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.

 

a question for evolutionists

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Alienmojo
 





I agree and have asked the same question. What is it that makes something alive? A while back some scientists thru everything that is in a human into a jar and electrified it and it came out as a goo. I don't think they expected life... they were just curious.

Ya I perfer to say it like this though.
In the end when we have all solved The Great Mystery. One thing is certain
I will at least be as happy as any atheist or evolutionist.
That's how that rolls.

Ya just as I thought the old consider the source routine is very weak and old.
Of course it would only be a Christian site pointing out the things in science
that scientists conveneintly leave out that's how the world works.
I guess you're still young.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 



Well, isnt that what Evolution is ? It all started with one cell in a lava boiling hot mud hole that was struck by lighting ?
or is that modell out the window too ?


As much as I wish I were, I'm not a walking, talking evolutionary theory encyclopedia lol. Some thing's your just going to have to look up on your own.


I don't read to much about Evolution, cause it changes all the time...


All of science changes all the time, that's essentially the point. As new discoveries are made, they replace old theories that no longer fit the new discoveries. Science doesn't inherently know every there is to know. It's not religion lol.


Where did whales come from ? some die hard Evo dudes tell me they were Bears crawilng out to sea, other Die hard Evo dudes say I am the idiot for saying that, so , Im guessing the Evo dudes really dont know what it is they are learning or teaching others.... just seems like it ..


Mammals predate the earliest whale fossils, at least from what I have read. So I would guess that whales arose from some mammalian species that went lived around the seas and eventually evolved to live there exclusively.


You seem like an smart guy, where did Bears come from


I found this evolutionary tree diagram, but to be honest I am not sure how complete it is. LINK


from the stand point of that First cell (surviveing burning lava when the earth was melted rock and some how had water?)


I don't know of any theory of evolution that says any of that, if there is one then I agree with you that it's BS lol.


that evolved into several types of cells, brain cells, kidnye cells, liver cells Etc...


That's a good question. I don't personally have the answer to it myself, but I do know that there is an answer online. If I have the time I might look it up for you, but I'm not sure if I'll get the chance anytime soon to do that much extensive work.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Alienmojo
 


Your argument is known as Pascal's Wager, and is deeply flawed.

First, there are a lot of gods out there that people worship. How can you be certain you're believing in the right one? If there is a being that will reward you or punish you after your death based on your belief, what if it's not YHWH? What if it's Kali, or Tezcatlipoca? What if it's actually a god that no human has any concept of at all? Wouldn't eclectic pantheism then be the prudent choice?

Next, there's the question of whether you can actually choose to believe. If I decide today that I'm going to think the sky is green and filled with pink polka-dots, if I go outside and look up, I'm not going to believe the sky is green with pink polka-dots. I cannot force myself to believe something. even under the rigors of Orwellian big brother mind-control, all I can do is convince others that I believe something.

And lastly... Let's say that there is a god. do you honestly think he's going to reward your belief if it's based on a cost / benefit analysis? My parents were pretty far from Omniscient, but they could tell if I was only doing something to avoid punishment, or if I was doing it because I wanted to, and they responded appropriately. I imagine god's begrudging-detector is even more acute.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Did it happen by accident? No, people wanted computers. They made the code.

I'm right here baby.
Dosn't this pretty much say it all.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]


Your parents told you that you were an accident? Damn... Sorry to here that? Pretty piss poor parenting if you ask me!



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Your parents told you that you were an accident? Damn... Sorry to here that? Pretty piss poor parenting if you ask me!

It isn't polite to speak of the dead.

If you think something like that is going to hurt the one feeling I have
left, then for your own good stay in school.
You havn't said anything that speaks to the fact that a language
only exists through intelligence. game over.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





And lastly... Let's say that there is a god. do you honestly think he's going to reward your belief if it's based on a cost / benefit analysis? My parents were pretty far from Omniscient, but they could tell if I was only doing something to avoid punishment, or if I was doing it because I wanted to, and they responded appropriately. I imagine god's begrudging-detector is even more acute

I get a reward too ?
All this time I was just happy to be blessed with the brains enough to know he exists. There's rewards? How come I never heard about this?
I want to talk to my business agent. Get my Manager on the phone.



Excellent troll sir, very subtle

So typical, He couldn't bring himself to say excellent thread.

SnF

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
please stick to the topic of the thread and dont poke fun..im trying to find this information out...evolution is supposedly true so id love to hear an explanation on the things i asked


if you really wanted to know, you would crack a book open and read it.

