It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which came first dinosaur or the egg

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
I'm arguing from what we know is possible (using inductive reasoning on established facts). You're arguing from fantasy and wishful opinions about what is supposedly possible. You can twist and turn all you want and try to shift the burden of proof and hope people remain ignorant (arguing in favor of ignorance and the agnostic philosophy of vagueness/uncertainty expressed by Pontius Pilatus as well) about your dishonesty and attempts at destroying my credibility (or of those who say anything that you don't want to acknowledge, or any fact that you don't want other people to use inductive reasoning on, dissing the usefulness of inductive reasoning as well as Newton's warning regarding your attempts to 'evade arguments from induction by hypotheses' and fancy storytelling), but it's not going to change reality.

It is going to waste my time in spending too many words on responding to it though, so I'm trying to keep it short.
edit on 9-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
I'm arguing from what we know is possible (using inductive reasoning on established facts). You're arguing from fantasy and wishful opinions about what is supposedly possible.


So, you consider your position to be something that you KNOW is possible based on facts, while my position is just based on fantasy and wishful thinking? How is your opinion any more valid than mine? Remember, inductive reasoning can lead to false conclusions and only really gives a probability. It is also dependent on a completely fact based premise to even consider the said probability.

To keep it simple, could you please list your premise and the conclusion formed from it, so I have a better idea of your argument?


You can twist and turn all you want and try to shift the burden of proof and hope people remain ignorant about your dishonesty and attempts at destroying my credibility, but it's not going to change reality.


Okay, now this statement is ridiculous for numerous reasons, but let's get to the meat and potatoes.

What exact position am I shifting the burden of proof for?

If I say, "ID is not a fact", it's because I haven't seen a conclusive link between the inner workings of DNA and a designer that can be verified via testable predictions.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that ID is impossible or that abiogenesis (or naturalism) is fact. If there is a burden of proof on me for something, please let me know what it is, and I'll back it up.
edit on 8 9 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

it was neither both nor either/or the opposite or not the not opposite neither and nor or.
Evolution is more complex than chicken and egg jokes.
Depends on when you define the egg boundary and the chicken boundary, yoke boundary, cell boundary.
It's a matter of definition which is based on classification.
So which came first the gamete or the organelle or the animal or the cell?
Only the basket sponge will tell.
edit on 9-8-2016 by cryptic0void because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The question has been answered ad infinitum, the egg came first, as an adult organism cannot "transform" into another organism, the mutation occurs in its gamete, and that, combined with its partners gamete, creates the chicken-this is the problem with all of these threads, an adult organism does not "transform" magically into something else-its dna recombined in its sperm/egg (along with typical mutational frequency) is what drives new "species" development, either the offspring is viable, able to reach sexual maturity, and successfully reproduces, passes on the "change" and ultimately results in a new species, or it dies in development, or it lives but is unable to reproduce. However "species" is simply a human term to organize the fauna/flora in our world, it is far less compartmentalzed in reality.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
An example of your twisting and how to stop: try responding to what I'm actually saying instead of the ID-straw man arguments and counterarguments you've been taught and been through thousands of times already (surely you must be getting tired of going through the standard routine of thinking and arguing, including arguing with your own presentation of what others are arguing for* by now? It's not like you're getting paid at least to do so are you? Perhaps there's another more social possible benefit that I have to think about a bit longer). * = Fighting a Don Quijote Windmill Giant so to speak.

I don't support the term ID cause it allows people to capitalize on the ambiguity of language much better as they try to obscure the process of designing and creating (processes possible to be observed and tested every day), logical requirements (by induction as well as the meaning and proper honest use of language) when one is observing the functional and "purposeful arrangement of parts" (quoting from the Oxford dictionary regarding the definition for "design", which the proper and honest use of language should remind people requires the process of designing as much as a creation requires the process of creating, otherwise the words are not properly used in a conversation and some dishonesty and self-delusion may be going on and the earlier mentioned propaganda-techniques of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, twisting logic, playing on the emotions, etc.).

You can also try to provide me with reasons why your love of the agnostic philosophy of (sometimes general, sometimes regarding sprecific topics such as the origin of the biomolecular machinery that are the components of life, i.e. the origin of life) vagueness/uncertainty exempts you from providing evidence and reasons why I should join your inappropiate love for that way of thinking. Which you also expressed when you said:

Keep in mind that I am not saying that ID is impossible or that abiogenesis (or naturalism) is fact. If there is a burden of proof on me for something, please let me know what it is, and I'll back it up.

