A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: Davg80

Want me to play the "science does not deal with absolutes"-card for ye?

Nah, I'll just leave a reminder that's it's a bogus joker card anyway. Especially if someone were to attempt to use it as a red herring from the well established and unambiguous facts/certainties already discovered in the sciences. Such as that whales are made up of systems of interdependent co-functional cell types, that in turn are chock-full with interdependent co-functional machinery and technology demonstrating to be of a very high advanced level of technology and everything that that implicates in relation to supposed gradual evolutionary philosophies about mutations acted upon by natural selection being capable of producing all this type of machinery over multiple generations without the required specifications to begin with by chance or accident, also misleadingly referred to as "chance and necessity", the latter word being another cunning warping of language and logic compared to the actual logical follow-throughs of the argument, which boils down to the general claim and God of the gaps: 'Mother Nature did it').

And that walking whales don't exist and never existed and there's no evidence from the fossil record to suggest otherwise and that those who are suggesting otherwise are clearly using propaganda and marketing techniques to keep people ignorant about this nonsense and incredibly deceptive behaviour and way of arguing displayed in the video.

a reply to: whereislogic

i believe that anything is possible, but walking whales is right up there with Bob Marley, Elvis, Tupac and all the rest still alive on an island partying till the die of natural causes well into their hundreds............ yip i was pretty much talking about how the age of the universe is in no way an absolute, as you could see with my example, im pretty sure whales dont walk on dry land as well.

a reply to: Hecate666

And now without the negative paint job misrepresenting what the bible is saying to argue against a straw man with a beard apparently (for ridicule and dismissal purposes).

Here, to get you started:

God was not like a man in appearance, for he has not revealed any figure of his to man, as John himself said later: “No man has seen God at any time.” (Joh 1:18)

Source: God: Insight, Volume 1

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: whereislogic
im pretty sure whales dont walk on dry land as well.

How about this part, the main point:

And that walking whales don't exist and never existed and there's no evidence from the fossil record to suggest otherwise and that those who are suggesting otherwise are clearly using propaganda and marketing techniques to keep people ignorant about this nonsense and incredibly deceptive behaviour and way of arguing displayed in the video.

a reply to: Idreamofme

well it was actually an ancestor of the chicken which laid the egg of the first chicken


what is more pertinent is !

What came first consciousness or reality

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2


some posters derive far too much enjoyment from posting "buzz questions" that are intended to stump the audience as opposed to providing actual information, disguising rhetoric as profundity and non-answers as solutions. the OP is one example among many.

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?

literally everything has a cause, unless you are too lazy to actually dedicate the time, skill and resources to deducing and confirming the cause. simply tying a knot in a really long rope is a cheap and sloppy substitute for finding an end of the rope. this is what your so called fix to the infinite regression problem amounts to. a silly roadblock that is interpreted as the conclusion of the investigation but really just tells everyone that you gave up prematurely. congrats, now sit down and let the real experts have a crack at it. honestly...did you expect a clap on the back for taking shortcuts? you are too easily satisfied and it shows. Smh

/mic drop

So by your statement "literally everything has a cause", your answer to the question is, yes.

Great. Now, let's explore the "rope" a bit further.

If, as you say, "literally everything has a cause", then you're basically saying there's no end to the cause.

That is, the cause has an unending cause. The 1st cause was caused by the one that preceded it, the one that preceded it was also caused by the one that preceded it, and on and on we go - ad infinitum.

That's where you're logic breaks down.

So what to do?

What's the alternative?

Do you want to pick up your mic?

What we do is keep moving forward and keep improving our knowledge with the help of science until one day, hopefully, we can answer the mother of all questions.

What we don't do is automatically jump to a supernatural explanation if we haven't got an answer for a question yet.

Its OK to not know. Nothing wrong with that at all

I think you missed his point of infinite regress which in philosophy is a big deal. If you provide an answer to an argument that relies on another unknown answer your giving an argument of infinite regress which is not acceptable as a proper rebuttal in debate.

If your a true "scientist" you most like have an agnostic approach to information. In which case this debate has no purpose. If your simply waiting for info there is no need to weigh in at all. If you choose to enter the debate then saying we simply don't have the info yet isn't really much of a rebuttal.

