Sir, the point is that evolution insists on life coming from a dead matter. Yes, over billions of years...It rained down on rocks and soup of chemicals...Then through a super-duper-complicated process....The first self-duplicating living cell appeared. How? They don't know.
It is now known that Ants and termites (and probably lots of other creatures)( use smell to coordinate their efforts!. As an insect basses another, it ribs a leg onto a passing insect. On the leg is residue from where it has been giving the insect a notion of what is going on and what it is to do!.
but to counter what your saying scientists have noticed that termites are able to react to dangers far to fast for it to be them comuacting just by smell alone
It does not counter what I was saying at all!. I do not profess to have an intuitive knowledge of how termites or ant colonies work, neither does anyone else!. These studies take 20 or more years and are conducted in a very exacting and specific manor!> We simply need more time, but what we have been able to determine so far is fascinating!. Go to ted talks director on here and find the ant video it blew my mind!.
Talk about an act of arrogance...assuming you know what the infinite is thinking/doing.
That is a flawed way of thinking...making the assumption first and then spinning random facts to meet that assumption. That is not the scientific method and not good thinking.
Oh, and we do know that termites communicate via smells...what we don't know (yet) is how that process works. Give us a few more years and we'll figure that out too.
lets see it requires a specific amount of elements and then energy, such as a huge lightning, to create a small cell like creature, that creature must then find some sort of food before it dies, and thus life is born. (or atleast, thats A theory.
WHAT?! David Attenborough, whom this was taken from, is an atheist. Look up HIS opinions on God.
Science hasn't explained everything, it's OKAY to not KNOW.
There are many mysteries to be solved. Just because we haven't explained it does not provide proof to some all-powerful sky daddy.
Termites' biomass outweighs ours and yet they're able to coexist with the planet. Don't lose the message: We have never built something to the scale that these insects have.
Holy fuck, what a stupid video. If termites are inspired by god, does that mean the Aardvark or Anteater that eats them is inspired by Satan? The fact that termites behave differently in different locations shows how evolution is an adaptive process based on local resources and threats. The video insists humans "Cannot" know what motivates termites. This is retarded. Because we don't know doesn't mean "unknowable." Pathetic.
Wow, I was a baboon...what an insult! I'll come to Jesus now! In truth, Im not sure what a "spitit" is but What I have belongs to me, not some imaginary ego maniacal sky tyrant.
What if you don't believe in god??=4= c'mon, use your long abandoned brain a bit. If someone don't believe in god, one will never agree with this "ghost and angry holy spirit" crap.
he in his wisdom has given some parts of the whole to each of us
he sent to each nation a prophet
in thier own tongue
it is not untill we all come together with love and grace that men can even begin to see the all [whollyness] and wisdom of that one living, loving , mercyfull ans all knowing we know simply know as god'good
i shal,l disprove irriducable complexity i shall remove half of the debate [me] you will yet continue the debate or chose not to respond ] either way half has been decomplexity [ised] yet the debate went on not till both were extinct did irc have any validity thus this half of the debate was reduced simple isnt it? one hand talking irc ,not only redifined rebutted now you can prove it by your self [butt half of what was , yet the debate goes on ]
there is no barrier that says micro level adaptation can't, thorugh seperagion, accumlate into macro level changes, to the contrary we have observed the appearence of new species.
irreducably complex, missing one part makes the item in question useless.
what pressures? all pressures, normally a weakness to say moisture would be a big problem, but sense the mound protects them from moisture they won't suffer ill effects and succumb to natural selection.
e via us you hav 'observed'no such thing you have read reports by deluded retards your redefinition of i/r complex would deney evolving pressure/water? you retard ,they drill down to a water source[1/to keep the hive cool 2 because the need water to keep hydrated the mound provides shelter but'from moisture' [is insane as is that its so that]'they wont suffer ill affects to natural selection' your rebutting your self nat sel/either a constant or averted by the mound
irreducably complex, missing one part makes the item in question useless.[crap]
re/'weakness to say moisture would be.. problem'[lack of water much bigger] but sense [scince?}the mound protects them from moisture they won't suffer.. and succumb to natural selection'
shelter protects the hive from preditors , helps set up the right conditions for survival ,water storage [and protection]and presumably that averts those natural selectors ,such as becomming food, prey, or dying from the cold
but moisture protection of itself prevents notural selection [by your measure] how much more nat protective the whole hive in averting the evolutionary ''nat selection
it takes less space to play your mind fuc than to rebut it
again i was wrong on the factuality of moisture weakness, but as you have showen it is good as an example, but not as fact. my example was that if the mound is built in a way to reduce moisture, than an occupant who was born weak to moisture via mutation, won't have that weakness counted against it(nature would select that mutation for removal from the genome)
born weak to moisture ]? dude you got water on the brain i refuse to refute your ongoing igno rants admiting your wrong only allows further error understand bro i dont care of course the mound is water proof [by gods will] who made them able to make a cemenmt like hardness from mere clay 'born weakness to moisture ? we [and they are mostly made from 'moisture'] thus WILL have its ''weakness counted against it' 3 strikes dude
its a hypathetical question man, sure its fundimentally flawed if you look deeply at it, most questions are like that. but you miss my overall point, if the mound protects against something which useually would happen otherwise it would allow bad genes to spread throughout the population because what used to kill off those gene holders is now stopped by the mound.
evirus you persist in fighting god he is all forgiving but jinn dont they [when they know them selves to be morrally in the right ]are very persistant in thier percicutions you clearly have this 'persistantce ' thus will be welcomed with unusaul zeal i dont need to prove anything to you god doent need top prove anything to you the jinn will reveal for you your every error with great joy it is you who chose this no one else
likewise you are presistant in denying evidence. i don't have the forcefulness to convince you, and you don't have the wit to convince me. therfore all points are meaningless.
reports from deluded retards, peer reviewed by deluded retards? you are showing your redneck colors now, just because they say something you don't accept their retards now? provide a better arguement than an ad homenium next time.
i don't believe i have redefined "IRC" and the defination in no way deny's evolution as i originally stated.
as for the moisture thing, i was wrong, thats all you had to say, i was going off of memory.
natural selection is not blind chance that is why you do not understand evolution. and also you have to remember that just because the present state is irreducably complex dosn't mean it was always that way. because again the presures of natural selection are reduced in the areas where the mound makes up for.
the original arguement was that there was no way termites could have evolved because of their dependency on mounds, it sounded like 'IRC' to me, but i get your point.
god gives to whom he will? so basically god chose me not to believe, than you interference with gods will won't look to good when your looking up at his disappointed face would it?