You don't have to spell out "nature did it" (as if it's factual) for me to know what supposed fact/reality you're arguing for. But I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find a variatian of it in your commentary. Stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual. In no small part the agnostic philosophy of vagueness which you express almost all the time, also regarding what you said about inductive reasoning and "probability" (which you also stated as if it was a fact, an inaccurate explanation of the reality of what inductive reasoning leads to when properly used or applied to established facts).


“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

What used to be called "Natural Philosophy" in Newton's time is nowadays more often referred to as "science", but it is what Newton referred to as experimental Philosophy that was later on referred to as "modern science" and Whewell and others attempted to introduce the word "scientist" to primarily refer to experimental philosophers, not natural philosophers (because they were following Newton's methodology of inductive reasoning and not regarding hypotheses or allowing arguments from induction to be evaded by hypotheses; and they had the best result in advancing human science/knowledge, a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities or that which is factual/true/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error; mind you that Einstein's findings have never shown Newton's findings regarding the laws of gravity to be in error, they sometimes are an additional consideration when making calculations and/or additional facts/certainties/realities/truths such as E=MC^2 that do not affect* the certainties/facts that Newton already discovered. * = in the sense that they would make them any less true/certain as if they needed more clearing up or verification).

I bolded the word "other" for a crucial reason that I won't spell out to you cause you won't acknowledge it either and just refer to the above quotations as an opinion to get people to dismiss it (and make things easier for yourself).

I'm sure you've played this "burden of proof"-debategame plenty of times before, one of the reasons I avoided using that term on ATS up till now, because I know it's a triggerword, just like "complex(ity)", "information" and "random". I won't continue playing that game with you. If you want me to believe something you're saying (otherwise why tell me and others, before you say you're not interested in that, since your comments are filled with complaints addressed at me for doing things wrong and thinking the wrong way and saying the wrong things, you clearly demonstrate you want me to sing another tune, or at least other people hear a different tune when they're reading my comments and yours), you'll have to back it up no matter what (and that's still no guarentee that I'll believe it and/or stop doing what I'm doing in my commentary, endorsing inductive reasoning where others on ATS are attempting to devalue its usefulness because it prevents them from selling their philosophies that they claim either not to have, believe in, or be selling, promoting, expressing and spreading).
edit on 11-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
I think in the thread from edmc^2 about "Creation is the only..." you used a factual statement regarding the ability of Nature (as in natural processes or the laws of nature alone) to design machines (the last word possibly conflating with the word "complex things" here and there, not sure if I remember correctly), so you didn't spell out the word machines but you did talk about the process of designing (complex things). All your words taken together there you did acknowledge the word "machine" regarding some aspects in your argumentation that would logically lead to you arguing that 'nature can design machines' if you put the 2 together; your first commentary with argumentation regarding the process of designing and then later your argumentation and attempts to conflate "complex things" or "complexity" with "machines" and/or "machinery", at the end of which you started using the word machine more in your attempts to argue that nature can evolve a machine like the sun, which is easier to obscure and confuse people about because to a lot of conditioned people the evolutionary philosophies regarding suns sound a lot more believable. They are more easy to fall for because of people's ignorance regarding the subject and all the evidence taken together, the complete picture. Newton also drew logical conclusions by inductive reasoning from his observations regarding our solar system (and Einstein regarding the universe), no doubt many people have already quoted it to you and you dismissed at as just his opinion (or quote mining, those seem to be the favorite 2 excuses for dismissal) while you continue to express and spread yours and of those who just happen to feel like you do about these subjects; while either calling it or presenting it as science or fact, factual/true, then contradicting yourself whenever you feel the need to demonstrate your ideas about what science is or is not when the word simply means "knowledge" which in turn means "a familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation or study", i.e. science/knowledge = a familiarity with that which is true/absolute/certain/factual/conclusive/correct, without error. And whenever you feel the need to express your love of the agnostic philosophy of vagueness supported by expressing another erronuous illogical unreasonable and in my eyes ridiculous philosophy that 'science does not deal with absolutes' and all its variations in expression (you seem to have tip-toed around it a lot but still it's shining through quite clearly for me when you use words like "probabilities" in a particular context in response to something I've said about inductive reasoning or other topics).

