I don't get it. There are no gods. If you call that faith, what does it matter? Let's just say I have faith that there are no gods. What do you win? What is the big deal? You are faith-based and consider faith to be a virtue that is a worthy attribute. We don't use the word very often and it doesn't mean the same thing to us. We think of you when we think of people of faith.
have you been raised in a cave with no contact of the outside world all your life? hahaha! there are people who will say all religions are true... "all roads lead to rome" meaning just pick a religion for yourself because in the end all religions lead to God.
when did i say agnostics are religious? you are just making up stuff!
I did however said atheism is religious. it fits perfectly with a belief system cause it is a worldview which has zero evidence for being accurate and correct.
@gerinja Wait...are you saying just pick a religion 'cause they all lead to God? Or what particular religion are you professing is the one true religion? And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Also, is this video saying that any non-belief is a faith and therefore a religion...such as an abandoned 12yr old who Believes his mom will not return? According to this video, "congratulations you have admitted you do believe, therefore you have faith", suggests he has faith. Is this correct?
Atheism is the disbelief in god. Not the belief that there is no god. What is the difference you may ask? If it were the belief that there is no god, then we would be making a claim. But we reject a claim that god exists. The word "atheism" came AFTER religion.
@ChinnuWoW No belief? then you are claiming ignorance. its a position you can take which means you will not take sides on whether God exist or not. It is called Agnosticism. write it down on your notes. is that what you are? then you sure cannot comment on the debate of God existence. and I will agree you have no belief.
@gerinja Agnostics are not sure whether a god exists or not...... I am an atheist which means that I do not believe in god.... And how is having no belief, ignorance?? Go back to school
@gerinja Theism can have only 1 religion or none. It is impossible to have 2 religions. They all work differently and would contradict the shit out of each other.
Yes agnostics state that they don't know. But they can't have a religion with a god in it because they would be sure that god exists and they would be a theist. So agnostics cannot be in a religion with god. Impossible.
So according to you, everything that has opinions in it is a belief system? Are governments belief systems?
@ChinnuWoW there are theists that believe all religions are true. which is erroneous, but nevertheless such people do exist.
i never said that agnostics are religious in anyway in my last reply. so what you said about agnostics seems correct on the last reply. at least one brain point in your favor.
everything that has opinions is a belief system when you are talking about God. origins of life, supernatural or any topics alike.
@gerinja It's impossible to properly follow every religion in the world. There would literaly be millions of contradictions. Like the bible which already has hundreds.
I know you said that agnostic are religious. But you said it's possible for agnostics to be religious.
You mean stuff that has zero evidence? A belief system has to have a big story about creation and many people need to follow it.
If I tell you that I have an invisible blue dragon. you then ask for proof of that blue dragon and I say that the dragon cant be sensed in any way (taste touch sight smell sound) does it take faith for you to not believe in that invisible undetectible blue dragon? I really want people who make this atheist faith argument to answer this question but they never do.
@twizelby easy question! i would not believe you because it is just your say so that you have an invisible blue dragon that cannot be sensed. As opposed to God and scriptures is not a person's say so. there are many that testify. apart from that there is a way to feel God's presence, apart from that there are logical arguments for the existence of God. and more...
@gerinja so you are going off the testimony of people you have never met who are long dead.all religions claim to feel the presence of god so feeling the presence of a specific god is moot.I am not aware of any logical proofs of the existence of god that really stand up to scrutiny. even if you could rationally deduce the existence of a god it wouldn't automatically mean it was your god. belief in religion requires faith, faith is defined as belief without proof, therefore the analogy is valid
@twizelby testimony plays a small part of me believing in God. but also i told you that is not my only claim! there is much more than that! logic proves God. the historical events of Jesus of Nazareth confirmed by historians. Christianity on the raise just as scriptures prophecy. fulfilled prophecies. arguments such as the Kalam cosmological argument. the moral argument for God. The fine tuning of the universe argument for God. the dead sea scrolls, and so on and on. yes there is more!