Your solution appears more to be to post a thread, and likely hurl derision at any weakness or humor in an attempt to strengthen your own position.

Excellent troll sir, very subtle.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
ok so my question

firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..

Because apparently there is an advantage to reproducing sexually. Just look at all the species that still reproduce asexually and compare them to us, humans or to mammals or to fish.

Originally posted by resonance
also, how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body

Again, for some species it is advantageous to give birth like mammals to others like reptilians, incl. birds. Most fish usually reproduce by having the female lay the eggs somewhere and the male impregnating them.

Originally posted by resonance
the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood

Definitely, yes, and so would the first mammal.

Originally posted by resonance
help me understand what evolution says about these things

I hope I answered your questions satisfactorily and I apologize if others have already answered the same question in a similar or same way.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by WalterRatlos]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware they were dead. Thankfully I'm out of school though, but I'll pass the message on to my kids!


You havn't said anything that speaks to the fact that a language
only exists through intelligence. game over.


Whoa, too quick to assume game over there lol. We are not the only species capable of language. Nor are we the only one's with complex societies, tool use, culture. Amazing huh?

And to be perfectly honest, I seriously doubt we are intelligent lol.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I seriously doubt we are intelligent lol.

Now that is something we can agree on. Although I wasn't speaking of us.

I want to know if you see how completely impossible both sides of this arguement are? I'm saying if you think about it.How unimaginable it
is if God does exist. Out of those shoes into the others and look how it is
just as unimaginable that he does not exist.

Now at this point you could flip a coin. But why would you do that
when so much could be at stake.

I got this thing I don't know why I always try to conserve on space.
Probably stupid idk.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex
 





I seriously doubt we are intelligent lol.

Now that is something we can agree on. Although I wasn't speaking of us.


I want to ask you something

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]


So ask away, or was the question taken out from the edit?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Like I said, depends on how you view evolution. If your expecting a bird to hatch a giraffe, then I suppose evolution never happens. Yet, if you pay attention to modern theory, it happens all the time.



Well, isnt that what Evolution is ? It all started with one cell in a lava boiling hot mud hole that was struck by lighting ?
or is that modell out the window too ?
is that what is is ALL about? I don't think so. Just the theory on how it got started. No one was there so there is no way to tell. *laughs*


I don't read to much about Evolution, cause it changes all the time...


like how? Usually the knowledge found is just adding, or only changing some partial discoveries, doesn't negate evolution, anymore then discovering a new cosmic body changes astronomy. And it sounds like an excuse to avoid the subject.



Where did whales come from ?

hahaha the same place human babies come from. I don't know if your old enough to ask that question yet.


Actually, I personally think that the whale evolution is the most fascinating story of all. Quite amazing creatures they are.





some die hard Evo dudes tell me they were Bears crawilng out to sea, other Die hard Evo dudes say I am the idiot for saying that, so , Im guessing the Evo dudes really dont know what it is they are learning or teaching others.... just seems like it ..


bears? that is a first. If they are saying bears I think you need to reconsider your sources. The first whales were a cross between a deer and a hyena and were probably the ancestors of sheep and hippos.

It was a goofy looking little meat eater.


You seem like an smart guy, where did Bears come from, from the stand point of that First cell (surviveing burning lava when the earth was melted rock and some how had water?) that evolved into several types of cells, brain cells, kidnye cells, liver cells Etc...



you know what, I am going to be honest. That one will just take too long to explain. And I am feeling lazy.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Well.... It looks as though you know the answer to everything huh? By the way, evolution is not science fact, it's just a theory. Nobody on Earth can prove we "evolved" from anything. Have you ever seen something evolve before your eyes? No I didnt think so....



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


What is at stake? Hell, damnation? Now you are talking a whole nother thread that I think is already going.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
haha i agree...i mean i was watchin a doctor show and umbilical cord came up and i was like whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here


So did adam and eve have belly buttons ?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 





So did adam and eve have belly buttons ?

Oh no please not that old redundant cleche crap.
Where did it's Daddy come from Mommy. Get out.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   


firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..


Argh, after having written something, I stumbled about this wiki-entry on the evolution of sexual production, which proves my take totally wrong.



Evolution of sexual reproduction
Scientists currently have developed several competing hypotheses to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

en.wikipedia.org...

