I take more comfort in atheism

Face · 12-03-2012, 10:37 AM

sleepyjenkins

Quote:

If you don't want to get into science to prove or disprove God. Or evolution. Or the bible. Well then you can ask yourself the age old question...'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'

This is a surprisingly simple yet unanswerable question! Well it takes an adult to make an egg right? But it takes an egg to make the baby that makes the adult. SO WHICH CAME FIRST???

The egg, reptiles had it before the chicken ever existed. It is just a leathery hide. Before that, amphibian like with just membranes, and so on.

Quote:

You know which side this supports more logically....a creator had to make the first adults(of any species) and then those adults populated their species. And not just that this creator made TWO of any species, that's even more ridiculous, a creator would have had to made thousands of any species for it to be viable. Think about that.

Have you? Which is why it's evolution of populations gradually over time, not two members of an entirely new species suddenly appearing overnight with the ability to lay eggs that couldn't before out of nowhere.

Quote:

Right now there are about 7,000 TIGERS left (i think) and they are on the endangered species list. Any species population below a certain number is expected to die out in the next few generations if environmental factors are not changed to suit its vitality.

Number of reasons. Tigers are solitary, sexual reproducing animals, already have massive amounts of inbreeding and still being encroched upon by people.

About 500 cane toads were introduced in australia 60 or so years back. There are now over 200 million.

Quote:

So how would TWO people ever make it? If there is a creator then he made thousands of us in a short period of time.

That isn't the theory of evolution. Two members suddenly appearing as a new species and being completely isolated isn't part of it.

Quote:

And if these were not directed by a creator then the evolution of life on this planet was random right? And all the species are a product of something 'sprouting' or evolving out of the soup...so why don't baby alligators randomly sprout out of nothing? I've never seen a human baby just appear out of a swamp somewhere. I've never seen an adult human randomly spawn in...if these really are RANDOM events, why aren't the random events happening anymore?

You REALLY need to read up on the basics.

Abiogenesis, (if it did occur), would result in self replicating proteins initially, which would eventually result in the first single celled organism. But there is no evidence for this as yet, unlike evolution.

The random events in evolution are slight mutations in an already existing dna strand, or selecting one end of an extreme of an existing characteristic. Not spawning of fully formed animals.

Quote:

Why do I come to the conclusion of a creator? I can't answer the questions of the precision of the universe. And I can't answer the question of what was created first of any species...babies or adults.

A single celled organism would have had to somehow become a multicellular organism. Perhaps by incomplete asexual reproduction.

You can call the single celled organism a baby if you want.

Quote:

I once tried to support the idea that babies came first and I could not even play devil's advocate on it. A human baby just will not survive on its own. It will be dead in days, maybe ONE day. I got into a discussion once with someone who said well we evolved right? So the monkies made the human babies. I said well ok if I take your side of the argument and I say monkies made the human babies and cared for them then where did the monkies come from? Which came first the monkey adult or the monkey baby? No matter how many chains down the line you try to go you still have to answer that question. Which came first?

You REALLY need to go over the basics. AT no point did monkeys give birth to people. GRADUAL change.

Quote:

These factors lead me to believe that we had to have been created. The only other possible solution is somehow our first ancestors 'accidently' formed out of the primordial soup as full grown adults OR babies were tough as hell back then and our first ancestor babies could fight sabertooth tigers and hunt deer and grow wheat as soon as they were born. (edit: caught this after I posted...as SOON AS THEY WERE BORN...well how were they born if there was no adult yet LOL...see how twisted it gets?)

That isn't the only other solution by far. Evolution is one other alternative.

midnight rain · 12-03-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

sleepyjenkins

The egg, reptiles had it before the chicken ever existed. It is just a leathery hide. Before that, amphibian like with just membranes, and so on.

Have you? Which is why it's evolution of populations gradually over time, not two members of an entirely new species suddenly appearing overnight with the ability to lay eggs that couldn't before out of nowhere.

Number of reasons. Tigers are solitary, sexual reproducing animals, already have massive amounts of inbreeding and still being encroched upon by people.

About 500 cane toads were introduced in australia 60 or so years back. There are now over 200 million.

That isn't the theory of evolution. Two members suddenly appearing as a new species and being completely isolated isn't part of it.

You REALLY need to read up on the basics.