@gerinja kalams cosmological argument can be broken down to read as such "every finite or contingent thing has a cause." in other words its not really an argument for god just cause and effect. if you try to argue objective morality dont pick Christianity as the religion that it supports. see 2
@gerinja 2 gods commandments must be in line with his holy loving nature right? so then is it loving to keep slaves is this objectively moral? but the loving moral law giver commanded it, and his commandments must be in line with his loving nature. is murdering non virgin brides objectively moral? no. did the loving moral law giver command it? yes. god commands that we love our neighbors and yet god commands the death of others. he condemns himself by his own moral standard.
@gerinja fine tuning? a rock flying through space that has been struck by giant rocks and has had several mass extinction events is fine tuning? you also have to look at the sample size we have. we have one planet with life that we know of. whos to say there isnt life on others? whos to say that there arent lots of other universes that have even better conditions for life then ours?
@gerinja no the big difference between you and I is that I can admit that I dont know what really happened in order to create the univers and even if philisophically I believed in a god or gods, which one/group would I pick?
@twizelby ok. then you don't know. I however claim I DO know. how do I know? I use my brain and think that from nothing, nothing can be produced. life cannot come from non-life. There had to be a creator of all things. Just like a painting required a painter. a building an architect and so on. use simple logic, that should lead you to the conclusion that God does exist.
@gerinja no atheist claims everything came from nothing we just claim that we dont have a definitive answer yet. abiogenesis didnt come from nothing it came from phospholiplids and monomers joining through basic and natural chemical processes then competition being developed by the rate at which the membrane expanded and split due to waves rocks etc and then convected deep within the ocean by thermal vents.
@twizelby "no atheist claims everything came from nothing" then i think you don't know your own fellow atheists. anyone can come to the conclusion that God exist, just by doing critical thinking. the computer you are using to communicate with me over the internet had to be design, and had a designer. you do not see the designer, but can you really say you do not know for sure if the computer you are using had designer?
@gerinja so giving you the naturalistic reasons why tides go in an out via gravitational pull would you still say there is a tide maker? you cant compare things that have natural explanations to those that have human involvement its an incongruent comparison.
@twizelby well the question there would be why is there gravitational pull? explaining how something functions does not answer the why. the bible is explanation of why of everything. because God willed it.
@gerinja asking why somehing is begs the question. just because you cant explain something doesnt mean god did it by default. its an assumption and therfore you are taking it on faith and by the argument proposed in your video it is illogical
@twizelby Nope! that is simple logic. example: you find a watch on the street. lets say you are then asked if the watch was just product of natural causes or was designed by a mind or you simply don't know what made the watch. I know what my answer would be. but i guess you would either take the natural causes or the "i don't know." answer which is not logical.
debating about this example and the creation of the universe are two separate comparisons, but the concept is the same.
@gerinja the watch cant reproduce and couldn't evolve therefore it couldn't come from evolution and it couldn't have come from physics because of the principals of entropy. the planets are spherical and they also revolve because of gravity/physics spheres arent complicated, life evolved because it can reproduce and it started simple. there is a big difference between the two and the analogy holds no water. also "I dont know" is not illogical because it doesnt make any claim
@twizelby still, the watch is a machine. we are also machines in a sense with much more complexity than a watch.
Well, i would not say "I don't know" to such a question. It seems that the only logical answer (for humans with thinking brains) is to say that it was design by a mind. Now one could not see who design the watch, but specified complexity requires intelligence!
@gerinja organisms started off simply not with "specified complexity" as I said as some monomers and a phospholipid membrane. anyone who knows about how evolution works knows that you dont start with a complex organism thats what creationists claim. So if the watch could reproduce perhaps its origin would be a wheel, then it would evolve a second gear and it could crush pecans then it would develop a small hour hand and could spin the hand quickly and scare predators.
@gerinja it doesnt go from complex to simple because the fittest individuals in nature survive, if the weakest survived then evolution wouldnt work. which do you think would survive in the dessert a cactus with a highly evolved vacuole or one with a very tiny vacuole? the one with the large vacuole of course! it wouldnt benefit a cactus (in the dessert) to develop a much less complex system of water storage
@twizelby what i am trying to get is: what is the drive of natural selection? I mean why try to survive? if matter is only matter there is no reason why there would be something trying to survive or do anything for that matter.