In a cosmic origin aspect a necessary being provides an logic answer to how something comes from nothing. A being(s) who live outside reality or time and space.

The problem with Aquinas's response is that the universe itself could be it's own cause as well.

So ultimately there are kind of two options with our current limitations of the nature of reality.

An entity is its own cause and created the first motion or program, or the universe itself is its own cause.

I happen to lean on the latter and even think of it as a panthiest or pandiest model.

As far as humans ever understanding the entire cosmological story I think that is probably impossible unless we are told by a being with much greater faculty for observation. I believe in the anthropic principle to a point.

What we do know is evolution exists, biological process exist, at least in this reality what ever that is.

It's hard to get around the famous skeptic Hume's argument stating you have no idea if your in a dream right now. You could be in a coma dreaming this entire reality. Which the response from Kant was but the observation of the dream is reality. The observer "is" because the observation is being made whether in physical reality, virtual reality, dimensional reality, altered states etc. So basically we constitute our own reality. Interesting this is almost corresponding with quantum phenomenon of things not existing until observation accept as waveform probability.

Modern cosmology is about as strange and mysterious as superstitions in religion anyway.

String theory would like to tell you all the options are available dimensionally. Perhaps if this is true people have found ways to travel between dimensions?

Anyway science also works with hypothesis for unknowns. Lots of quantum mechanics has no proof. Yet..the observation equipment in many cases has not been invented.

All the research money goes to viagra and teeth whitening....

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: luthier
The concept of religion vs. science is usually made by the most irrational of both fields IMO.

Some people like to paint that picture or hope to trigger that pre-conditioned view about someone else or a group of people (that they have that view or that that represents what they're doing) indeed...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ghost147

awww, we're so innocent. Never seen that one before after being exposed for the usual routine.

You're twisting my words on purpose, as per usual bringing up the usual red herrings, straw men and picture painting routines, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend with you that it's not deliberate.

Dude... what the hell are you talking about?

If you actually do accept the theory of evolution, then all you need to say is that you do, and then my first response will be totally void.

But instead all you've done is go rambling on about how I'm manipulating this conversation in some way.

Just say "sorry, but you're wrong, I actually do accept evolution as a fact" if that's the case.

Here. I'll make it blasingly simplistic for you. Answer the following question.

Do you accept the current scientific theory of biological evolution?

I am honestly just wondering. I'm not playing any games. It just came off as if you didn't, and so I asked... that's it...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Davg80
Especially if someone were to attempt to use it as a red herring from the well established and unambiguous facts/certainties already discovered in the sciences. Such as that whales are made up of systems of interdependent co-functional cell types, that in turn are chock-full with interdependent co-functional machinery and technology demonstrating to be of a very high advanced level of technology and everything that that implicates in relation to supposed gradual evolutionary philosophies about mutations acted upon by natural selection being capable of producing all this type of machinery over multiple generations without the required specifications to begin with by chance or accident, also misleadingly referred to as "chance and necessity", the latter word being another cunning warping of language and logic compared to the actual logical follow-throughs of the argument, which boils down to the general claim and God of the gaps: 'Mother Nature did it').

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.

*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

There's plenty to say about that quotation, which Michael Behe does quite adequately after 29 minutes in the presentation below (which people like to conveniently ignore as well):
Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto

Just keep on playing your games of avoiding the facts/realities, nobody's gonna say anything about it anyway right? Cause we can't be sure/certain of anything or these specific convenient subjects? (logical follow-through = nobody can discover facts/certainties or that which is factual/certain/absolute/true regarding anything or these specific convenient subjects that some people prefer to avoid having to acknowledge)

acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of. (source: google dictionary minus the added synonym)

Maybe we should just give up on the word alltogether if more and more people don't want to do that anymore. Or would that be unreasonable? Well, so is the behaviour of avoiding acknowledging inconvenient* facts/certainties (*: inconvenient to the promotion and adherence to particular myths, as well as keeping people in darkness regarding specific realities related to God's existence, activities, identity, attributes, purpose, will, etc. and the related evidence, the facts as they can be discovered, learned, known and verified rationally). And doing things like this:

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.[it's not always spelled out or done directly, it's also triggered suggestively by relying on preprogrammed notions and boxes]
...
Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. [the bolded part doesn't just count for making generalizations, it's a favorite tactic in other propaganda techniques as well]

From the earlier source, between brackets is mine.