i could care less what you think of me at this point, your spinning your wheels now. but to reject evolution as being the devil's trick does a great disservice to the medical field, which we all owe our lives too. if the evidence fits evolutionary theory, there are only two possabilities; 1 god planted the evidence to trick us(that would interfear with free will wouldn't it) or 2 god created life using evolution.
biodiversity is perfectly explained by the process of evolution, god did it is the oppisite of an explination, it is an appeal to ignorance. if you really wanted to explain it tell me how god did it. and also i don't question the 'majesty' of the termite mounds you describe, there is nothing that says this couldn't have occured through evolutionary processes, therfore it dosn't disprove evolution
bio diversity is a gift , a miricle from god science seeks to evolves into a god less theory ,via labels such as evolution, natural seklectivness[selection[by who] we hold god you hold by science mate your decieved and so full of contracticions that trying to correct your errors is futile till you get god you cant see his proof evil loony tunes is a veil that hides you seeing god remove the blinders dude [or not i dont give a fuckkkl get it?
so god essiently has his hand on every single atom in the universe all the time, making everything we think to be natural super natural, there by cloaking his existance from science. and interesting hypothesis but scientfically meaningless because it is not falsafiable.
e virus not ''not falsafiable'' ?? ,is a deception and sounds to me a double negative some how an apt note to end on i need to prove nothing to you faulsly or truthfully you need prove nothing to me nothing to any human freewill is a test for man to apply love to overcome hate for learning to overcome igno rants no more to say have a nice day
falsafiablity means quite simply that there is a resualt, if it occures, that will show the hypothesis false. something being not falsafiable means that there is no resualt which will prove it false.
do you realy mean to tell me that you don't understand natural selection in the evolutionary sense? you really need a better education if that is the case. natural selection is the short emotionally neutral phrase meaning survival of the best suited for the present enviroment. hence nature "selects" which mutations are good, and which is bad.
you are playing the word games here sir, competition and natural causes, which cause one mutation to be better than another is why we call it natural selection, nature "selects" the good mutations to be more numerous, nothing truely consciously selects in natural selection, its just a name.
concious choice driven by genetic predispositions, still evolution, natural selection by proxy, the strong must still prove their strong, its not like the weak choose to not breed.
there is no question tha mate selection has its effect on populations. im not sure where you are going with this but there are 'selections' that occure before the creature breeds, if a creature is born with one less leg what are the odds of its survival? for that you have to factor things like injury odds, starvation odds, predation odds, and so on, evolution isn't souly dependent on the selection of a mate. if this isn't a good reply please be vary specific on the point you are making.
I'm not a dictionary I'm not your encyclopedia and I'm not your morality voodoo doll, so i will not even attempt to answer any more comments you have that treat me as such, i will reply simply asserting that I'm not your monkey.
you are not my ammusment you are the idiocy that religion breeds, there is a reason why people like you are called a flock of sheep. you don't think for your self, you don't question authority, you dont even care so long as it dosn't directly effect you, good luck with things like super staph, repeat after me "baaaaaaaaaaahhhh" and im not your monkey!
super staph came from the use of antibiotics to cure staph infection, the staph, gifted with the mutation to survive the antibiotics where able to live longer and reproduce more, this IS evolution at work. we only provided the enviroment necessary for their evolutionary lineage. now you deny that these things evolved on their own in response to our internal enviromental changes? you seem to be missing some parts of your brain.
natural selection, american heritage defination: "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." sounds like survival of the fittest to me.
im not the one being repititious here. it is the ones who look at things and ask "look at this, what does evoultion say about this" that are repititiously idiotic in their assertion that a commonly observed thing can trump tons of evidence simply by its mystery.
your posts outnumber all other posters what is this if not repitition? which 'ones' ask 'look at this'? have you? reptilic idiot [my gosh another e virus fact where is your tons of evidence? your vidio proves nothing the other vidio is a 5 minute joke your termite mounds a destraction you now deney the 747 analogy your batting 0 its a mystry wwhy you bother comming here yet never watch [nor comment] on bits of the vidios
all my posts, aside from the introductory one, are replys to creationist claims, if you fail to present unique logical evidence then my replys will be just as unique. the 5 minute video, again, is a exposa of what things we can look to and conclude that the "designer" is truely incompetant. the 747 arguement, although flawed because its not biological, rolls back on itself, the designer MUST have beed designed because of the premises that complex things require design.
you are a great resdponder yet in two posts havnt stated fact just more word play your claim of an incompiant designer mearly seeks to demean god designing god is an absurdity god is not a complex 'thing' remove bio[from] logical you have god logus /logic if it is reason it is because it is of god if its insane its from creation[bio] logic is not complex its natural law you yet again respond to only part god is eternal ,never needed a designer
word play, utter word play which you yourself accuse me of doing, you desplay in this reply. you can define what you think god is all you want, but that dosn't change what god is. and if you are saying god is NOT complex than you agree you don't need complexity to create complexity, which means the idea of intelligent design is meaningless.
'if you are saying god is NOT complex than you agree you don't need complexity to create complexity, which means the idea of intelligent design is meaningless'
god is so simple even a child can get him
for god it is as simple as him thinking 'be 'and it is
god makes things simple
to demand complexity is to miss god alltogether
intelligent designs complexity arose in god meeting our needs
yah it was simple to say weather was simply gods will, the esclipse of the sun? gods will, meateor impacts? gods will. of all the "god did it" explinations that have been backed up by simplicity i find it vary asinine that you think that this is some how different. thats all i have to say on the subject, im not your monkey.
its not on the net because its not on the net, peer reviewed articles are rarely available without a hassle, go to a college campus or library, there are a few websites only allow access to those IP addresses(sad but true) the site jstor might have it but again its IP locked
evolution has been directly observed. The natural selection have been directly observed. Every modern (not influenced by notoriuos evolutiondeniers) mainbook in biology have a piece on evolution and on an example of the natural selection in process. Mine has a piece on the natural selection among some birds on the Galapagos.
there will never be enough for creationists thats why, its a lame presuit to publish some book simply listing all the evidences of evolution when one can simply go to a library that has internet access to scholarly journals and look through the thousands of articles on the subject. google scholar will get you the titles and maybe the abstracts, maybe the article if your really lucky.
