How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: cooperton
It is not a fallacious argument, you just don't like the conclusions so you ignore it and say its debunked simply because you do not like it. Your "corrections" are not based on any logical refutation, but simply blind religious zeal that refuses to acknowledge logical assertions.

Wrong. Atheism literally means NOT theism. There is no requirement of atheism to believe everything came from nothing. Yes that claim is 100% fallacious and false. Atheism is about belief in god(s), not the origin of the universe. Why is this very basic simple concept so hard for you guys?

You don't understand your own religion then. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. This leaves the question of where the cosmos came from then. The entire existence of the cosmos is therefore believed by atheists to have come to existent without gods, since they don't believe in them.

I don't follow a religion, liar.

Not believing in god(s) is NOT even close to the same as believing the entire universe spawned from NOTHING. The fact that you liars continuously spew this lie despite it being proved completely wrong, speaks volumes. You guys don't have an honest bone in your bodies, you just repeat the same ol' tireless mantras and rhetoric, simply because you like the way it sounds.

a reply to: Barcs

"Not believing in god(s) is NOT even close to the same as believing the entire universe spawned from NOTHING. The fact that you liars continuously spew this lie despite it being proved completely wrong, speaks volumes. You guys don't have an honest bone in your bodies, you just repeat the same ol' tireless mantras and rhetoric, simply because you like the way it sounds. "

"You Guys" - I'm not "you Guys" - I''m "AlienView" !!! - You know those hypothetical aliens who, like God, have
yet to be proven - "Without a reasonable doubt" !

Being an almost 'militant Agnostic', I have great disdain for both Theists and Atheists who don't accept the fact
that they can not 'prove' the existence or non-existence of a conscious deity creating and/or controlling the
known existent Universe.

And I seem to make no friiends when I try to point out, in spite of what your prejudice wants to deny
- is the fact that intelligent design' is not religion - it is a philosophical understanding of the existent state
- A state where an evolving and irrefutable intelligence perceives, analyzes, and allows for the perception
and definiton of all that exists.

So Humans GET SMART - Look up and watch the Universe evolve - Become part of it


“Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is.”
—Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science


“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark


“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan


- AlienView
'Profit of the New Dawn'

originally posted by: AlienView
"You Guys"

- I'm not "you Guys" - I''m "AlienView" !!! - You know those hypothetical aliens who, like God, have
yet to be proven - "Without a reasonable doubt" !

"You guys," meaning you, Cooperton, and the tons of other people on here and all over the internet that use that same fallacy suggesting atheists must believe the universe came from nothing.

Being an almost 'militant Agnostic', I have great disdain for both Theists and Atheists who don't accept the fact
that they can not 'prove' the existence or non-existence of a conscious deity creating and/or controlling the
known existent Universe.

This is a good point, although I've never heard anybody refer to themselves as militant when admitting they do not know whether god exists. I don't mind people that believe in a god(s), I just get annoyed when I hear that "something from nothing" fallacy when describing atheists.

- is the fact that intelligent design' is not religion - it is a philosophical understanding of the existent state
- A state where an evolving and irrefutable intelligence perceives, analyzes, and allows for the perception
and definiton of all that exists.

I agree, ID is separate from religion, although most theistic religions believe in ID and most supporters of ID, who claim it is scientific, are actually young earth creationists. It's not a requirement, however, that is absolutely true.

Again, nothing you said defended your view that atheists must believe the universe can come from nothing. That was your point that I took issue with, especially since you have used it more than once in this thread despite being corrected on it. You addressed everything except the main point.

originally posted by: Barcs

"You guys," meaning you, Cooperton, and the tons of other people on here and all over the internet that use that same fallacy suggesting atheists must believe the universe came from nothing.

Theists believe that there was never nothing, and always something - God. From this all things came.

What do you believe it came from then, if not from nothing?

originally posted by: cooperton
What do you believe it came from then, if not from nothing?

Something, just not god. It's not that complicated. A multi verse, a membrane collision, a singularity of space-time and energy, you name it. I fully admit we don't yet know what caused the universe, I don't make assumptions about it, i just don't believe the claim that it was an intelligent being.

It's false and presumptive to think an atheist must believe the universe came from nothing. There are many varying beliefs, ideas and hypotheses about that. It's not god or nothing.

originally posted by: Barcs

Something, just not god. It's not that complicated... I fully admit we don't yet know what caused the universe, I don't make assumptions about it, i just don't believe the claim that it was an intelligent being.

So you make no assumptions except that it was definitely not caused by an intelligent faculty?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Something, just not god. It's not that complicated... I fully admit we don't yet know what caused the universe, I don't make assumptions about it, i just don't believe the claim that it was an intelligent being.

So you make no assumptions except that it was definitely not caused by an intelligent faculty?

Why do you keep misrepresenting me like this? I never claimed anything was "definitely not" caused by intelligence.

I just said I don't believe the claim that god exists or created the universe. I don't claim to have knowledge on that, I'm just not convinced of a god existing, regardless of how the universe came to be.