@gerinja living things are made up of matter, survival came out of a single "cell" being the larger of 2 cells. the bigger "cell" would have had the advantage in absorbing other ones and gaining the monomers within the other hence the first drive for competition and survival. after that it became about he best suited protiens etc then when multi celled organisms evovled they had the brains to develop instinct further driving competition.
@twizelby yea, i know, but why did that cell care to survive or not survive? did it just by accident have a survival gene? if you say that it was its nature to survive, why couldn't its nature be to die. simplicity would indicate that it had greater possibility to die.
@twizelby I have to say something as far as natural selection,genetic variation,and reproduction goes.. If variation came from mutations,can't that still be true? If organisms reproduced asexually at one point in time then evolved sexual reproductive behavior.. why would they evolve that? Sexual reproduction is way more expensive as far as resources and energy goes and asexual reproduction is much faster. Why would we have evolved that if it was more efficient and faster to reproduce asexually?
@freekazoid05 because survivability increases when you have the genes of 2 different individuals . the reason for this is that their are more genetic variations when you combine the genes from 2 individual thus more chances to come up with offspring that have really good genetic adaptaions. if you just make copies of yourself these beneficial variations take a lot longer to develop
@twizelby Ok but wouldn't sexual reproduction take even longer to develop being as how both male and female have to have specialized parts/organs? How would the development of these parts be synchronized between two organisms especially if they still reproduce asexually? Like How could 2 different organisms have a corresponding mutation that just happens to work out?
@freekazoid05 this is a common conception about evolution that I didnt know about for a long time either. so individuals have the small changes but the population inherits the trait if it is beneficial. so really the population is evolving not the individual. sexual reproduction would have been evolved with the whole population not a big jump with one individual. im not sure I explained that well enough so if that doesn't make good sense I will try to break it down further.
@twizelby Hmmm.. I still don't quite get it though... a mutation would have to start with one individual. If evolution is true how did male and female come about? As in why is it that we aren't all male or all female? Or anything in between?
@freekazoid05 1) ok lets take apart the things that make sex for us. do animals need penetrating genitals? no, see splash pregnancy or salmon.does a female need a uterus? no, birds lay eggs.do gonads need to be complex multi-cellular organs? nematodes have gonads made of only 41 cells. and a single cell called volvox produces both eggs and sperm with no gonads at all. do sperm need flagellum? no some creatures rely on water currents in order to fertilize each other.
@freekazoid05 2) do we need gametes? no spirogya has each of its cells as either male or female. also yeast reproduces by simply merging with another cell. then serperating. do things need opposite genders. no again see yeast. so everything after the most simple form of reproduction is superfluous and not needed to create offspring. it is not irreducibly complex because we can see how things could operate without all the "bells and whistles."
@twizelby So if everything after asexual reproduction is superfluous,as far as evolution,why is it needed? Wouldn't simplicity be best?I'm in prosthetics..when I go to design a knee joint,I don't set out to make the most complicated knee I can make.All it has to do is mimic the natural knee motion.If we are simply a product of evolution and nothing more,why are we so complicated?We don't even understand our own brain. I'm not saying it's proof of God but if we can't understand it, who else can?
@freekazoid05 I think you have unwittingly misrepresented my argument. while simple is just fine at creating functional devices the added competition produces better suited adaptations. you are in prosthetic's which is perfect for exploring this topic. if you had one leg and were going to race, and you had the choice between a peg leg and a modern running prosthetic in that race what would you choose?
@twizelby Hmm carbon fiber leg it is :) .. BUT what exactly started this race? I understand that a struggle for resources could trigger it but why struggle for resources if in realty that organism is going to die without meaning or purpose? Are WE just organisms with out meaning or purpose? The question of why we are here still remains unanswered. We have our opinions. I think life is worth living for God, who has given me purpose in prosthetics. What's your opinion?