Well it's a fine example of natural selection at work. This "arcitechture" have been modified through years and years, and continuily adapts to the environment. The ones lacking adaptations simply dies, and those succes in adaptations survive. The different elements of the "architecture" is hence the result of the natural selections of what works for the termites.
that is a total strawman, the formation of the earth, the sun, and the moon, as well as our evolution are all the resualt of vary well defined rules with which all of reality operates at. remember reality dosn't care about your ego. and even if the occurance of any of the four factors is extremly low in probability, its obvious that it happend because.... this message was sent.
you must be out of your mind to think that. are you actually suggesting that an atom wants to bind with another atom? that an atom wants to fuse or devide? you have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of 'rules' as it pretains to the operation of nonliving things
2 matter dosn't act on its own occords, therefore invalid
3 nature being defined as the physical constants of the universe IS valid
4 is untestable and unfalsifiable, therefore invalid
by 'rules' i mean things like physical laws, like say if you exert a force on a wall an equal force will be exerted on you, does the wall choose to do it? no, it must do it much like you must eat and drink in order to survive longer than a month.
as for "perfect universe" thats hardly the case from our vatnage point, look for the video "stupid design" here on youtube for a little more specifics on that point, but in a nutshell "there are tons of things in the universe, aswell as our own planet, that will kill us, there are also examples of creatures with better features then ours, dolphans who are less likely to choke because of different breathing and eating holes for example.
so his lack of mention confirms his belief that god did it? you sir are a complete jack ass in your arguement style. you continue to present fallacious arguements without even a second thought. and the arguement is that an intelligent designer wouldn't have created a universe built for humans in such an incompetant way.
adhoc reasoning at the end, you are redefining the intentions of god to put a better light on the negative evidence. and you wan't evidence for evolution, the drug resistant staph infection making its rounds both in humans and in the news. mutation, natural selection, leading to the more drug resistant having more offspring. simple
again you assert the arguement from ignorance incredulity, you don't know and can't explain therefore god is the only suitable explination even for those who do know and can explain. sex organs are located primarly because the process of fetal devlopment and the stage at which sexual differences devlop.
hay you brought it up don't expect me to instantly search for your source i give you some credit, although now its extremly little. and i wasn't insulting you i was insulting your arguement style, arguements from ignorance and incredulity are vary well known logical fallacies, look them up it will make you a better arguer.
you make arguement after arguement that can be summerized by saying "you don't believe therefore i am better than you, there fore no matter what you say it is always false because you don't believe" and then you have the FUCKING NERVE TO CALL ME A WASTE OF SPACE, your arguements are weak, shallow and annoying at best, the only reason why i give them the time of day is to attempt to demonstrate their idiocity!
and that is why your ILK will never get their say in science, you can't base reality on spiritual extortion. if you wan't to argue, which is what you are doing(arguement is simple a premise and the conclusion that fallows that premise) you should stay away from fallacies which you your self commit in nearly every post. im not of your flock and never will be!
and your delusion''fallows the'' [your own]premise''[because you put up no fact[only your endless debate]
the fallacies you commit ensure we will never 'flock'' together
i dont base my reality on spiritual extortuiion[in what way can you dare to say this ,i have a duty to god to try to correct where i see a brother make mortal sin
I am not your library you want evidence pick up a biology journal. by spiritual extortion i mean that you are trying to force me to believe what you do based on the idea of eternal damnation. if i make you believe me, under threat of me breaking your bones, its physical extortion(appeal to force) if i threaten you with eternal damnation its spiritual extortion(again appeal to force)
i can reveal to you [the small hope] that damnation isnt eternal ,god loves a repentant heart ,those who reject god [only have hell left]but even then are taught the truths and via repentant acts confirming their belief can come into gods presence
there are vairious degrees of offence ,[every lie must be recanted and corrected]every one your words decieve [or mine] must be corrected ,where we set out to decieve
and if you on your death bed were to discover it was all a delusion, would you yourself recant to your own intelligence which you so bluntly betrayed under the powerful prosuasive illusion of damnation? this is a simple question, not a trap, a simple attempt to get you to see the two sides of that coin you have just held up.
death bed recantment in no way cancels out a life time of sin here we are given the oppertuinity to repent [this reality is full of problems ] where as in the after life there are so many seeking to correct whole life times of karma it is far easier to do good here than there thus is this life a test recantment then is then too late our life [soul] is thus cast] life is the test but it also is the narrow path one coin [life] is given to each to spend as we will] spend it wisely
we are fortunate to be in a realitivly stable star system, but even if the odds of this are extremly small, the anthropic principle tells that we are that 1 in how ever many million, because this IS the nature of our star system.
if a complex thing like a termite requires there be a designer, than that means the designer of that termite must be much more complex than that termite, and again if complexity requires design who designed the designer of the termite, all you did was push the question back without even giving a real answer.
disregarding your bullshit bible thumping, the arguement is that complexity can not come about naturally(the 747 is a common anaology all be it false, aside from your reasons, because its conclusion violates its own premise.) but it is also a bad anaology because it compleatly disregards a key part of evolution, natural selection.
you inability to read over your posts and at least attempt an easy read for others are a bore... the effects of intelligence willfuly breeding and selecting in order to drive evolution can be refered as artificial selection. as for simplicity turning into complexity the vary termite hives in this video show it can happen, simple actions of many resualt in a vary complex resualt, this fact is not only found in biology but in other areas, the burden of proof is for you to show why it can't happen.
termites, being the resualt of evolution, are not the resualt of chance natural selection is anything but chance. nuclear fusion is anything but chance, gravitational pull is anything but chance, there is no chance only variables with which we don't have the ability to measure.
given to them by god? How do you know that? Did god tell you that he told termites how to build mounds?
Can you even provide any evidence that god actually exists? The simple answer is no you can't, but rather than study the termite behavior and examine such a complex problem scientifically, you just attribute it to god. Pretty disingenious and laughable.
benifitial mutations(its obvous they are because termites are still alive) are not stupid(if an intelegence specifying term can be applied to such things) i find it extremly childish that you would make such a strawman arguement like that. if i said the quran was a stupid book, wouldn't you require me to make a more complex arguement?
a strawman is a type of logical fallacy in which you weakly define your opponents position(or the claim you are trying to refute) to the point in which it becomes easy to simply brush the opponents arguement off as being obsurd. and again you try to argue about demons and satan, you sir have lost touch with reality. in regards to their reaction to air, negative mutations weren't filtered out becauase it didn't effect them at the time.
the title of "strawman" means you are building a weak representation of the arguement which is easier to knock down, what you are doing is saying that evolution is evil, and its supporters are posessed by the devil (what about Pope John Paul II?) this is an obvious strawman.
the hives are the resualt of genetic coding, much like how a moth is genetically coded to navigate by starlight, and even if we don't see all that much change that dosn't negate all the change we see in other creatures.
i woulnd't go so far as to say their brainless, even a simple computer program can simulate their life style in a long list of "if-than" statements. evolution to them could simply be an alteration of the terms within those statements
i am talking about knowledge,u can't xplain it by the superstitions of Lamarck,u need to put this knowledge into their dnas by random mutations,as evolution says.
Sir, the point is that evolution insists on life coming from a dead matter. Yes, over billions of years...It rained down on rocks and soup of chemicals...Then through a super-duper-complicated process....The first self-duplicating living cell appeared. How? They don't know.
