somehow they’ve taken the lead in reproduction. Their vast numbers are far beyond Ocelots. They didn’t come from the Ocelots, where could they have derived from? However evolution seems to switch gears in the right direction once again and in this case survival of the fittest is exactly what it seems to be. See this is what happened in our evolution of Mammals. This is where the story get’s a little absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Isn’t it quite strange that very suddenly on an evolutionary geological time scale, most reptiles including all dinosaurs, marine reptiles and flying reptiles, disappeared and were abruptly replaced by a great variety of land-dwelling, flying, and marine mammals, which appear fully-formed each specific type of mammal, such as bats, whales, primates, hoofed mammals, rodents, carnivores, insectivores, and monotremes i.e., duck-billed platypus and spiny anteater appear inthe fossil record with their basic characteristics complete at the very start? Maybe not for you, however I think it’s quite strange that all that can be produced to document the evolution of the mammals are some generalized forms, but not one shred of evidence can be produced to document the evolution of a single specific mammal, such as bats, whales, rodents or primates.
You know it’s kind of ironic that you used Ocelots as an example. They’ve only been around 12 million years and were classified as “vulnerable endangered species” from roughly the late 80’s to sometime mid 90’s. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say in a battle of survival of the fittest stretching 100 million years they would’ve been obsolete.
How does it not conform to reality? It’s every bit of reality you and I are living proof of this reality. There is a desired need for “shiny new ChromosomesTo get from bacteria to man, there must be a mechanism to add genetic information such as genes to make arms, legs, and brains. Thus, in reality “tweaking” the genome of a bacterium through duplication, mutation, reshuffling, insertion and extracting will not result in a human genome. See the fact is that mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues. What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. It’s highly illogical to think that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
The human beta globin gene cluster consists of five genes including beta, delta, gamma (G and A), and epsilon. All of the globin proteins have similar but different functions and are expressed differentially throughout embryonic development to adulthood. Their spatial arrangement on human chromosome 11 is essential to their proper expression. If the genes are rearranged, reshuffled, mutated, etc.. they are not expressed at the proper times. How would an organism have survived embryonic development while waiting for the proper duplication and mutation events to occur? Instead the human beta globin cluster is highly organized and intelligently designed.
So how exactly can a duplicate copy of a gene evolve into an entirely new gene? Because everything you mentioned up there with reshuffling, extracting and so on doesn’t create new information. It’s only copying or deleting existing information and it adds literally nothing. On the other hand if what you say is true in your eyes then how exactly would a duplicate copy then starts to perform new functions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I would say you are definitely on the right track. This would be considered my position. You know you and I aren’t really that much different, however we stand on the same spectrum just at opposite ends. I wasn’t always a Christian; my original position was in a totally different area, raised in Japan under Shingon Buddhism I’ve learned a lot of valuable things in life. Somewhere in my teenage years I developed a strong affinity for Astrophysics, my pursuit in this area changed my viewpoint drastically for Shingon, after a while I found myself in search for answers. Something to me was definitely missing, something that I wasn't getting from Shingon. In short I may have selected a different path but a lot of things I hold dear to heart from my background. Which, based off your replies I think you may be able to relate, because you don’t come across to me as an Atheist you seem more Agnostic, I may be wrong as I am just observing.
Yup this would be generally my viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Wishful Thinking. :shakehead2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Your link was broken on that second article for 2006 Scatterbrain, however this is the correct link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-identify-gene
It seems that Scientific America needs to update their information 98% was dated back in 2006. a lot has happened with evaluations of genetics for humans vs chimps in the last 2 years. It seems better genetic technology and increasing knowledge of the critical function of non-coding regions (formerly referred to as ‘Junk DNA’) appears to be revealing a trend. The more we study, the more different we are becoming.
For years, chimpanzees were considered to be only 1% genetically dissimilar to humans. A recent gene splicing study revealed a 6–8% difference. A 2003 study revealed a 13% difference in our respective immune systems, and another study revealed a 17% difference in gene expression in our cerebral cortexes.
Revised ver: September 18, 2007
http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/22/2963
June 2007 an article in www.Sciencemag.org dispelled the long-held myth of 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps. Dr. Svante Paabo, a renowned evolutionary geneticist, stated, ‘In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences. This is the reason why the numbers keep fluctuating. For the evolutionist, it appears to be a political, social, and cultural bias that leads them to establish a close relationship between humans and chimps that may in fact not exist.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5833/1836
Of course it wouldn’t end there. There are literally tons of difference that I can add on, but I think you guys get the gist of it.
Yeah you're right, however I think he knows now my stance in the area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
You think we as close related to elephants, as we are to apes?
We can agree that you're challenged. Like most opponents of evolution (and a fair number of lay proponents) you have a narrow and erroneous understanding of 'fitness.' First, 'fittest' refers most often to individuals within a breeding population--members of the same species. It's not a cage match among species where "there can be only one." Even when two species get into a game of chicken over the same ecological niche, often one species veers into another niche, taking adaptation over extinction. Second, 'fitness' is situational; there is often more than one mode of 'fitness' even within a single breeding population, particularly among social animals. In a stable ecosystem, there are at least as many modes of fitness as there are species present: often hundreds or thousands. In circumstances of food scarcity, the capacity to curb population, particularly among social animals, may be fitness. In an environment of abundant predators, reproducing abundantly and indifferently just to maintain population may be fitness.