@freekazoid05 my opinion is my own. the greatest peace of simple wisdom I have is I yam what I yam. again a "why" begs the question. I dont understand peoples need for a why we exist seeing as how it could never be defined without sheer conjecture. if you want to know exactly where competition originated amongst non living self replicating amino acid chains its going to take a couple of comment boxes but the simple answer is thermodynamics, one phospholipid membrane big enough to swallow another
@twizelby Hmmm.. I guess that's it then. We both ask questions but we ask different questions. I ask why. You ask how. There's no problem with that. That's just how each of see's the world. Well you don't have to write the 2 comment boxes, altho I will say you are the most delightful atheist I've ever talked to. Thank you for taking the time to teach me. :)
@twizelby Well I guess "teaching" isn't quite the right word but you have told about things I didn't know about. Things that I can go research on my own. So thanks! :)
@freekazoid05 I also dont understand why people believe that atheism requires nihilism. skepticism is more important to me then atheism and in that regard nihilism doesnt make sense. if you believe in nothing then you believe nothing is everything so you believe in everything. why would life be worth anything more if there is a god? I mean if their is a heaven, shouldn't we just look forward to death? if this is the only life, dont you think thats more motivation to make the here and now better?
@twizelby no. you failed to understand! the point is that there are atheists that claim that atheism is not faith. but in reality atheism is a faith based system. claiming atheism is not faith is a contraction therefore irrational.
@gerinja so in other words it takes faith to believe that there is no Allah after all there is testimony of his great works. so you have faith that Allah doesn't exist right?
I don't get it. There are no gods. If you call that faith, what does it matter? Let's just say I have faith that there are no gods. What do you win? What is the big deal? You are faith-based and consider faith to be a virtue that is a worthy attribute. We don't use the word very often and it doesn't mean the same thing to us. We think of you when we think of people of faith.
matthewtaylorbrown 3 weeks ago
have you been raised in a cave with no contact of the outside world all your life? hahaha! there are people who will say all religions are true... "all roads lead to rome" meaning just pick a religion for yourself because in the end all religions lead to God.
when did i say agnostics are religious? you are just making up stuff!
I did however said atheism is religious. it fits perfectly with a belief system cause it is a worldview which has zero evidence for being accurate and correct.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja Wait...are you saying just pick a religion 'cause they all lead to God? Or what particular religion are you professing is the one true religion? And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Also, is this video saying that any non-belief is a faith and therefore a religion...such as an abandoned 12yr old who Believes his mom will not return? According to this video, "congratulations you have admitted you do believe, therefore you have faith", suggests he has faith. Is this correct?
sickJLSrecords 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Atheism is the disbelief in god. Not the belief that there is no god. What is the difference you may ask? If it were the belief that there is no god, then we would be making a claim. But we reject a claim that god exists. The word "atheism" came AFTER religion.
ChinnuWoW 3 months ago
@ChinnuWoW No belief? then you are claiming ignorance. its a position you can take which means you will not take sides on whether God exist or not. It is called Agnosticism. write it down on your notes. is that what you are? then you sure cannot comment on the debate of God existence. and I will agree you have no belief.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja Agnostics are not sure whether a god exists or not...... I am an atheist which means that I do not believe in god.... And how is having no belief, ignorance?? Go back to school
ChinnuWoW 3 months ago
@ChinnuWoW
Theist = believe God exist (positive claim. belief)
Agnostic = don't know if God exist (no claim, no belief)
Atheist = believe God does no exist (negative claim, belief)
Clear?
If you are an Atheist you are making a negative claim, which is your belief.
Agnostics claim nothing, they say "I don't know" which is ignorance.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja Nope.
Theist=believe in god (positive claim, Belief, Rejection of belief in every other religion)
Agnostic=unsure(No claim No belief Rejection of belief in religions) Not ignorance. An opinion.
Atheist=Disbelieve in god (Rejection in a claim (not a new one),No belief, Rejection in the belief of god and all religions except buddhism)
Don't you think that this is a better definition?
ChinnuWoW 3 months ago
@ChinnuWoW Wrong on all three! Theists can also believe in more than one religion. its not a rule.
Agnostics don't reject anything. they simply state that they don't know.
Atheist do reject the claims by Theists so they already have an opinion and makes them believe in their opinion.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja Theism can have only 1 religion or none. It is impossible to have 2 religions. They all work differently and would contradict the shit out of each other.