Pathetic.
SmokiSounds 3 years ago
It is now known that Ants and termites (and probably lots of other creatures)( use smell to coordinate their efforts!. As an insect basses another, it ribs a leg onto a passing insect. On the leg is residue from where it has been giving the insect a notion of what is going on and what it is to do!.
joebot1 3 years ago
but to counter what your saying scientists have noticed that termites are able to react to dangers far to fast for it to be them comuacting just by smell alone
gothicn 2 years ago
It does not counter what I was saying at all!. I do not profess to have an intuitive knowledge of how termites or ant colonies work, neither does anyone else!. These studies take 20 or more years and are conducted in a very exacting and specific manor!> We simply need more time, but what we have been able to determine so far is fascinating!. Go to ted talks director on here and find the ant video it blew my mind!.
joebot1 2 years ago
so for billions of years,a "not really cell yet" cell waited,tried and tried waited and waited
then the miracle happened
and the next trillions of miracles were not really difficult to come into...
and where do u know i didnt read?
lemme guess,only atheists read,right
loz
HighFlyingDutchman 3 years ago
"By God"? lol
Talk about an act of arrogance...assuming you know what the infinite is thinking/doing.
That is a flawed way of thinking...making the assumption first and then spinning random facts to meet that assumption. That is not the scientific method and not good thinking.
Telpy 4 years ago
Oh, and we do know that termites communicate via smells...what we don't know (yet) is how that process works. Give us a few more years and we'll figure that out too.
Telpy 4 years ago
lol
take ur years
btw,in some of them,try to prove,how life "can arise" from inanimate matter
lol
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
lets see it requires a specific amount of elements and then energy, such as a huge lightning, to create a small cell like creature, that creature must then find some sort of food before it dies, and thus life is born. (or atleast, thats A theory.
SpaceHulker 4 years ago
WHAT?! David Attenborough, whom this was taken from, is an atheist. Look up HIS opinions on God.
Science hasn't explained everything, it's OKAY to not KNOW.
There are many mysteries to be solved. Just because we haven't explained it does not provide proof to some all-powerful sky daddy.
Termites' biomass outweighs ours and yet they're able to coexist with the planet. Don't lose the message: We have never built something to the scale that these insects have.
Sarmonster 4 years ago
lol
sky-daddy
ur best argument against your Creator
first explain how life "arises" from matter
lol
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
grow up kev
your just an non believing nutter that gets off on being nastie
clearly your an evil loon y tunist
i thought you guys liked comming from or with monkeys
who cares or need you to came anywhere
god cares [that dosnt mean i have too]
i know miss spelling words makes it
imposasable for you to coimprehensd [jinn are thick] must we chew your food for you as well
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
You sir, are a moron.
Ethrock 4 years ago
Holy fuck, what a stupid video. If termites are inspired by god, does that mean the Aardvark or Anteater that eats them is inspired by Satan? The fact that termites behave differently in different locations shows how evolution is an adaptive process based on local resources and threats. The video insists humans "Cannot" know what motivates termites. This is retarded. Because we don't know doesn't mean "unknowable." Pathetic.
kev3d 4 years ago
when you die you get your just reward, we all do ,death is just a change of body,our spitit belongs to god, thus like god is eternal,
an ant dies [but its spirit is then free to 'evolve ' into a higher life form] much depends on what it learned in its life
we as man incarnations have spiritually evolved into man
but many man are still of the beast nature from thier previous incarnation
[you were clearly a baboon]
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
Wow, I was a baboon...what an insult! I'll come to Jesus now! In truth, Im not sure what a "spitit" is but What I have belongs to me, not some imaginary ego maniacal sky tyrant.
kev3d 4 years ago
What if you don't believe in god??=4= c'mon, use your long abandoned brain a bit. If someone don't believe in god, one will never agree with this "ghost and angry holy spirit" crap.
raven1234 4 years ago
people who deney science are fools
science that deneys god is foolishness
there is one who knows all god
he in his wisdom has given some parts of the whole to each of us
he sent to each nation a prophet
in thier own tongue
it is not untill we all come together with love and grace that men can even begin to see the all [whollyness] and wisdom of that one living, loving , mercyfull ans all knowing we know simply know as god'good
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
ummm thanks for doing the work for me,IRC is a creationist arguement not an 'evolutionist' one
evirus 4 years ago
dear ev
evolution is on the micro level
not the macro level
new species dont evolve out of thier genomic wildtype
''irreducably complex'' [define]
'the presures of natural selection'
what presures?
''are reduced in the areas where the mound makes up for''
gibber gibber
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
there is no barrier that says micro level adaptation can't, thorugh seperagion, accumlate into macro level changes, to the contrary we have observed the appearence of new species.
irreducably complex, missing one part makes the item in question useless.
what pressures? all pressures, normally a weakness to say moisture would be a big problem, but sense the mound protects them from moisture they won't suffer ill effects and succumb to natural selection.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
ihad to reduce the post/the last post
you wrote
irreducably complex, missing one part makes the item in question useless.[crap]
re/'weakness to say moisture would be.. problem'[lack of water much bigger] but sense [scince?}the mound protects them from moisture they won't suffer.. and succumb to natural selection'
[you mean shelter averts nat selection]
rebutting your own theory
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
shelter protects the hive from preditors , helps set up the right conditions for survival ,water storage [and protection]and presumably that averts those natural selectors ,such as becomming food, prey, or dying from the cold
but moisture protection of itself prevents notural selection [by your measure] how much more nat protective the whole hive in averting the evolutionary ''nat selection
it takes less space to play your mind fuc than to rebut it
im over correcting your destractions
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
again i was wrong on the factuality of moisture weakness, but as you have showen it is good as an example, but not as fact. my example was that if the mound is built in a way to reduce moisture, than an occupant who was born weak to moisture via mutation, won't have that weakness counted against it(nature would select that mutation for removal from the genome)
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
its a hypathetical question man, sure its fundimentally flawed if you look deeply at it, most questions are like that. but you miss my overall point, if the mound protects against something which useually would happen otherwise it would allow bad genes to spread throughout the population because what used to kill off those gene holders is now stopped by the mound.
evirus 4 years ago
give credit to god
not any mound of clay
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
i'll give credit to god when he stops being a coward and use is supposedly unbeatable wit to prove his own existance to me.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
likewise you are presistant in denying evidence. i don't have the forcefulness to convince you, and you don't have the wit to convince me. therfore all points are meaningless.
evirus 4 years ago
tell me why that simplistic definition of 'IRC' is crap.
again i was wrong with the moisture point but it is still a useful example that shows a mound can help 'avert' natural selection.