Oh btw, edit earlier, "cell types" is short for "cells of various types", or "cells of various cell types", whichever you prefer.

a reply to: whereislogic


I have no idea what you are trying to say..


You seem to be intentionally constructing sentences in a convoluted and cryptic manner and then following them with long lists of videos.


If you are incapable of (or unwilling) stating or defending whatever your own views are then there is little reason anyone should invest in responding to your posts. Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: sapien82

consciousness came first, because reality needs to be thought of in order to exist.... just my immediate opinion to that!

a reply to: Indigo5

yay, another ad hominem, we're all doing so well. How about some psychological projection to follow. I guess that's what you get for just honestly answering a question that someone asked who never wanted an answer but something they could use to twist and play debate games with.

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives...[or various other things such as whether or not the other person has an "idea what" they "are trying to say" or if they are "intentionally constructing sentences in a convoluted and cryptic manner" and "incapable of (or unwilling) stating or defending whatever" their "own views are"]

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I can assure you academically Christians who dispute or feel threatened by evolution are few. It's a rediculous position to take.

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ...one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

From the usual source about propaganda, why make it so obvious? Arguments from authority (implied or otherwise expressed in reasoning and mentioning it for trigger purposes) and arguments from majority remain popular on ATS. Regardless of whether they are or are not expressed as actual arguments, the latter making that particular terminology a little easier to deny than what I quoted from the article in my signature.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

I can assure you academically Christians who dispute or feel threatened by evolution are few. It's a rediculous position to take.

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right ...one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

From the usual source about propaganda, why make it so obvious? Arguments from authority (implied or otherwise expressed in reasoning and mentioning it for trigger purposes) and arguments from majority remain popular on ATS. Regardless of whether they are or are not expressed as actual arguments, the latter making that particular terminology a little easier to deny than what I quoted from the article in my signature.

What your implying is that this is an argument from authority, a genetic fallacy, or an ad hominem.

I assure if you wish to go topic for topic and address this argument I will use logic to prove those adjectives you made bold, and disprove your arguments.

But you play fast and loose, so you would have to address a claim or make an argument first.

originally posted by: luthier
Now it can easily be replaced with a panthiest like model or purely the universe itself is its own cause, but these are two possibilities logically speaking if you follow the philosophy of falsifiability.

Would you care to explain why the following concept can be honestly and accurately described as a possibility "logically speaking":

A universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create itself.

Or did I misunderstand you or do you think I advertently misrepresented what you were arguing for as 'being' (you used "are", which is related to stating facts or something as if it's factual/true/certain/absolute) a possibility "logically speaking".

In which case you are stating that it is a fact that this is a possibility logically speaking. Not that what you proposed as a possibility is a fact (that the universe created itself when it didn't even exist yet, which is obviously not spelled out like that but that doesn't change the concept or model you suggested as a possibility "logically speaking").

Or should I mention something about the possible deflection of going back to arguing for an eternal universe and ignore you were talking about a cause for the existence of the universe which logically means (logical follow-through) that the universe had a beginning if it had a cause. Cause being logically linked with the beginning of an effect, the universe being that effect or phenomenon that is being discussed here.

a reply to: luthier

No, I'm saying things about the stuff you didn't quote and the subject of those who are victims of propaganda and that way of thinking, reasoning and arguing. And that argument from authority and argument from majority are terminologies that are easier to argue against, which is exactly what you promptly did. Argue against me even daring to mention those terminologies.

And it's not called playing it "fast and loose", it's called being honest with people, calling them as I see 'm. Keep your paint brush in your pocket please, I'm an uninteresting topic. According to at least 1 poster: "there is little reason anyone should invest in responding to" my "posts" even. Of course, the word "if" stands ready in that comment to argue against any notion of that brush of paint being painted by the person who felt like mentioning that last part in case anyone might want to feel the same way or needs some encouragement to feel that way about any of my comments or questions that never get answered when answering other people's questions.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again your avoiding a claim or argument.