Abiogenesis, (if it did occur), would result in self replicating proteins initially, which would eventually result in the first single celled organism. But there is no evidence for this as yet, unlike evolution.

The random events in evolution are slight mutations in an already existing dna strand, or selecting one end of an extreme of an existing characteristic. Not spawning of fully formed animals.

A single celled organism would have had to somehow become a multicellular organism. Perhaps by incomplete asexual reproduction.

You can call the single celled organism a baby if you want.

You REALLY need to go over the basics. AT no point did monkeys give birth to people. GRADUAL change.

That isn't the only other solution by far. Evolution is one other alternative.

I will agree with essentially most of what you said, and I'm finding sleepyjenkins' post a little too overwhelming to respond to, and I mean that in a completely un-insulting way. I am, personally, just not good at taking on large paragraphs covering a gamut of topics, I find it difficult to keep my thoughts focused without resorting to post dissection, which everyone hates. But if we want to tackle one subject at a time I think we can be more thorough about it.

slappyjenkins · 12-03-2012, 11:45 AM

-
---

Burning Down · 12-03-2012, 11:53 AM

There's no concrete proof of Creationsm either.

slappyjenkins · 12-03-2012, 12:16 PM

----

vktr · 12-03-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

Evolution is an alternative with no proof to back it...evolution is a very well educated guess as to what happened and for all we know is exactly what happened down to every detail, but where is the proof? This is why Evolution has been called Science's Bible. It mirrors the bible in every way. There's a lot of good common sense fundamentals in it, that you must simply take on a leap of faith.

Oh God

LOL. Please read the f*cking Dawkins' book

. It's subtitled "The Evidence For Evolution".

Face · 12-03-2012, 12:49 PM

I'm pointing out the massive flaws in your standpoint. I'm not going to try to teach you evolution, if you're really interested you'll do that yourself, if not I'll be wasting my time. I'm just highlighting the areas you clearly have no grasp of of the opposing argument. I'm not presenting a thesis.

Your arguments are based off statements that two fully formed members of one species randomly appear in an instant NO-ONE is making this statement, you are justifying yourself by discrediting ideas you THINK constitute of evolution, not what it actually is.

As for evidence there is genetic and fossil evidence. Some of it beyond that is theorising what might have happened (origin of multicelled organisms for example) but I'm just illustrating to you that the argument isn't "suddenly an alligator appears from pond scum".

Quote:

Again here you don't seem to grasp even the slightest notion of what I am saying. Evolution over time would imply a genetic mutation into another species. You would have MISSING LINKS in the fossil record, mutated DNA that eventually supports its own species, or you would have inter-species breeding. Things that do NOT exist and can not be proven.

How about the fact that fossil records SHOW gradual change in populations over time?
There are ancestors of humans which are not ape, nor humans. Would that classify as a missing link? Would you only be satisfied if we had a fossil example from every generation of every species to have ever existed? Unfortunately that isn't going to happen due to how unlikely fossils are to form in the first place.

The trouble is with events that take a long time/ have occured in the past is that you can't observed them occurring in front of you.
I assume for example you support the big bang theory? Or that the roman empire existed? We can see evidence left behind, even if we can't see it occurring in front of us.

Quote:

There are mutiple I want to read 'Greatest show on earth' as someone said evolution had come a long way. The evolution of populations over time would still require PROOF face...you can't just SAY ITS SO and it's the truth because you said so....present your proof my friend and so I can be enlightened. Darwin couldn't do it, and as far as I know no scientists has ever been able to provide proof of evolution. SHOW ME PROOF and not your ramblings please....

By proof do you mean experimental proof? Unfortunately, like I said above, past events/long period events can't be experimentally proven or observed in real time because we only live so long.

But you can't dismiss it yet, because your understanding of the subject is flawed to start with.

Heres an example of populations diverging:
Speciation in real time

Quote:

About 500 cane toads were introduced in australia 60 or so years back. There are now over 200 million. That's a great point...but 500 is still more than 2 right? And 500 turns into 200 million, there can't be ANY INBREEDING going on there....you got it buddy...

Why on earth do you keep going on about 2. No-one is claiming that only 2 popped into existence. You brought it up and then ...disproved it. I agree, 2 is a ridiculous number.

I was just showing you don't need over 7,000 members of a species to ensure population growth.