evirus 4 years ago
reports from deluded retards, peer reviewed by deluded retards? you are showing your redneck colors now, just because they say something you don't accept their retards now? provide a better arguement than an ad homenium next time.
i don't believe i have redefined "IRC" and the defination in no way deny's evolution as i originally stated.
as for the moisture thing, i was wrong, thats all you had to say, i was going off of memory.
evirus 4 years ago
dear e virus i thought you had finally left
i have nothing more to say to you
have a nice life
evolution dosnt explain biodiversity ,it lumps gods creation into random chance, it is neither chance , nor random
a termite mound is a finely tuned biomass, take out any one feature they all die,it ia a part of a wonderous god given whole
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
natural selection is not blind chance that is why you do not understand evolution. and also you have to remember that just because the present state is irreducably complex dosn't mean it was always that way. because again the presures of natural selection are reduced in the areas where the mound makes up for.
evirus 4 years ago
e virus
that is the god theory
yes its not blind chance its intel design
thats why you see evolution
we see god
the present state is not irriducaly complex
ac mound begins with one fertile queen digging down in wet soil
how much more irreducabkly complex you think is terminal
the hive '[r]evolves' arround [not from the evolutuion theory] but from one termite and wet dust [wet clay]
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
you seem to have gotten hung up on this point , i mean taking out the hive kills the micro beasts
removing thier well kills off the micro beasts
plugging the vents stops thier air con system ie killing off the micro beasts
not irriducable complexity because they repair the error them aselves [by gods will] as the problems occur
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
the original arguement was that there was no way termites could have evolved because of their dependency on mounds, it sounded like 'IRC' to me, but i get your point.
evirus 4 years ago
sorry e virus i heard this one 6 pages ago
its how you get to the next page in meeting your need to debate
bro i love you like a brother
but bro responding to you isnt my idea of barter [its closer to theft by destraction]
only serving ego[im only repeating things god chose to reveal to me via my life
but i know god gives to whom he will]
it all is futile to argue watch the vid and think wow
[god is great]
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
god gives to whom he will? so basically god chose me not to believe, than you interference with gods will won't look to good when your looking up at his disappointed face would it?
evirus 4 years ago
to him who has[faith in god]more will be given
to him who has little[or worse rejects gods proof]
will be taken
even that little they thought they had
[that they thought they knew is plainly[then] known to be faulse
the reason being that fools believe [evil loony tunes]
[even the demons ;jinns in hell get ;that god created all
those who chose to reject god
by knowing the lie of evolution would cause them unjustly more harm in hell
jinn really hate those who lied [stole]from god
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
i could care less what you think of me at this point, your spinning your wheels now. but to reject evolution as being the devil's trick does a great disservice to the medical field, which we all owe our lives too. if the evidence fits evolutionary theory, there are only two possabilities; 1 god planted the evidence to trick us(that would interfear with free will wouldn't it) or 2 god created life using evolution.
evirus 4 years ago
termite mounds are far more important than can be revealed even in this tape
due to the constant tempreture lizards [goannas] lay thier eggs in the mounds
the young live in them eating the food [rermites][noted at kangeroo island [the coldest area goannas/monitors\ can be found]
the soils they bring up have increased nutriant levels , higher ph, thus become micro habitats for [gods]biodiversity
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
biodiversity is perfectly explained by the process of evolution, god did it is the oppisite of an explination, it is an appeal to ignorance. if you really wanted to explain it tell me how god did it. and also i don't question the 'majesty' of the termite mounds you describe, there is nothing that says this couldn't have occured through evolutionary processes, therfore it dosn't disprove evolution
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
evirus get this
i cant explain how god does it
the termites might but you dont believe in god so you
[i suspect will never get to know
its natural [ie god does it 'naturall' ,ie a miricle
thus this vidio revealing how amasing
[not natural as in accidental]
but sure as only gods hand can be
perfect serving even mindless dumb beasts ,to live
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
so god essiently has his hand on every single atom in the universe all the time, making everything we think to be natural super natural, there by cloaking his existance from science. and interesting hypothesis but scientfically meaningless because it is not falsafiable.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
falsafiablity means quite simply that there is a resualt, if it occures, that will show the hypothesis false. something being not falsafiable means that there is no resualt which will prove it false.
evirus 4 years ago
Termite mounds have long been described as nutrient hot-spots
a termite mound also
acts as a significant resource for small mammals.
The presence of termite mounds has a marked
influence on mammal and flora abundance and activity, as well
as implications for higher levels in the food chain.
Termite mounds should clearly be considered
of conservation importance and their destruction and utilization for farming is detrimental to a diverse range of plant and animal species,
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
natural-egsisting in or derived from nature
[not made ,caused ,or processed by humankind]
if man buts in it isnt natural, thus cant prove 'natual selection'
natural selection is a buzz word
selection =the action or fact of selecting =ie chosen by reasoned act by choice
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
do you realy mean to tell me that you don't understand natural selection in the evolutionary sense? you really need a better education if that is the case. natural selection is the short emotionally neutral phrase meaning survival of the best suited for the present enviroment. hence nature "selects" which mutations are good, and which is bad.
evirus 4 years ago
emotionally neutral and an insult
if you mean survival of the fittest say that
explain how nature 'selects'[noting it is a concious act]
who deems good from bad
your meaning advantagious ,or not
but straight away it is clear your word playing [i made definitions you could correct
but play the buzz word game yet again]
nature selects nothing
survivability breeds , dead dont breed
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
you are playing the word games here sir, competition and natural causes, which cause one mutation to be better than another is why we call it natural selection, nature "selects" the good mutations to be more numerous, nothing truely consciously selects in natural selection, its just a name.
evirus 4 years ago
what do you call the act of selecting a mate
or a bird putting on a display to get a mate
ot bulls fighting [chosing to fight]
its a concious choice dude
grow up you debate because you love to argue
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
concious choice driven by genetic predispositions, still evolution, natural selection by proxy, the strong must still prove their strong, its not like the weak choose to not breed.
evirus 4 years ago
dear e virus
natural selection does not accord proxy
its either natural or its not
the strong 'must' is delusion
the stromger is more likely but definatly not 'will' everytime
its not as if the weak have no choice
if weakness is put to test[why herds form to protect the weak
sociaty form to protect the weak
your circular debate seems full of wills /musts [absolutes]
wher'as evolution deems ever present change and selection as the only constant behind the theory behind evolution
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
there is no question tha mate selection has its effect on populations. im not sure where you are going with this but there are 'selections' that occure before the creature breeds, if a creature is born with one less leg what are the odds of its survival? for that you have to factor things like injury odds, starvation odds, predation odds, and so on, evolution isn't souly dependent on the selection of a mate. if this isn't a good reply please be vary specific on the point you are making.