Which leads us to my third point: you can't make assumptions or value judgements about what constitutes fitness for a given species in a given environment if you want to understand anything about how that ecosystem actually works. Individuals of the species must survive long enough to reproduce--enough of them to constitute a viable breeding population. Beyond that, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Analysis of global DNA samples reveals that humanity once dwindled to about 2000 individuals in isolated bands before we ever got out of Africa. Mitochondrial DNA suggests that the entire pre-Colombian population of the Americas may have descended from six women.
This view stems from perceiving the universe as a mechanical artifact, a filter shared by Western theists and atheists alike, which to me reads like dark comedy. The universe is not a collection of ordered parts, designed or otherwise. It's not a collection of things or parts at all. It's one thing constantly shifting in discernible patterns with the appearance of forms. So long as some part of the whole is reaching out toward the rest with senses and desire, the universe will continue twitching and shifting into new appearances, not too far removed from the most recent passing forms, but never quite the same. It requires no "new information" nor Lord to radically reshape it, only time and the nature of the thing itself.Quote:
How does it not conform to reality? It’s every bit of reality you and I are living proof of this reality. There is a desired need for “shiny new ChromosomesTo get from bacteria to man, there must be a mechanism to add genetic information such as genes to make arms, legs, and brains. Thus, in reality “tweaking” the genome of a bacterium through duplication, mutation, reshuffling, insertion and extracting will not result in a human genome. See the fact is that mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues. What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. It’s highly illogical to think that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life.
No I don't think humans are closely related to either Apes or Elaphants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Whether you think my understanding of fitness’ is erroneous or not you, still have problems to address, in which I thought we were kicking this one up a level, but the only argument I’m getting from you is “You don’t understand” Or “that’s a westerners viewpoint.” You’re not proving me wrong; you haven’t given me anything concrete that would ultimately refute the information I’m giving you. All you’re doing is speculating because my view conflicts with yours in which it should. You’re implying of basically “Survival”. As far as 'fitness' within the species, based off ‘your’ definition one could make the conclusion that individuals in a sense were endowed with phenotypic characteristics, which more than likely improved chances of survival and reproduction. In the end it’s just basically those who are better equipped for surviving. That actually would make sense, because based off your example in this case this would not conflict with my view in this matter, in fact it’s more supportive, in which there had to be a benevolent deity that would consistently favor the poorly adapted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
However if certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically, that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. I guess this would be Natural Selection in every sense of the word. I’m sure you’ve heard of “The Law of Recurrent Variation”. Mutants occurring in a large, but limited spectrum of phenotypes, which in accordance with all the experiences of mutation research of the 20th century taken together cannot transform the original species into an entirely new one. You know those results just so happen to be in agreement with several renowned evolutionary geneticists, some who’ve spent a lifetime in mutation research. This point once again will trickle down to the 2nd part of our debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
That observation listed above is one of the reasons why you and I are bumping heads in the area of genetics. You say my view is a western view like dark comedy? I’m giving you facts and you’re giving me your opinion. Your opinion does not answer anything. I’m sure you can see that I like things I can sink my teeth into. I could seriously care less about your feelings regarding western atheist and theist views. The problem is still on your hands. The probability of obtaining an entirely new functional DNA sequence, for example: necessary for the origin of the more than five thousand extant different gene families of today’s living organisms due to gene duplications with subsequent nucleotide substitutions by point and other mutations has been calculated to be less than 1 in 10/50. Even granting billions of years for natural selection working on random mutations. The probability is so low that no reasonable person would expect to obtain a target or goal in any other area of life by such small chances, due to the factual absence of completely new functional DNA sequences in mutagenesis experiments. The necessity of genetic engineering for organism transformation simultaneously exemplifies the fact that induced mutations in the host organism cannot substitute for the task, “this is observable” This not only true for slow breeding organisms, but also for the fastest for instances, bacteria like Escherichia coli where thousands of generations with trillions of individuals per generation can be cultivated in the relatively short time of a few years. As far as the universe, yes it is made up in parts sort-of-speak because every element and “part” that makes up the design of the universe is extremely necessary for life chemistry to exist. This is my position “Intelligently Designed” for humans to exist.
This sounds more like Post-Flood era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
like to see you elaborate on this statement. Because I’ve never heard anyone mention this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
What do you think is the force that’s driving “some part of the whole to reach out to the rest” which causes the universe to shift into new appearences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Jacked up 'n' good to go.
At the begging of the night mark75 had the title 'worst title ever'. Now he has the title 'carbon-based wastage'. That's how long I've been on here. And that's the universe reaching out making new appearances.
Must've been a long night, since I haven't changed my title in weeks.
It was a joke.
I don't get it.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by mark75
You can toss that in along with your brain because you obviously don't use yours so why not trash it with the rest of this crap that stinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/k...nscrapheap.jpg
Is any of this making sense to anyone else? Because I'm lost, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I'm sure thats not a major surprise to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
That's my title, Mindy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Seismosaur you got Own'd on that one..LOL :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing
Mark75 since you're back on the scene remember this one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
Interesting indeed :wtf: So give me an example of one of these false claims?
You think I can get an answer this time instead of your normal, tuck tail and run tatics?