Atheists don't have to think the universe came from nothing. There are many possibilities. As a skeptic, I do not believe any of them, but acknowledge them as possibilities, same with the idea of god. I won't actually BELIEVE in any of them until sufficient evidence can be demonstrated.

I know the argument sounds sexy to creationists, but it is patently invalid and is a straw man of the atheist position, which is strictly about belief in god(s). They can believe literally anything else about the origin of the universe, or even just admit they don't know. Some even do think it came from nothing, but that is not a requirement to lack belief in god(s).

a reply to: Barcs

My issues here can be summarized in two questions. Assuming the universe, or at very least human beings and the world we call home, is under the direct control and authority of a super cosmic overlord, this begs us to ask: How can we be sure? How can we be safe?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
What do you believe it came from then, if not from nothing?

Something, just not god. It's not that complicated. A multi verse, a membrane collision, a singularity of space-time and energy, you name it. I fully admit we don't yet know what caused the universe, I don't make assumptions about it, i just don't believe the claim that it was an intelligent being.

It's false and presumptive to think an atheist must believe the universe came from nothing. There are many varying beliefs, ideas and hypotheses about that. It's not god or nothing.

Agree with being unconvinced.
Does calling oneself an "atheist", necessitate being convinced that there is no god?
Is atheism a belief?
If not: what is the difference between being agnostic, and atheist?

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Barcs

"Not believing in god(s) is NOT even close to the same as believing the entire universe spawned from NOTHING. The fact that you liars continuously spew this lie despite it being proved completely wrong, speaks volumes. You guys don't have an honest bone in your bodies, you just repeat the same ol' tireless mantras and rhetoric, simply because you like the way it sounds. "

"You Guys"

- I'm not "you Guys" - I''m "AlienView" !!! - You know those hypothetical aliens who, like God, have
yet to be proven - "Without a reasonable doubt" !

Being an almost 'militant Agnostic', I have great disdain for both Theists and Atheists who don't accept the fact
that they can not 'prove' the existence or non-existence of a conscious deity creating and/or controlling the
known existent Universe.

And I seem to make no friiends when I try to point out, in spite of what your prejudice wants to deny
- is the fact that intelligent design' is not religion - it is a philosophical understanding of the existent state
- A state where an evolving and irrefutable intelligence perceives, analyzes, and allows for the perception
and definiton of all that exists.

How is your position not a belief?

Let's try this:

I keep quoting the very famous physicist Max Planck winner of the Nobel Prize for his concepts of physics - Quantum Mechanics.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Now let us try an experiment - Call it an experiment in rhetorical understanding - Yes, it will not prove anything,
hopefully though it is interesting.

Let's take that Max Planck quote and replace one word:

"I regard intelligence as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from intelligence. We cannot get behind
intelligence. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulats intelligence."
- AlienView

NO?

Then let us try it this way:

"I regard 'reason' as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from 'reason'. We cannot get behind 'reason'.
Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates 'reason'.
- AlienView.

NO

SHOW ME A WORLD NOT BASED UPON REASON - Describe it !


I don't know if you must have 'A creator' for there to be reason - But I do know that noithing can exsit without it !

originally posted by: Nothin
Agree with being unconvinced.
Does calling oneself an "atheist", necessitate being convinced that there is no god?
Is atheism a belief?
If not: what is the difference between being agnostic, and atheist?

Good questions.

The way I see it is that an atheist can either be one who lacks belief in god or one who disbelieves in god. An agnostic is one that lacks knowledge. Since beliefs and knowledge are not mutually exclusive one can be an agnostic atheist. Most people that call themselves agnostic or atheist fall into that category.

So the big difference is that atheism is a belief position, while agnosticism is a knowledge position.

originally posted by: AlienView
Let's try this:

I keep quoting the very famous physicist Max Planck winner of the Nobel Prize for his concepts of physics - Quantum Mechanics.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Now let us try an experiment - Call it an experiment in rhetorical understanding - Yes, it will not prove anything,
hopefully though it is interesting.

Let's take that Max Planck quote and replace one word:

"I regard intelligence as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from intelligence. We cannot get behind
intelligence. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulats intelligence."
- AlienView

NO?

Then let us try it this way:

"I regard 'reason' as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from 'reason'. We cannot get behind 'reason'.
Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates 'reason'.
- AlienView.

NO

SHOW ME A WORLD NOT BASED UPON REASON

- Describe it !


I don't know if you must have 'A creator' for there to be reason - But I do know that noithing can exsit without it !

originally posted by: AlienView
Let's try this:

I keep quoting the very famous physicist Max Planck winner of the Nobel Prize for his concepts of physics - Quantum Mechanics.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Now let us try an experiment - Call it an experiment in rhetorical understanding - Yes, it will not prove anything,
hopefully though it is interesting.

Let's take that Max Planck quote and replace one word:

"I regard intelligence as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from intelligence. We cannot get behind
intelligence. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulats intelligence."
- AlienView

NO?