evirus 4 years ago
I'm not a dictionary I'm not your encyclopedia and I'm not your morality voodoo doll, so i will not even attempt to answer any more comments you have that treat me as such, i will reply simply asserting that I'm not your monkey.
evirus 4 years ago
it is clear you are above knowing what the words you use mean
you are unable to let the last word be by any but you
you know it all
all else are just your ammusments
you havnt tried to reply only distract
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
you are not my ammusment you are the idiocy that religion breeds, there is a reason why people like you are called a flock of sheep. you don't think for your self, you don't question authority, you dont even care so long as it dosn't directly effect you, good luck with things like super staph, repeat after me "baaaaaaaaaaahhhh" and im not your monkey!
evirus 4 years ago
and i am not interested in saving you from yourself
you have your own mind , it is only for me to point out the real and present dangers you chose to put your self into,
if others see how clever your words this is thier choice
super staph came from science thinking it to be god[think about that ]
science has decieved many and still you put your faith in it
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
super staph came from the use of antibiotics to cure staph infection, the staph, gifted with the mutation to survive the antibiotics where able to live longer and reproduce more, this IS evolution at work. we only provided the enviroment necessary for their evolutionary lineage. now you deny that these things evolved on their own in response to our internal enviromental changes? you seem to be missing some parts of your brain.
evirus 4 years ago
again loose definition [e virus]
antibiotics didnt 'cure' staph it killed thier bacterial causel agency,[bacteria]
when the ''cure' was over hyped, that peoples belief in a 'magic pill'
they didnt fully complete the perscribed course
and the remaining few living were allowed to breed after the majority of weaker were killed of[survival of fit-test]
not natural selection[blind faith in lies]
[because the symptom abated people presumed [as you] to be 'cured'[deception]
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
natural selection, american heritage defination: "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." sounds like survival of the fittest to me.
evirus 4 years ago
the fossil termite mounds reveal they are identical to todays ,
evil loony toon ists havnt put them on thier pages simply because they rebut evil loonytunes,
were they proof they would have been spread far and wide
e virus is a simple destraction
his debate is repititious
then he posts a vidio saying nothing
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
im not the one being repititious here. it is the ones who look at things and ask "look at this, what does evoultion say about this" that are repititiously idiotic in their assertion that a commonly observed thing can trump tons of evidence simply by its mystery.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
all my posts, aside from the introductory one, are replys to creationist claims, if you fail to present unique logical evidence then my replys will be just as unique. the 5 minute video, again, is a exposa of what things we can look to and conclude that the "designer" is truely incompetant. the 747 arguement, although flawed because its not biological, rolls back on itself, the designer MUST have beed designed because of the premises that complex things require design.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
word play, utter word play which you yourself accuse me of doing, you desplay in this reply. you can define what you think god is all you want, but that dosn't change what god is. and if you are saying god is NOT complex than you agree you don't need complexity to create complexity, which means the idea of intelligent design is meaningless.
evirus 4 years ago
'if you are saying god is NOT complex than you agree you don't need complexity to create complexity, which means the idea of intelligent design is meaningless'
god is so simple even a child can get him
for god it is as simple as him thinking 'be 'and it is
god makes things simple
to demand complexity is to miss god alltogether
intelligent designs complexity arose in god meeting our needs
just as your need has complicated these posts
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
yah it was simple to say weather was simply gods will, the esclipse of the sun? gods will, meateor impacts? gods will. of all the "god did it" explinations that have been backed up by simplicity i find it vary asinine that you think that this is some how different. thats all i have to say on the subject, im not your monkey.
evirus 4 years ago
also Tvebak,what kind of "transitional forms" of architectures were termites doing while they were evolving?
lol.
let's leave termites in a corner and imagine the transitional forms of structures ;)
respects.
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
why imagine when we could observe, theres 'fossil' termite mounts dating back to the Cretaceous(145-65 million years ago
evirus 4 years ago
i want to see them ;)
u can post the link by pm.
peace.
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
you need to do some real research for once, heres my 'link'
David M. Rohr, A. J. Boucot, John Miller, and Maxine Abbott
Oldest termite nest from the Upper Cretaceous of West Texas
Geology (Boulder) (January 1986), 14(1):87-88
evirus 4 years ago
why doesn't net show it to us?
while there are many evolutionist websites?
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
its not on the net because its not on the net, peer reviewed articles are rarely available without a hassle, go to a college campus or library, there are a few websites only allow access to those IP addresses(sad but true) the site jstor might have it but again its IP locked
evirus 4 years ago
also "media" such as National Geographic tries to bring all kinds of 'evidences' of evolution,why can't we see them in it?
or is it too expensive for them to put an article in their magazine from those
"mysterious evidence colections".
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
evolution has been directly observed. The natural selection have been directly observed. Every modern (not influenced by notoriuos evolutiondeniers) mainbook in biology have a piece on evolution and on an example of the natural selection in process. Mine has a piece on the natural selection among some birds on the Galapagos.
Tvebak2 4 years ago
there will never be enough for creationists thats why, its a lame presuit to publish some book simply listing all the evidences of evolution when one can simply go to a library that has internet access to scholarly journals and look through the thousands of articles on the subject. google scholar will get you the titles and maybe the abstracts, maybe the article if your really lucky.
evirus 4 years ago
Well it's a fine example of natural selection at work. This "arcitechture" have been modified through years and years, and continuily adapts to the environment. The ones lacking adaptations simply dies, and those succes in adaptations survive. The different elements of the "architecture" is hence the result of the natural selections of what works for the termites.
no "allah", "YHW", or shiva at work here :)
Best regards
Tvebak2 4 years ago
no Tvebak,don't u think with the Lamarckist idea,which was disproven many years ago?
u gotta put this knowledge to termites' dnas by random mutations,after that u may wait until the good ones will be "selected".
i dunno if u've realized until today,but the things u learn don't effect ur children ;)
peace.
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
:-) unless I learn them to do so :-)
Tvebak2 4 years ago
which brainless idiot claims that termites got them by coincidences?
which miserable stubborn stupid does it?
lol.
SkeletonFroster 4 years ago
The one that says that we are all a coincidence... This earh, sun, moon are all coincidences according to some people.
MuslimUnity 4 years ago
that is a total strawman, the formation of the earth, the sun, and the moon, as well as our evolution are all the resualt of vary well defined rules with which all of reality operates at. remember reality dosn't care about your ego. and even if the occurance of any of the four factors is extremly low in probability, its obvious that it happend because.... this message was sent.
evirus 4 years ago
and one more question,again u gave unconscious atoms 'rules' which is also a knowledge actually.
where did matter get its perfect rules evirus?
where did it take the knowledge from?
and after answering it,u will still need to give mind to matter,or it can't do those things by 'chance'.
there is a knowledge,and even atoms are moving consciously.
why?