Yes agnostics state that they don't know. But they can't have a religion with a god in it because they would be sure that god exists and they would be a theist. So agnostics cannot be in a religion with god. Impossible.
So according to you, everything that has opinions in it is a belief system? Are governments belief systems?
ChinnuWoW 3 months ago
@ChinnuWoW there are theists that believe all religions are true. which is erroneous, but nevertheless such people do exist.
i never said that agnostics are religious in anyway in my last reply. so what you said about agnostics seems correct on the last reply. at least one brain point in your favor.
everything that has opinions is a belief system when you are talking about God. origins of life, supernatural or any topics alike.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja It's impossible to properly follow every religion in the world. There would literaly be millions of contradictions. Like the bible which already has hundreds.
I know you said that agnostic are religious. But you said it's possible for agnostics to be religious.
You mean stuff that has zero evidence? A belief system has to have a big story about creation and many people need to follow it.
ChinnuWoW 3 months ago
So not believing in something requires you to believe it?
peronkop 3 months ago
If I tell you that I have an invisible blue dragon. you then ask for proof of that blue dragon and I say that the dragon cant be sensed in any way (taste touch sight smell sound) does it take faith for you to not believe in that invisible undetectible blue dragon? I really want people who make this atheist faith argument to answer this question but they never do.
twizelby 3 months ago 2
@twizelby easy question! i would not believe you because it is just your say so that you have an invisible blue dragon that cannot be sensed. As opposed to God and scriptures is not a person's say so. there are many that testify. apart from that there is a way to feel God's presence, apart from that there are logical arguments for the existence of God. and more...
so your comparison is not equal, sorry!
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja so you are going off the testimony of people you have never met who are long dead.all religions claim to feel the presence of god so feeling the presence of a specific god is moot.I am not aware of any logical proofs of the existence of god that really stand up to scrutiny. even if you could rationally deduce the existence of a god it wouldn't automatically mean it was your god. belief in religion requires faith, faith is defined as belief without proof, therefore the analogy is valid
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby testimony plays a small part of me believing in God. but also i told you that is not my only claim! there is much more than that! logic proves God. the historical events of Jesus of Nazareth confirmed by historians. Christianity on the raise just as scriptures prophecy. fulfilled prophecies. arguments such as the Kalam cosmological argument. the moral argument for God. The fine tuning of the universe argument for God. the dead sea scrolls, and so on and on. yes there is more!
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja kalams cosmological argument can be broken down to read as such "every finite or contingent thing has a cause." in other words its not really an argument for god just cause and effect. if you try to argue objective morality dont pick Christianity as the religion that it supports. see 2
twizelby 3 months ago
@gerinja 2 gods commandments must be in line with his holy loving nature right? so then is it loving to keep slaves is this objectively moral? but the loving moral law giver commanded it, and his commandments must be in line with his loving nature. is murdering non virgin brides objectively moral? no. did the loving moral law giver command it? yes. god commands that we love our neighbors and yet god commands the death of others. he condemns himself by his own moral standard.
twizelby 3 months ago
@gerinja fine tuning? a rock flying through space that has been struck by giant rocks and has had several mass extinction events is fine tuning? you also have to look at the sample size we have. we have one planet with life that we know of. whos to say there isnt life on others? whos to say that there arent lots of other universes that have even better conditions for life then ours?
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby that is the big difference between you and me, friend. I see design in the universe while you probably say "it just happened that way"
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja no the big difference between you and I is that I can admit that I dont know what really happened in order to create the univers and even if philisophically I believed in a god or gods, which one/group would I pick?
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby ok. then you don't know. I however claim I DO know. how do I know? I use my brain and think that from nothing, nothing can be produced. life cannot come from non-life. There had to be a creator of all things. Just like a painting required a painter. a building an architect and so on. use simple logic, that should lead you to the conclusion that God does exist.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja no atheist claims everything came from nothing we just claim that we dont have a definitive answer yet. abiogenesis didnt come from nothing it came from phospholiplids and monomers joining through basic and natural chemical processes then competition being developed by the rate at which the membrane expanded and split due to waves rocks etc and then convected deep within the ocean by thermal vents.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby "no atheist claims everything came from nothing" then i think you don't know your own fellow atheists. anyone can come to the conclusion that God exist, just by doing critical thinking. the computer you are using to communicate with me over the internet had to be design, and had a designer. you do not see the designer, but can you really say you do not know for sure if the computer you are using had designer?