Your 'Nature can design machines' is a '(Mother) Nature did it'-variation, and it was stated (argued for) as if it's a fact. A claim you refuse to back up by simply calling it a probability later on in the discussion. A useful trick used by the lovers of the agnostic philosophy of vagueness that adheres to philosophical variations of 'science does not deal with absolutes' and many other ways to express that general sentiment (also expressed by Pontius Pilatus cynical insincere question to Jesus: "What is Truth?"; as if you can't find out what's really factual/true anyway and you can just go with whatever probability that tickles your ears best).

Here's another clue regarding the behaviour of those who love to promote or express and spread the agnostic philosophy of vagueness (which is conducive for atheism, philosophical naturalism, deism and pantheism just to name 4 examples of ways of thinking that are often supported by people expressing their love for uncertainty and ignorance, not knowing for certain and occasionally expressing that they're not talking about facts or that which is factual/true/certain/absolute but probabilities). They sometimes use a handy propaganda-technique to paint a picture on those who don't want to go along with this way of thinking and promoting or embracing (clinging on to) ignorance and agnosticism, often expressed in variations of general and/or specific vagueness/uncertainty, as someone who is closed-minded and thinks in black and white when the world is grey (but this argument is really used to cover their own asses when doing something that is certainly wrong, or promoting something that is clearly wrong/incorrect/false/untrue/nonfactual, uncertain and vague/unclear, an unverified idea/philosophy about reality for example). There's another example in the video below:

edit on 11-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's cunning paintjob in relation to the video I just shared and what I said about painting a picture on those who resist the persuasive arguments of the lovers of the agnostic philosophy of vagueness (regarding the topic of "science" or what science is or is not about, or what the correct methodology is to acquire science/knowledge about realities, or reality in general, or specific subjects such as the origin of life or biomolecular machinery). Obviously, the man has no fear admitting he's agnostic regarding specific subjects, not sure if he calls himself an agnost or agnostic though, he's certainly promoting agnosticism, both specific agnosticism and general agnosticism in the quotation below (and promoting it as if that's what "science" is all about and "scientists" should adhere to). And I will leave out some of the fluff so you can accuse me of quote mining all you like, I don't care:


“But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. ...
...We’re always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”


Why didn't you say anything about Dawkins stating:

Evolution is a fact...

Mr. deGrasse Tyson?
Or Stephen Hawking stating (as if it's factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/true, recognizable by the verbs "can" and "will"):

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. ...


And why are you pretending it's not OK (you're not a "scientist", just a lowly member of "the public") to state that 1+1=2 is a fact to remind people of the conditioning and agnostic propaganda they are being conditioned with by the system of things and the spirit of the world?

Better a member of the public than a member of the greatest con-artistry and self-delusional show on earth in order to avoid dealing with the obvious facts/certainties, i.e. things that are absolute/factual/true rather than philosophies imagined and believed and presented very well with persuasive arguments and subtle and cunning trickery. A good philosophical salespitch backed up by the salespitches in so-called "peer-reviewed scientific articles".

Long live the 'Great We Don't Know (Yet)'-God of the agnostic gaps but Mother Nature/Gaia did it anyway no matter what the evidence is clearly and conclusively pointing towards if one is willing to use inductive reasoning!.....on second thought, not. May he be destroyed soon, and his name and accomplishments in this world and may his slaves and victims wake up. You can all start with his real name (not the description I just used of the endresulting way of thinking that he has taught a major part of humanity) before you consider his existence or non-existence, just like learning the name of the One who he is opposing. A fact to add to your mental database of knowledge/science. It's not that difficult to acquire knowledge/science or facts that you were previously unaware of. I probably don't even have to give you the names, I've given enough clues and commentary on ATS about those subjects as well, but only personal experience, observation and study can do the trick. So that reduces the incentive of me spoonfeeding people, or makes me wary not to do that too much.