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
you must be out of your mind to think that. are you actually suggesting that an atom wants to bind with another atom? that an atom wants to fuse or devide? you have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of 'rules' as it pretains to the operation of nonliving things
evirus 4 years ago
what is 'rule' evirus?
who is ruling the 'rules'?
4 possibilities i can find
1)everything is blind and everything is happening on blind chances.
2)matter rules itself.
3)'nature' rules everything.
4)A Power "behind the curtain" rules everything.
which one evirus?
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
1 has no barring on rules there fore invalid.
2 matter dosn't act on its own occords, therefore invalid
3 nature being defined as the physical constants of the universe IS valid
4 is untestable and unfalsifiable, therefore invalid
by 'rules' i mean things like physical laws, like say if you exert a force on a wall an equal force will be exerted on you, does the wall choose to do it? no, it must do it much like you must eat and drink in order to survive longer than a month.
evirus 4 years ago
what about the perfection in the universe?
why is there no chaos,although unconscious planets should have done a lil'?
is it all about gravity rules,or is there a mind in the nature,also?
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
as for "perfect universe" thats hardly the case from our vatnage point, look for the video "stupid design" here on youtube for a little more specifics on that point, but in a nutshell "there are tons of things in the universe, aswell as our own planet, that will kill us, there are also examples of creatures with better features then ours, dolphans who are less likely to choke because of different breathing and eating holes for example.
evirus 4 years ago
this 5 minute vidio is yiour rebuttal?
sex organs are located to keep the child safe [to keep them at the optimal core body temp]
his phetos are evolution in reality [he says 3/4 we cant explain, god can [we cant]
note evolution hasnt 'evolved the two holes he jokes of [think why]
the universe is hostile yet here god makes it work
your so called proof disproves that you set out to prove
god is real live with it
it aint worth dying over
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
the 5 minute vidio [mentioned in previous post]is the vidio recomended by e virus titled 'stupid design'
it seems to be a favoutrite for those who would deney inteligent design [by god the creator]its simplistic denial for simple tons
it infact confirms just how unreal our survuial would be without gods logic and laws
note he does not deney gods hand [as e virus does]
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
so his lack of mention confirms his belief that god did it? you sir are a complete jack ass in your arguement style. you continue to present fallacious arguements without even a second thought. and the arguement is that an intelligent designer wouldn't have created a universe built for humans in such an incompetant way.
evirus 4 years ago
your proof on this occasion seems to be the self evident [im a jack arse] accepted
what proof is this can you evolve your evolution theory into fact with facts
what 'lack of mention [of what where /when]confirms whos belief'[that god didnt do it]?
the argument is that an intelligent designer did build it to test us created in his image,
in what way does natural selecting evolution prove imcompitance[who if you say no god is the source of the incompitance?
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
adhoc reasoning at the end, you are redefining the intentions of god to put a better light on the negative evidence. and you wan't evidence for evolution, the drug resistant staph infection making its rounds both in humans and in the news. mutation, natural selection, leading to the more drug resistant having more offspring. simple
evirus 4 years ago
again you assert the arguement from ignorance incredulity, you don't know and can't explain therefore god is the only suitable explination even for those who do know and can explain. sex organs are located primarly because the process of fetal devlopment and the stage at which sexual differences devlop.
evirus 4 years ago
again your non fact begins with insult
why need i prove god to a fool
explain how ''even those who do know [what] can explain''
sex organs has been covered in earlier pages here [rebut that one on the proper vidio]
see high flying d/mans vidio on the subject]
perhaps he will join them here for you
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
hay you brought it up don't expect me to instantly search for your source i give you some credit, although now its extremly little. and i wasn't insulting you i was insulting your arguement style, arguements from ignorance and incredulity are vary well known logical fallacies, look them up it will make you a better arguer.
evirus 4 years ago
i couldnt care any less about your credit
i care you try to diss credit him you are completly indebited to for your very life
but yet again no fact
you are a waste of space dude
allways with your fact [look it up isnt any fact]its mindless ego belonging to a fool
i will finnish response
what use argueing with mere mindless jinn clay ,who has not fact only debate
you get off on debate
yet never a fact to present
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
you make arguement after arguement that can be summerized by saying "you don't believe therefore i am better than you, there fore no matter what you say it is always false because you don't believe" and then you have the FUCKING NERVE TO CALL ME A WASTE OF SPACE, your arguements are weak, shallow and annoying at best, the only reason why i give them the time of day is to attempt to demonstrate their idiocity!
evirus 4 years ago
e virus
i try to find your question and try to give you reply
but clearly your not seeking reply
your seeking amusement
or seeking to prove 'idiocracy'
or to win
my argue is weak because i dont seek argue
you do
you ''attempt to prove idiocracy'' i try to help you save your soul
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
and that is why your ILK will never get their say in science, you can't base reality on spiritual extortion. if you wan't to argue, which is what you are doing(arguement is simple a premise and the conclusion that fallows that premise) you should stay away from fallacies which you your self commit in nearly every post. im not of your flock and never will be!
evirus 4 years ago
e virus you ''fallow '' your own logic
and your delusion''fallows the'' [your own]premise''[because you put up no fact[only your endless debate]
the fallacies you commit ensure we will never 'flock'' together
i dont base my reality on spiritual extortuiion[in what way can you dare to say this ,i have a duty to god to try to correct where i see a brother make mortal sin
but this is your own freechoice
my job is done in trying
you chose to reject gods love not me[for what]?
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
I am not your library you want evidence pick up a biology journal. by spiritual extortion i mean that you are trying to force me to believe what you do based on the idea of eternal damnation. if i make you believe me, under threat of me breaking your bones, its physical extortion(appeal to force) if i threaten you with eternal damnation its spiritual extortion(again appeal to force)
evirus 4 years ago
it matters not in the least what you deem 'force'
i can reveal to you [the small hope] that damnation isnt eternal ,god loves a repentant heart ,those who reject god [only have hell left]but even then are taught the truths and via repentant acts confirming their belief can come into gods presence
there are vairious degrees of offence ,[every lie must be recanted and corrected]every one your words decieve [or mine] must be corrected ,where we set out to decieve
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
and if you on your death bed were to discover it was all a delusion, would you yourself recant to your own intelligence which you so bluntly betrayed under the powerful prosuasive illusion of damnation? this is a simple question, not a trap, a simple attempt to get you to see the two sides of that coin you have just held up.
evirus 4 years ago
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
we are fortunate to be in a realitivly stable star system, but even if the odds of this are extremly small, the anthropic principle tells that we are that 1 in how ever many million, because this IS the nature of our star system.