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja so giving you the naturalistic reasons why tides go in an out via gravitational pull would you still say there is a tide maker? you cant compare things that have natural explanations to those that have human involvement its an incongruent comparison.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby well the question there would be why is there gravitational pull? explaining how something functions does not answer the why. the bible is explanation of why of everything. because God willed it.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja asking why somehing is begs the question. just because you cant explain something doesnt mean god did it by default. its an assumption and therfore you are taking it on faith and by the argument proposed in your video it is illogical
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Nope! that is simple logic. example: you find a watch on the street. lets say you are then asked if the watch was just product of natural causes or was designed by a mind or you simply don't know what made the watch. I know what my answer would be. but i guess you would either take the natural causes or the "i don't know." answer which is not logical.
debating about this example and the creation of the universe are two separate comparisons, but the concept is the same.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja the watch cant reproduce and couldn't evolve therefore it couldn't come from evolution and it couldn't have come from physics because of the principals of entropy. the planets are spherical and they also revolve because of gravity/physics spheres arent complicated, life evolved because it can reproduce and it started simple. there is a big difference between the two and the analogy holds no water. also "I dont know" is not illogical because it doesnt make any claim
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby still, the watch is a machine. we are also machines in a sense with much more complexity than a watch.
Well, i would not say "I don't know" to such a question. It seems that the only logical answer (for humans with thinking brains) is to say that it was design by a mind. Now one could not see who design the watch, but specified complexity requires intelligence!
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja organisms started off simply not with "specified complexity" as I said as some monomers and a phospholipid membrane. anyone who knows about how evolution works knows that you dont start with a complex organism thats what creationists claim. So if the watch could reproduce perhaps its origin would be a wheel, then it would evolve a second gear and it could crush pecans then it would develop a small hour hand and could spin the hand quickly and scare predators.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby ok, why do you think we went from simple to complex?
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja because we evolved from simple to complex organisms due to natural selection, genetic variation, and reproduction
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby why doesn't it go from complex to simple?
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja it doesnt go from complex to simple because the fittest individuals in nature survive, if the weakest survived then evolution wouldnt work. which do you think would survive in the dessert a cactus with a highly evolved vacuole or one with a very tiny vacuole? the one with the large vacuole of course! it wouldnt benefit a cactus (in the dessert) to develop a much less complex system of water storage
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby what i am trying to get is: what is the drive of natural selection? I mean why try to survive? if matter is only matter there is no reason why there would be something trying to survive or do anything for that matter.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja living things are made up of matter, survival came out of a single "cell" being the larger of 2 cells. the bigger "cell" would have had the advantage in absorbing other ones and gaining the monomers within the other hence the first drive for competition and survival. after that it became about he best suited protiens etc then when multi celled organisms evovled they had the brains to develop instinct further driving competition.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby yea, i know, but why did that cell care to survive or not survive? did it just by accident have a survival gene? if you say that it was its nature to survive, why couldn't its nature be to die. simplicity would indicate that it had greater possibility to die.
gerinja 3 months ago
@twizelby I have to say something as far as natural selection,genetic variation,and reproduction goes.. If variation came from mutations,can't that still be true? If organisms reproduced asexually at one point in time then evolved sexual reproductive behavior.. why would they evolve that? Sexual reproduction is way more expensive as far as resources and energy goes and asexual reproduction is much faster. Why would we have evolved that if it was more efficient and faster to reproduce asexually?
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 because survivability increases when you have the genes of 2 different individuals . the reason for this is that their are more genetic variations when you combine the genes from 2 individual thus more chances to come up with offspring that have really good genetic adaptaions. if you just make copies of yourself these beneficial variations take a lot longer to develop
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Ok but wouldn't sexual reproduction take even longer to develop being as how both male and female have to have specialized parts/organs? How would the development of these parts be synchronized between two organisms especially if they still reproduce asexually? Like How could 2 different organisms have a corresponding mutation that just happens to work out?