So like others on ATS have done in the past, you can call my long comments ranting as much as you like to further try to discredit anything I'm saying (even if I keep my comments short and just state simple questions such as: Has anyone figured out yet if it's rational to believe that 1+1=2?) or just cherry-pick things that are easily misphrased or leave a door open for twisting and debate games, which should be easy to find in longer comments, but I just rather call 'm as I see 'm than endlessly argue, debate and try to convince a person spreading unreasonable philosophies using all the tricks in the book. Which usually is responded to by people on ATS as if I can't argue my position or views or haven't already done so a dozen times over using different ways or logical pathways. One of which is the behaviour of those adhering to contradictory or nonsensical philosophies such as 'science does not deal in absolutes'. All of which is related to selling myths about nature doing things that have never been demonstrated to be possible (not only arguing from ignorance, but from fantasy and while promoting ignorance regarding which facts demonstrate the fantasy to either be impossible or as far-fetched as arguing for the existence of the mythological beings described in the other Greek myths, including Gaia and Zeus and the primordial forces of nature they claimed 'did it' as they worshipped them), some of which hold less credibility than those arguing for the existence of pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, walking whatles, apemen and mermaids (a.k.a. aquatic apemen, erronuously referred to as an hypothesis on wikipedia); often erronuously referred to as hypotheses to boot.
edit on 11-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

edit: You can also try to provide me with reasons why your love of the agnostic philosophy of (sometimes general, sometimes regarding sprecific topics such as the origin of the biomolecular machinery that are the components of life, i.e. the origin of life) vagueness/uncertainty exempts you from providing evidence and reasons why I (or anyone else who reads your comments) should join your inappropiate love for that way of thinking (basically an answer to the question as to why I'm being unreasonable and you're not, as you paint the situation in our conversations or conversations with those who disagree with that way of thinking and don't want to go along with it or consider it a reasonable argument in a conversation in whatever way you use it, in this case it was to avoid what I probably never should have referred to as "the burden of proof" in order to avoid triggering the flow of mental poison that is already in your mind regarding that term, as well as the minds of anyone who might read your responses to me). It's also a bit of a quickmire or hornet's nest.


edit on 11-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You really love your rants, eh? Funny how you completely ignored the 2 questions I asked you.

AGAIN:

Please list your premise and your conclusion. It's very simple.

Here is an example:

Premise: All known biological life requires water.

Conclusion: If new biological life is discovered it will probably require water.


That is how inductive reasoning works. Please list your premise and conclusion for design. Why are you fighting me so hard on this? For somebody that constantly accuses others of straw mans, you sure misrepresent my position a LOT and dodge almost every point I make.

You literally just said in your previous response, "It is going to waste my time in spending too many words on responding to it though, so I'm trying to keep it short." So much for that. I gave you on opportunity to keep it short and simple and instead you posted 3 long rants. I requested a very simple 2 point premise/conclusion to help me understand your reasoning (because it's hard to decipher your points when you go off on so many tangents and run on sentences). I also asked you where I shifted the burden of proof and you responded by claiming I have said naturalism is a fact sometime in the past, but have not quoted me or proven such.


You don't have to spell out "nature did it" (as if it's factual) for me to know what supposed fact/reality you're arguing for. But I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find a variatian of it in your commentary. Stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual.


Stop misrepresenting my position. I have never claimed fact or stated them as factual. This conversation is about design, not agnosticism or naturalism. I'm merely arguing that your position is not fact and this really seems to bother you. I have already admitted my position is not fact, but you refuse to do the same despite being unable to provide any objective evidence. I was VERY clear about this, in every post I've made to you. I don't claim naturalism is a fact, and I challenge you to find any post of mine ever in all my history on ATS that claims this. I'm sick of being misrepresented by you, especially when you keep dishonestly accusing me of the same thing. I asked you a few VERY simple questions and you ignored them completely. What gives?

edit on 8 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Looks like we will soon need to publish a hardcover version of this chicken & egg discussion, most of which doesn't actually discuss chickens and eggs. Well done ATS members...

Anyway, I'd like to rephrase the OP question a bit... "What came first a species that could lay eggs, or an egg?" Obviously the former would have to be correct.

What I think would be more interesting to know(Maybe someone here knows)... Is did creatures start by laying eggs, or by carrying eggs to term?

My personal theory would be...
1. Small organisms started with cloning/division. (Which I think is known)
2. Rather than divide into entire copies of themselves, they gradually evolved to birth smaller/less complete copies that could grow over time. Same energy expenditure + more reproduction.
3. Eventually this evolved into offsprings actually just being a sack of proteins/fats with minor bits of dna or instruction sets. (Eggs)
4. This let more offsprings be produced through each reproductive cycle, but also gradually required more nurturing over time.
5. At some point this forked, some species evolved to carry the young in the womb likely to ensure survival of the fetus, while others continued laying eggs, likely for mobility and increased offspring production. (They can leave their eggs at home and go hunting)



edit on 11-8-2016 by centrifugal because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2016 by centrifugal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa
*Can mod please move to origins and creationism*

Yes I'm aware this topic has countless topics but bare with me I'm new to Ats.