evirus 4 years ago
Thanks for the video. =)
fromkhadija 4 years ago
how absurd is man kind
they cannot even explain how the termite gets it knowing
yet have the faulse got of evolution that explains how life 'evolved'
yet have never made one living verse like as it
there is one designer
beyond mens knowing
yet revealed by his many servants and creations thus by his works able to be known
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
if a complex thing like a termite requires there be a designer, than that means the designer of that termite must be much more complex than that termite, and again if complexity requires design who designed the designer of the termite, all you did was push the question back without even giving a real answer.
evirus 4 years ago
you reuse the same debates
[ok using your other favourite egsample a 747] you claim it more complex than man
can it build another one
can it fly itself , find its own food, mate ,emote
grow up by your thinking the dumb mother can not but breed simpleton
man was created in gods unseen image
jesus said see me see god,[god is the supreem divine form]
he didnt say see i am god
we are created in gods image
give your usual selective response
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
disregarding your bullshit bible thumping, the arguement is that complexity can not come about naturally(the 747 is a common anaology all be it false, aside from your reasons, because its conclusion violates its own premise.) but it is also a bad anaology because it compleatly disregards a key part of evolution, natural selection.
evirus 4 years ago
so how is science breeding fruitflies natural
how is breeding donkey to horse a 'natural selection'
you write'the arguement is that complexity can [or cannot] come about naturally
so your saying it do?
how
give a witnessed egsample of natural [increaded ?or decreased complexity?]
is this that you call reducing or reduced complexity
please tighten your definition
your generalities are a bore
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
you inability to read over your posts and at least attempt an easy read for others are a bore... the effects of intelligence willfuly breeding and selecting in order to drive evolution can be refered as artificial selection. as for simplicity turning into complexity the vary termite hives in this video show it can happen, simple actions of many resualt in a vary complex resualt, this fact is not only found in biology but in other areas, the burden of proof is for you to show why it can't happen.
evirus 4 years ago
dear cleran 97 git
what does a man need to prove to an ant
same with god, you see gods amasing creations and say this is chance, this is a science theory
theory makes nothing my brother
it is for you so wise
to prove you egsist as worthy before god
you are but an ant humble thyself
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
termites, being the resualt of evolution, are not the resualt of chance natural selection is anything but chance. nuclear fusion is anything but chance, gravitational pull is anything but chance, there is no chance only variables with which we don't have the ability to measure.
evirus 4 years ago
given to them by god? How do you know that? Did god tell you that he told termites how to build mounds?
Can you even provide any evidence that god actually exists? The simple answer is no you can't, but rather than study the termite behavior and examine such a complex problem scientifically, you just attribute it to god. Pretty disingenious and laughable.
Clean97gti 4 years ago 2
the holy texts [koran,holy bible, torah] reveal gods teachings to men
you refute god,what has god to prove to fools
who deney the miricles even of thier own lives
let alone accord godly creation to random chance or the theory[not replicatable fact of evil-lootion]
you cant
you babble like a mindless fool
to simplify gods godly creation to chance
our holy texts tell us to feel sympathy for fools
we cant laugh at you
only gently reveal to you to see the proof before your own eyes
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
ok, so a book says something that you agree with, how is that evidence? couldn't we just as easily believe in the harry potter series?
evirus 4 years ago 2
no clean97,God creatd them in the way they can build those
or for you to understand it easier
they got those specailities because of stupid mutations.
how?it satisfied u more,right?
regards.
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
benifitial mutations(its obvous they are because termites are still alive) are not stupid(if an intelegence specifying term can be applied to such things) i find it extremly childish that you would make such a strawman arguement like that. if i said the quran was a stupid book, wouldn't you require me to make a more complex arguement?
evirus 4 years ago
that which was allways was
how does a hive evolve , but that god created it as one ?
take away the one the rest falls
no air conditioning the hive boils and dies , how was this and other points evolved?
i have made no mention of straw man
only of the jinn who have sworn to seve satan, via lies and deception, god replacement and death
evil volution[to subvert men from gods greatness] by means of deciet and science as veils/viles/evils[darkness] before gods lights and wisdom
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
a strawman is a type of logical fallacy in which you weakly define your opponents position(or the claim you are trying to refute) to the point in which it becomes easy to simply brush the opponents arguement off as being obsurd. and again you try to argue about demons and satan, you sir have lost touch with reality. in regards to their reaction to air, negative mutations weren't filtered out becauase it didn't effect them at the time.
evirus 4 years ago
e virus
think if evolution has any truth why the termite hives all follow the same general plan
why none ''evolve' away from gods plan??
i fail to grasp what scare crows [staw man]have to do with evolution?
ia it well you now deney that you condem yourself to of igno-rants
what intel designer filters out your neative evil loony tunes is random selection [intel designer]thus evil volution remains of no affect over time
1oneundergod1 4 years ago
the title of "strawman" means you are building a weak representation of the arguement which is easier to knock down, what you are doing is saying that evolution is evil, and its supporters are posessed by the devil (what about Pope John Paul II?) this is an obvious strawman.
the hives are the resualt of genetic coding, much like how a moth is genetically coded to navigate by starlight, and even if we don't see all that much change that dosn't negate all the change we see in other creatures.
evirus 4 years ago
so u simply claim that,these brainless idiots have enough conscious and mind to build their houses,do u claim that evirus???
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
i woulnd't go so far as to say their brainless, even a simple computer program can simulate their life style in a long list of "if-than" statements. evolution to them could simply be an alteration of the terms within those statements
evirus 4 years ago
i am talking about knowledge,u can't xplain it by the superstitions of Lamarck,u need to put this knowledge into their dnas by random mutations,as evolution says.
let's try it.
peace :)
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
if its by random mutations, most plausable might i add, then that explains it, natural selection would have weeded out the bad buliders.
evirus 4 years ago
and termites DO have brains, all be it vary small. but it makes up for that with its social, hive like, lifestyle.
evirus 4 years ago
yeah,i know their brain,i tried to insult them already ;)
so it is very normal&ordinary for you,to see these unconscious blind small animals building houses that u can't never do before a good education.
what about the perfect team work?they are again way better than humans.
WHERE DID THEY LEARN IT evirus?
where?
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
genetic programming, much like a moth is genetically programmed to navigate via starlight and moonlight.
evirus 4 years ago
u most likely dident watch the video,
they need more than 'starlight' and 'moonlight'
it is so clear that they need to KNOW to build rooms,air condition systems,lol,look at their homes carefully,it is simply 'knowledge' ,perfect one ;)
HighFlyingDutchman 4 years ago
its called anaology, you know when you use examples to explain something!
evirus 4 years ago
sub7anak ya Allah ,very beautiful video
AllahIStheGreatest 4 years ago