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 this is a common conception about evolution that I didnt know about for a long time either. so individuals have the small changes but the population inherits the trait if it is beneficial. so really the population is evolving not the individual. sexual reproduction would have been evolved with the whole population not a big jump with one individual. im not sure I explained that well enough so if that doesn't make good sense I will try to break it down further.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Hmmm.. I still don't quite get it though... a mutation would have to start with one individual. If evolution is true how did male and female come about? As in why is it that we aren't all male or all female? Or anything in between?
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 1) ok lets take apart the things that make sex for us. do animals need penetrating genitals? no, see splash pregnancy or salmon.does a female need a uterus? no, birds lay eggs.do gonads need to be complex multi-cellular organs? nematodes have gonads made of only 41 cells. and a single cell called volvox produces both eggs and sperm with no gonads at all. do sperm need flagellum? no some creatures rely on water currents in order to fertilize each other.
twizelby 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 2) do we need gametes? no spirogya has each of its cells as either male or female. also yeast reproduces by simply merging with another cell. then serperating. do things need opposite genders. no again see yeast. so everything after the most simple form of reproduction is superfluous and not needed to create offspring. it is not irreducibly complex because we can see how things could operate without all the "bells and whistles."
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby So if everything after asexual reproduction is superfluous,as far as evolution,why is it needed? Wouldn't simplicity be best?I'm in prosthetics..when I go to design a knee joint,I don't set out to make the most complicated knee I can make.All it has to do is mimic the natural knee motion.If we are simply a product of evolution and nothing more,why are we so complicated?We don't even understand our own brain. I'm not saying it's proof of God but if we can't understand it, who else can?
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 I think you have unwittingly misrepresented my argument. while simple is just fine at creating functional devices the added competition produces better suited adaptations. you are in prosthetic's which is perfect for exploring this topic. if you had one leg and were going to race, and you had the choice between a peg leg and a modern running prosthetic in that race what would you choose?
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Hmm carbon fiber leg it is :) .. BUT what exactly started this race? I understand that a struggle for resources could trigger it but why struggle for resources if in realty that organism is going to die without meaning or purpose? Are WE just organisms with out meaning or purpose? The question of why we are here still remains unanswered. We have our opinions. I think life is worth living for God, who has given me purpose in prosthetics. What's your opinion?
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 my opinion is my own. the greatest peace of simple wisdom I have is I yam what I yam. again a "why" begs the question. I dont understand peoples need for a why we exist seeing as how it could never be defined without sheer conjecture. if you want to know exactly where competition originated amongst non living self replicating amino acid chains its going to take a couple of comment boxes but the simple answer is thermodynamics, one phospholipid membrane big enough to swallow another
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Hmmm.. I guess that's it then. We both ask questions but we ask different questions. I ask why. You ask how. There's no problem with that. That's just how each of see's the world. Well you don't have to write the 2 comment boxes, altho I will say you are the most delightful atheist I've ever talked to. Thank you for taking the time to teach me. :)
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 I hope i didnt come off as trying to teach you. I just like debating! its been fun thanks for a challenging discusion
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby Well I guess "teaching" isn't quite the right word but you have told about things I didn't know about. Things that I can go research on my own. So thanks! :)
freekazoid05 3 months ago
@freekazoid05 I also dont understand why people believe that atheism requires nihilism. skepticism is more important to me then atheism and in that regard nihilism doesnt make sense. if you believe in nothing then you believe nothing is everything so you believe in everything. why would life be worth anything more if there is a god? I mean if their is a heaven, shouldn't we just look forward to death? if this is the only life, dont you think thats more motivation to make the here and now better?
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby there*
twizelby 3 months ago
so in other words all kinds of faith makes you irrational and therefore all religion is irrational.
twizelby 3 months ago
@twizelby no. you failed to understand! the point is that there are atheists that claim that atheism is not faith. but in reality atheism is a faith based system. claiming atheism is not faith is a contraction therefore irrational.
gerinja 3 months ago
@gerinja so in other words it takes faith to believe that there is no Allah after all there is testimony of his great works. so you have faith that Allah doesn't exist right?
twizelby 3 months ago