Ok, doesent it take two chicken to make an egg? Which is why I believe the chicken somehow had to come first.
Take human for example you wouldn't need two to create to have the billions we have. Wouldn't you need at least 4, so that they would actually be able to breed efficiently without the many birth defects that happen when brother-sister, dad-daughter, mom-son or something to that natur


Seriously?

How has this post / topic got to front page ATS?

OP how wasted.......

ATS disappointed......

Seriously ^^^^^^ read OP statement and he's got like all these pages.....

Completely nonsensical and utter gibberish from the outset!

MR



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
No way a dinosaur could be first, or it would have to appear from thin air. The egg of another animal can mutate though, and what crawled out was really pissed off.

edit on 11-8-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I have never claimed fact or stated them as factual.


The part "have never claimed" makes the above a statement of something that according to you is factual/correct/true (the supposed fact that you have never stated something as being factual, which is the way I phrased it and what you were responding to). You do this all over the place when arguing for various evolutionary and agnostic philosophies. This particular reality/truth that I have observed from you, and especially ironically that particular sentence that I just quoted, demonstrates that you have no issues with lying to yourself or others. Cause it's a pretty clear lie in the very same sentence that you're doing that which you claim not to be doing (except that you changed "something" to "them" referring to something more specific, which I also know not be true cause I've seen you do it with my own eyes regarding "them"). It's almost as impressive as Stephen Hawking's triple logical contradiction in his statements about the topic "nothing" and how the universe supposedly created itself out of nothing.
edit on 21-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: ssenerawa

If you are really looking for the origin of the first egg, you need to find the first egg producing creature. This is difficult because internal organs don't fossilize, generally only bones and hard eggs. Don't forget, even mammals that don't lay eggs, still produce internal eggs. Like I mentioned, the egg most likely started as something very simple, like a thin layer around the fetus that was beneficial because it protected it from harm. Less fetus's were damaged as a result so the trait was passed down to more and more surviving members of the species.


Claim 1 regarding the supposed fact that: "If you are really looking for the origin of the first egg, you need to find the first egg producing creature."

The keywords to recognize that you are stating something as if it's a fact or factual are bolded. I can think of other ways to figure out the origin of the first egg, such as starting by actually studying the operations, functionalities and machinery that make eggs function correctly for the continuation of life. And not trying to fit the pattern of thinking and looking for solutions of a philosophical naturalist into this study. Trying to find something that I might be able to fit into some evolutionary philosophy/idea or storyline.

Claim 2 regarding the supposed fact that: "This is difficult because internal organs don't fossilize, generally only bones and hard eggs."

Great, you actually stated at least 1 well established fact/truth/reality this time instead of just claiming 1. Of course this particular fact is mightily convenient later on when you are telling stories and making claims about mythological creatures (preceding steps) and want to have an agnostic (philosophy of vagueness-type) excuse ready as to why you don't need to produce any actual fossil evidence for these mythological (simpler) creatures and versions (with preceding steps in so-called egg evolution).

Claim 3 regarding the supposed fact that: "mammals that don't lay eggs, still produce internal eggs."

Correct, and we also know that even though we refer to them both as "eggs" they are quite different requiring a huge amount of specific changes in the DNA programming and code for all of the biomolecular machines involved (different proteins, enzymes, protein complexes, etc.) to go from the coding for internal eggs to the coding for the eggs we more commonly think of when talking about chickens. The myth that all of these changes can be produced by the mechanism of mutations+natural selection is demonstrated to be impossible because of the general statistics (it doesn't have to be precise when there's a trend) of mutations+either natural or artificial selection we have observed in laboratory experiments and what longterm effect they have on genomes (on average over time and multiple generations, degredation). As well as the interdepency of the biomolecular machinery in question making the possibility of the continuation of life in a gradual 'mutations acted upon by natural selection'-process over multiple generations (regarding the topic "egg evolution", all sorts of different mythological versions) extremely unlikely to me without clear evidence to the contrary. Which is never discussed other than more storytelling about why I should believe this is possible and will or might be proven in the future, which sounds no different to me than anyone claiming the existence of a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster but he'll get back to me with the actual evidence for these claims later. Good luck with that.