Then let us try it this way:

"I regard 'reason' as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from 'reason'. We cannot get behind 'reason'.
Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates 'reason'.
- AlienView.

NO

SHOW ME A WORLD NOT BASED UPON REASON

- Describe it !


I don't know if you must have 'A creator' for there to be reason - But I do know that noithing can exsit without it !

Am unconvinced of your claims.

Have humans not invented the concepts of intelligence, and reason?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Nothin
Agree with being unconvinced.
Does calling oneself an "atheist", necessitate being convinced that there is no god?
Is atheism a belief?
If not: what is the difference between being agnostic, and atheist?

Good questions.

The way I see it is that an atheist can either be one who lacks belief in god or one who disbelieves in god. An agnostic is one that lacks knowledge. Since beliefs and knowledge are not mutually exclusive one can be an agnostic atheist. Most people that call themselves agnostic or atheist fall into that category.

So the big difference is that atheism is a belief position, while agnosticism is a knowledge position.

Thanks for your reply.
Wondering how intrinsically aligned, might knowledge and belief be? Any ides?

Am feeling this lack of knowledge, to be unconvincing of anything, and minimal beliefs are present.

Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations?

There just is.
Too many answers may lead to knowledge, and beliefs, no?

But no matter what the answers: there just is.

a reply to: AlienView

The main reason for the delineation of the sexes is genetic recombination through meiosis. This is especially true when environments change or a disease is spreading through a population. Genetic recombination also allows for the removal of a deleterious mutation

Sexual reproduction can produce individuals who have an adaptation that makes them more suited for the new environment or are immune to the disease will pass those genes on and the species will continue.
Aesexual reproduction, however, creates identical copies with no variation.

originally posted by: AlienView
Let's try this:

I keep quoting the very famous physicist Max Planck winner of the Nobel Prize for his concepts of physics - Quantum Mechanics.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Now let us try an experiment - Call it an experiment in rhetorical understanding - Yes, it will not prove anything,
hopefully though it is interesting.

Let's take that Max Planck quote and replace one word:

"I regard intelligence as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from intelligence. We cannot get behind
intelligence. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulats intelligence."
- AlienView

NO?

Then let us try it this way:

"I regard 'reason' as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from 'reason'. We cannot get behind 'reason'.
Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates 'reason'.
- AlienView.

NO

SHOW ME A WORLD NOT BASED UPON REASON

- Describe it !


I don't know if you must have 'A creator' for there to be reason - But I do know that noithing can exsit without it !

Which came first, the atom or the numbers that describe its proportions and velocity?

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: AlienView

The main reason for the delineation of the sexes is genetic recombination through meiosis. This is especially true when environments change or a disease is spreading through a population. Genetic recombination also allows for the removal of a deleterious mutation

Sexual reproduction can produce individuals who have an adaptation that makes them more suited for the new environment or are immune to the disease will pass those genes on and the species will continue.
Aesexual reproduction, however, creates identical copies with no variation.

Makes perfect sense - Almost as though it was 'designed' to happen that way - Maybe even 'Intelligent Design'

Keep up the good work - Maybe one day in a hypothetical parallel universe you will convince the hypothetical
gods of creation that the experiment is working after all - And then the genie will reveal himself - Just maybe......

The universe did really begin with the pure light of an intelligence most Humans are only capable of
imagining, but not understanding


But you see you can't really have it two ways - Either the existent state reflects an existent intelligence
- Or the existent state reflects 'nothing' - But just remember - nothing can not exist

Ready to evolve one step further Human



- AlienView

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: AlienView

The main reason for the delineation of the sexes is genetic recombination through meiosis. This is especially true when environments change or a disease is spreading through a population. Genetic recombination also allows for the removal of a deleterious mutation

Sexual reproduction can produce individuals who have an adaptation that makes them more suited for the new environment or are immune to the disease will pass those genes on and the species will continue.
Aesexual reproduction, however, creates identical copies with no variation.

Makes perfect sense - Almost as though it was 'designed' to happen that way - Maybe even 'Intelligent Design'

Keep up the good work - Maybe one day in a hypothetical parallel universe you will convince the hypothetical
gods of creation that the experiment is working after all - And then the genie will reveal himself - Just maybe......

The universe did really begin with the pure light of an intelligence most Humans are only capable of
imagining, but not understanding

But you see you can't really have it two ways - Either the existent state reflects an existent intelligence
- Or the existent state reflects 'nothing' - But just remember - nothing can not exist

Ready to evolve one step further Human

- AlienView

There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.

There's no observable evidence that an asexual organism could develop a male organ, or a female organ. Let alone the necessity of having to have them both evolve at the same time!!

Do you understand this?

Even if a male organ evolved against all odds, and against the possibilities we observe in a lab, you would still need the female organ to develop at the same time, otherwise the male has nothing to mate with and vice versa.

For this reason it is obviously impossible by conventional material means..