Quote:

Well then teach me oh great one, what is it all about?

Don't get snappy. You were completely wrong. Read about it. No-one has ever been convinced about something else just from reading forum post they are all to ready to defend themselves against. If you want to learn you'll read about it. Then you can make valid points against evolution, because there are some.

Quote:

Abiogenesis, (if it did occur), would result in self replicating proteins initially, which would eventually result in the first single celled organism. But there is no evidence for this as yet, unlike evolution. So your point is?

My point is no one is claiming crocs spawned randomly out of pond scum.

Quote:

Where are the frogs with mutated hands and feet? Where are the fish with changing lungs? Where are the alligators that look like a cross between an ostrich and a donkey? Here's the big one...where is the genesis fossil of ANY species that you can point to and say LOOK WE CAN SEE RIGHT HERE WHERE THIS SPECIES EVOLVED INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY. This evidence does NOT exist. If you don't have an answer please don't just tell me to READ OVER THE BASICS...you look like an ass when you do that and you look even more ignorant of the basics than I do.[/B]

Lungfish: fish with lungs alive today
Lungfish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold is you either exaggerating or not understanding. I can't tell.

Quote:

face, I don't mean to sound insulting, but maybe you should read up on the basics?

You've clearly taken my post personally. I'm sorry but you clearly illustrated you don't understand the theory. Understand it then discredit it, don't attack just what you think it might be.

The rest of you original post was well thought out though and was a nice read.

By the way, evolution doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a God. If you want there to be a creator you could theorise that they caused biogenesis(the seed of all life), or even guided evolution if you were so inclined.

slappyjenkins · 12-03-2012, 01:08 PM

---

Face · 12-03-2012, 01:25 PM

I'm not trying to disprove God, or discredit your faith. I did just focus on some aspects of your post (not the god or faith bits but what you think evolution is), because they were inaccurate or incorrect. If that makes me an ass so be it. The bits I didn't respond to in your first post was what I either agreed with or didn't have a problem with.

You wanted a fish with lungs like it was a requirement for you, so that's what I showed you.

If you think I'm desperate that's fine too.

It's a shame you won't look into it more though. You win I guess.

In my opinion if you know what the actual theory of evolution is (rather than a couple of disjointed arguments against it) then you'll have more success trying to discredit it.

Either that, or it looks some of the reasons you believe in God are based on misunderstanding evolution. And then if you still think it's a sham then your arguments will be stronger for it.

That's all.

slappyjenkins · 12-03-2012, 01:40 PM

---

12-03-2012, 11:45 AM	#33 (permalink)
slappyjenkins Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 214	- --- Last edited by slappyjenkins; 01-25-2014 at 01:14 AM. Reason: mispeeled werds

12-03-2012, 12:16 PM	#35 (permalink)
slappyjenkins Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 214	---- Last edited by slappyjenkins; 01-25-2014 at 01:15 AM. Reason: werds too many werds

12-03-2012, 01:08 PM	#38 (permalink)
slappyjenkins Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 214	--- Last edited by slappyjenkins; 01-25-2014 at 01:16 AM. Reason: werds man werds

12-03-2012, 01:40 PM	#40 (permalink)
slappyjenkins Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 214	--- Last edited by slappyjenkins; 01-25-2014 at 01:17 AM. Reason: ready to be done with this

12-03-2012, 11:53 AM	#34 (permalink)
Burning Down The Music Guru. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Beyond the Wall Posts: 4,858	There's no concrete proof of Creationsm either.

12-03-2012, 01:25 PM	#39 (permalink)
Face Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: UK Posts: 306	I'm not trying to disprove God, or discredit your faith. I did just focus on some aspects of your post (not the god or faith bits but what you think evolution is), because they were inaccurate or incorrect. If that makes me an ass so be it. The bits I didn't respond to in your first post was what I either agreed with or didn't have a problem with. You wanted a fish with lungs like it was a requirement for you, so that's what I showed you. If you think I'm desperate that's fine too. It's a shame you won't look into it more though. You win I guess. In my opinion if you know what the actual theory of evolution is (rather than a couple of disjointed arguments against it) then you'll have more success trying to discredit it. Either that, or it looks some of the reasons you believe in God are based on misunderstanding evolution. And then if you still think it's a sham then your arguments will be stronger for it. That's all.