Claim 4 regarding the supposed fact that: "the egg most likely started as something very simple..."

Nope, saying "most likely" doesn't get you off the hook of actually having implied that it is "most likely" (stating something as if it's factual that it is "most likely"). Allthough I would normally not count it as such but if I want to be pedantic about it now because of the way a reader might perceive it, what type of influence it has on their minds, as if what they're being told can be trusted to be correct, even though they are reminded of the phrase "most likely", they register it differently, cause they end up just like you believing that that is the case, yet not admitting to this belief in order to avoid having to justify it, cause after all, they're just claiming or thinking it's "most likely", so they can continue their story or walk through La La Land/Fantasia otherwise it doesn't fit, the Great We Don't Know Yet agnostic god of the gaps is rearing its ugly head here as well). It's not "most likely" at all, the evidence regarding the operations within an egg of for example a chicken (something you skipped earlier at Claim 1) actually demonstrates that it is impossible for it to have "started as something very simple" (compared to the interdependent functionality of the machinery we are observing in these eggs). The only reason to argue for "started as something very simple" is a bias for evolutionary philosophies and trying to make those sound more plausible and then pretending you've done enough and can make the challenge to someone else to prove or provide evidence that it's impossible or even implausible to have "started as something very simple". While pretending you don't understand that evidence that's right in front of you in the interdepency of the machinery in question regarding the functionality for the continuation of life (and any evolutionary storyline or scenario). Or the actual effects we have observed mutations are capable of producing, with or wthout being acted upon by natural selection (arguing from what we know, or just preferring to consider it rather than myths, fantasies and wishful neurotic speculations).

Still part of the same claim that it is "most likely": "like a thin layer around the fetus that was beneficial because it protected it from harm."

This would be a nice part in the story where some evidence of a functional healthy egg resembling the above described mythological precursor to an egg could be of use. Of course, some people prefer to keep it vague and move along the story before any questions are raised.

Still part of the same claim that it is most likely: "Less fetus's were damaged as a result so the trait was passed down to more and more surviving members of the species."

Nice storytelling, don't believe a word of it without at least some evidence that makes sense to me and relates to the story, not some fact cherry-picked from somewhere to beef up the perceived plausibility of the story, but detailed specific realities. Such as a demonstration in an experiment of a population of organisms developping the things you vaguely refer to without mentioning anything about all the other transitions in programming and machinery required to change the coding for internal eggs (or any mythological unspecified "something very simple") to the type of eggs chickens lay. It would also be helpful to get some details and specifics of "something very simple" to evaluate. Something like it's pink, looks like a horse, 1 horn. That would already be more information to evaluate whether the story might be true. It still wouldn't be logical or reasonable evidence for the existence of this "something very simple" though, but it would help in a search for evidence.
edit on 21-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
yet still not much of a justification for referring to its existence as "most likely". I doubt you'll really admit where you get the "most likely" feeling and belief from other than further promotions of the agnostic philosophy of vagueness and arguing from fantasy and elaborately marketed imaginations. Pardon if any of the language offends, I have no issues admitting that I am stating things as if they're factual when I believe them to be so or that I believe them to be so. Not a victim here of the taboo on the verb "believe" or willing to stick your neck out stating and dealing with the facts I believe to be factual based on reasoning on the evidence using my thinking abilities (including logic). And I'm not a destroyer of people's minds and ability to use those for themselves in order to protect and safeguard my career, finances or social status (the way other people perceive me).
edit on 21-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
You quoted me saying:


originally posted by: Barcs
I have never claimed fact or stated them as factual.


This was in response to THIS statement that I quoted in the other post:

originally posted by: whereislogic
You don't have to spell out "nature did it" (as if it's factual) for me to know what supposed fact/reality you're arguing for. But I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find a variatian of it in your commentary. Stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual.


I have never claimed fact or stated them as factual, yes, the philosophies that you are referring to. There must be some kind of language barrier here, because our misunderstandings have nothing to do ambiguity of language, it is your failure to understand what people are talking about and take things in context. I can't figure out if you are doing this intentionally or not but it sure seems like an attempt to assassinate my character.