I started to take argue the following way, but didn,t finish it:

To understand the origin of sexuality we have to look at the organisms in which this method of reproduction probably evolved:

It were single-celled organisms. If you look at modern microorganisms, you will find numerous different approaches to exchange genetic material. One method for exchange is conjugation, meaning the exchange from parts of their genetic material through direct cell contacts. This can be found in modern bacteria, but also in ciliates.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Organisms practicing conjugation may posses two types of different states, characterizing them either as donors or as recipients, observed under a microscope, they would all look the same.

But for the development of the sexuality, we can find in modern animals and plants, the whole genetic material had to merge in a single cell, combined, and than unevenly divided into 2 daughter cells. This later allowed the development of different genders.

We must assume, that the first organisms, which reproduced sexually, were all from a similar size and showed a similar biology. There were no real genders with different characteristics. What factors led to the development of genders?

1. How do I maximize the chance to find a partner and produce offspring?

To maximize the chance to find a partner and produce offspring, it is beneficial, that the partner is not only encountered by random chance. One method to heighten the chances was the production of chemical substances, secreting them into the water. Other possible partners could follow this trail via chemotaxis, like they use chemotaxis for other needs.
en.wikipedia.org...

Producing substances and releasing them into the evironment, without a guarantee of gaining a benefit, costs the cell material and energy, the large organism with the gene X was better able to account for these costs.
Following the trail was easier for the smaller mobile organism with the gene Y.

But more importantly, consider the following thought experiment:

2. How is the chance of survival of the offspring maximized?

So there seems to be no consensus among evolutionary biologists about the origin of sexuality. This is not really astounding. In fact, if you look at modern evolution-research, you will find that biologists have conflicting theories about many, many things regarding the history of evolution, modern organisms had to undergo. What they don't disagree about: That there was and is evolution going on.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



I want to know if you see how completely impossible both sides of this arguement are?


I don't view evolution as impossible because it is an observed occurrence in nature. It's like demanding gravity doesn't really exist because no theory of gravity agrees on how gravity works.


I'm saying if you think about it.


I've had ample time to give it serious consideration. I've researched it to a point where I can confidently state that it's a man made concept of where the universe came from.


How unimaginable it is if God does exist.


I find it very hard to imagine that the monotheistic God must inherently be the right God or only God. There have been thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various religious systems through out human history and there still continues to be new one's concocted in our modern day and age, all claiming to be the one true religion. The monotheistic religion is like the middle child in these various beliefs. It's not the first or oldest, but it's not the newest or youngest either. Obviously it isn't the most correct as it's nothing more than man made speculation on where the universe came from.

To top that off, demanding evolution must inherently be false because life itself is viewed as too complex to have arisen naturally seems very contradictory to me in light of an infinite God. I view an infinite God as inherently *more complex* than life that is incapable of the same complex powers of creation that an infinite God is capable of. If life is too complex to arise naturally, and God is infinitely more complex than lowly life, then God should require an even greater creator than himself. Plus, there is no logical reason to believe in only one God. Why not believe in fifty-nine creators acting in unison?


Out of those shoes into the others and look how it is just as unimaginable that he doen't exist.


I understand that the concept of God and an afterlife makes thing's a tad bit easier for some folks, I really get that; But just because we wish something were true, no matter how hard, doesn't make it so. There is no more evidence for your God than there is for three thousand other Gods nor evidence that I am God testing your faith in me right now.


Now at this point you could flip a coin. But why would you do that
when so much could be at stake.


I don't have anything at stake. I don't have a soul, I'm not going to live after I die and I see no evidence for the monotheistic version of heaven and hell. Why would I believe "just in case"? If there were a God, I really doubt he would accept me because I believe in him only so I didn't go to hell for not believing in him. Heck, even if there were a God, I seriously doubt that he actually would require that a small world of people out of billions or trillions of other worlds in all of creation must worship him. If God seriously needs my worship for him to love me, then he can kiss my a**, I'll side with Satan because I don't do thing's that way. I don't love anyone because they force me too. And yes, it is forceful because if I don't I would be punished to hell. If you want to worship someone who has consistently proven himself capable of killing your own kind because they didn't kiss a** 24/7, that's your choice.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by moocowman
 





So did adam and eve have belly buttons ?

Oh no please not that old redundant cleche crap.
Where did it's Daddy come from Mommy. Get out.



It's a valid question, I'm actually curious myself. I never thought of that before lol. Any religious person want to take a crack at this one?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





What is at stake? Hell, damnation? Now you are talking a whole nother thread that I think is already going

You're not that fast of a learner are you.
I bet you finish peoples sentences for them all the time too.
Always being wrong and yet you persist in the hope someday you will be right. So far that day isn't today.



new topics




 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join