Academics (I assume your "authority) are people who study at a school. In schools there are many many Christians. Very few believe that the creation story is literal. It's been hundreds if not thousands of years since people believed the creation story as real until the US basically came to be a power.

Do you object?

We can manipulate dna, we can observe evolution, we can watch biological process happen, it's illogical to assume that it doesn't exist in some reality, at least the one your observing.

It's rediculous to believe that this doesn't happen. Unless your going to argue we are in a dream state or altered personal reality.

Logic in philosophy would look for a theory that is complete without needing another theory to base it's argument. It stands on its own.

We you advance an argument you look to falsify the claims to check your work so to speak.

The answer of the big bang being the beginning cosmologically speaking begs the question well what was before that. What created the design. Was it random. Can't be here in this one universe so,.. and in and on.

Without needing to go through infinite regress which is a fail in response to an argument in the formal padogody of logic, you come to a being, a thing, or a collective that lives outside of time space with its own cause. The "universe" has become metaphor for the mutliverse and other dimensional cosmology theories.

Could be both at the same time. Could be unknowable like the anthropic principle suggests. But these thoughts follow the chain to an end rather than relying on another unknown or known event.

a reply to: luthier

Or we could get back on-topic because some people much prefer to limit the conversation to the word "evolution" and however they want to interpret what that word stands for in their comments and questions when that whole routine began by someone else pointing out that evolutionary philosophers are arguing for the existence of "whales that had feet and walked on land", i.e. "walking whales" supposedly evolving into whales and connecting that to both the word "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" and not always spelling it out like that to pretend that that is not what this part of the overarching myth boils down to and what everyone that approves the papers (silently or otherwise) related to that subject that don't use the terminology "walking whales" is still arguing in favor for (without having to spell it out and in spite of contradicting and/or quickly arguing that they're not arguing for the existence of "walking whales" if one were to bring it up in response to those using subjects such as Ambulocetus as evidence for the supposed evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors, such as Kenneth Miller does in the debate below). You can go straight to 5:40 and if not interested in responding to my other question about the universe you can answer the question why I might be wrong in perceiving or concluding that Kenneth Miller is being deliberately deceptive and using propaganda techniques to sell evolutionary myths in light of the video I shared earlier with the actual fossil evidence and a more detailed look at the supposed evidence he is presenting in the debate below in a manner (and timing) that no complete in-depth response can be given and people can be left with the impression that was an 'I gotcha now'-moment? I know, the question became a bit long, you can focus on the part of the question that touches on the subject of deliberate deception and using propaganda as well if you prefer.

I did ask you a question about the universe after all. I also mentioned something about a deflection and going back to arguing for an eternal universe which one could conveniently rephrase to "multiverse and other dimensional cosmology theories" and not spell out eternal anymore while knowing full well what I was referring to when I used the terminology "the universe" in response to you using that terminology+ implying the use of that terminology in the same manner as edmc^2 has been using it (since that was who you were responding to with your comment about "the universe"; so it's his usage that should determin how the term "the universe" is to be responded to and used for honest conversations about "the universe"). Which hasn't changed to suddenly meaning "multiverse and other dimensional cosmology theories". The topic (skipping past the question in the OP) was still the universe as we know it, not fantasy versions in people's imaginations to force and (partially?) conflate the notion of an eternal universe with the notion of an eternal multiverse.

a reply to: Idreamofme

The egg. There had to be a genetic mutation or an evolution to create the chicken. Dinosaurs came from eggs, Fish came from eggs. Humans come from eggs in a sense. Egg cells actually.

originally posted by: js331975
a reply to: Idreamofme

The egg. There had to be a genetic mutation or an evolution to create the chicken. Dinosaurs came from eggs, Fish came from eggs. Humans come from eggs in a sense. Egg cells actually.

I think if you ask which came first the woman or the girl(or baby if you want), you'll also see why it has to be the egg. The egg is merely the state of a young chicken. A chicken is merely an old egg, and the young always predate the old.