How can you accuse me of being ambiguous with language and then attempt to roast me on the word "them" when I clearly and directly explained to you what I was claiming and what I was not claiming in the same response you quote mined it from?

Agnosticism has nothing to do with vagueness, I don't know why you keep saying that. Agnosticism is about not taking a position on whether god exists. It doesn't apply to everything in life, it applies to belief in a deity and that's not even what I classify my worldview as. If science doesn't know the answer to something, it doesn't know. So speculating on it without direct evidence is pointless.

I say "most likely" because I understand evolution and how it works. You blindly deny it and pretend it's just a guess and hence you have no clue what is likely or not likely in the science of evolution (NOT PHILOSOPHY).

I also can't help but notice, that once again you blatantly ignored the one thing I asked you for and you completely changed the subject to avoid it. That is not what we were talking about just now, and you still have not showed me your conclusion based on inductive reasoning.

So, FOR THE THIRD TIME:

List your premise and conclusion.

Don't dodge it and don't go off on another tirade. It's a simple 2 sentence answer. State it clearly. Feel free to ignore everything else, but answer this one question.
edit on 8 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
"them" is "philosophies" cause that's what you were responding to in my comment. Of any type, including the philosophy and mis-use of the word "science" when you say: " If science doesn't know the answer to something,... It simply doesn't know things like the origin of life..."

You claim that it is factual that "it...doesn't know" with that way of arguing. You present it as if that's the case. Assuming with the word "science" you are referring to those who claim they don't know (sometimes even when they do, pretending or feigning ignorance because of financial and career advancement reasons) and who refer to themselves and eachother as "scientists" and to their presentations and argumentation as "science". As they spread their philosophies involving both agnosticism and philosophical naturalism as brilliant and cunning philosophers (making their words sound more plausible and "scientific" to an indoctrinated or biased hearer, not to me); just like you've been trained to be and do.

Becoming aware or learning the right science/knowledge does help a person come to conclusive conclusions regarding the origin of life to learn the facts/certainties/truths/realities of the matter (if they're willing to think for themselves and use logic correctly, sensibly). But it's not easy with this level of warping the way people think and use logic that is being spread (and has spread for thousands of years of human existence with little change in the methodology; with a small resurgence of rational thinking growing along with the popularity of Isaac Newton and those referring to their methodology as experimental philosophy, later also confusingly and erronuously referred to as "modern science"; but that was squashed by the philosophical naturalists fairly quickly).

This is what I said and what you were responding to:


Stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual.


But you can continue your discussion with your own created Wind Mill Giant and keep on expressing your issues with what he's saying if you prefer while you use sentences with bad or confusing syntax when using the word "fact" (but not as a noun as I'm sticking with as to not confuse people anymore than they need to be). When you start your sentence with:


I have never claimed fact...

I can only assume you're saying "I have never claimed a fact", since otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, that wasn't a direct response to what I was saying, "stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual". Which isn't the same as discussing whether or not you are claiming facts in general. But even then you responded with never 'claiming [a] fact' either (which indeed would logically mean you were never stating or promoting philosophies as if they're factual either....if that was true; sadly though, you're such an expert liar, that you can even make yourself believe the lies you tell yourself, I've heard in a TV-show that's a good way to beat a lie-detector. Not that useful when trying to figure out the truths/facts of the matter.
edit on 21-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic


So, FOR THE THIRD TIME:

List your premise and conclusion.

Don't dodge it and don't go off on another tirade. It's a simple 2 sentence answer. State it clearly. Feel free to ignore everything else, but answer this one question.


Earth to whereislogic. Hello? Drop that logic any day now.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Why, you want people being spoonfed conclusions that they can come to themselves when given all the facts to consider? Start or continue your usual debate routine (including first twisting what I'm saying and then responding to that straw man, or pretending I'm not already doing something you are requesting or complaining I'm not doing as you go all ad hominem and projection on me, only to reflect that right back at me if I dare mention it)? Nah thanks...I'll dance to my own tunes thank you very much.
edit on 21-8-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Yes... Everyone else is at fault for the way you refuse to put forth a cognizant statement. Nobody is dancing except for you. The farther along your replies get, the more disjointed and unhinged they become. Nobody doubts that you'll dance to your own tune. You've been doing it since day one. You just don't seem to realize that the only person who hears the music is yourself. She go ahead... Dance the night away and keep pointing fingers at everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join