@Shapkin1502 This statement assumes that time existed before the big bang. That's an assumption. And lack of evidence does alow you to choose not to believe something exists. Forexample, I choose to believe that there ISNT an invisible pink unicorn outside my window. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do?
@Shapkin1502 "historical written accounts of non Christians" Funny, if you could provide THOSE documents, then we'd believe you much more quickly. OH WAIT, I FORGOT, THEY DON'T EXIST.
@Shapkin1502 That's a terrible assumption to make. You are taking it on blind faith that the people who wrote the Bible were who they said they were. If I was to tell you right now that I am Richard Dawkins, would you believe me?
As for the burden of proof, some me where a deity of any form is observable. Otherwise thee is no reason to believe in it. True science does not refute the possibility of a deity, there just isnt any evidence yet, so there's no point in believing in one.
See this is fucking sad, you compared faith to the internet? 4chan, funny picture sites, FACEBOOK, and fucking wikipedia bro? So if I go change a bunch of shit on there since and make some fake ass source link, its automatically true? Nice, also videos like this only promote losers to type paragraph long comments. It's sad really, how many people get butthurt over this, typing essays of comments. Grow the fuck up. *Looks at my own comment* "Fuck"
1. Jesus Christ fulfilled o-v-e-r 300 Messianic Prophecies in the Old Testament. (All 300 (plus) predictions are available for anyone on earth to research.
2. Many secular sources admit that Jesus Christ walked the earth (see "The Real Jesus Christ" @ uners.binary.net)
3. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14: 6)
@GsliMaIiy A biblical quote is not proof of anything...the bible was not written by any divine primemover, but humans....humans tend to lie or exagerate to get their view past normal logical scrutiny.
I have never found or seen any proof of a living jesus.
The Romans where a very meticulous people, they tended to record everything going on in their empire...not one word of Jesus anywhere, one should think the miracles he performed would be worthy mentioning somewhere ;)
@GsliMaIiy the bible wrote about jesus about 70 years after he died. and there is no historical information of jesus outside the bible. all that is probably bullshit. sorry. stop wasting your life, assuming you are not a troll.
@icareg Yes it is very much so bullshit, read Acharya Sanning's book called The Christ Conspiracy, it explains why and how Christianity came to be. If a religion must be to make people feel better on the path they take in life, it must have an analysis ran on it for both psychological and societal effects. Religions is a good way to reprogram human nature little by little however, it's pretty much an art that has yet to be done flawlessly.
@Vottaro by the way's I'm an Anti-Abrahamic Theist. Please if you began with an Abrahamic religion, please do not stray directly to atheism, that's just a lazy way out and believe me, Atheist apologist are almost as bad as christian apologists. If you are to transition from a religion, look around, if you look well enough, you will find at least one thing that science does not yet have a complete answer for and because of that skipping directly to atheism is just plain lazy.
@Vottaro Not filling your gaps in knowledge with some crazy story that literally could have anything in it in order to fill those little holes. I sure hope you guys don't do this.
@Vottaro " you will find at least one thing that science does not yet have a complete answer for"
There are many things we havent figured out yet. Science is just the method. We need technology, education and time to get answers we havent found yet. And whats wrong with saying "I dont know"? Just because you can make up a religion that gives you an answer doesnt mean you have found knowledge.
@Vottaro So what makes your religion in any way more valid than an Abrahamic religion? Do you have Empiric proof. I'm not saying that I am atheist, personally I'm of the opinion that all organised religion and even the concept of understanding something beyond our ability to comprehend is nothing but pure foolishness. There may be a god(s) out there. We, however have no way to tell, nor could we comprehend something that vast.
@theotherdoomguy My religion has a more flexible and stable frame, it's more like a skeleton than an exoskeleton, Religions confined to books are most often more like an exoskeleton, they confine what lies beneath within the person even going as far as to discourage them through fear and false claims (Discourage them from evolving inside).
Anyhow my religious beliefs are far more moral than any Abrahamic religion......
@theotherdoomguy in fact mine discourages sexism, slavery, and pedophilia and states that respect be earned and virtues make a man mature (Inner Maturity).
@theotherdoomguy The word "religion" comes from the Latin noun religiō, which means, among other things, "scrupulousness" or "conscientiousness." You call one thing a religion and know not of what religion truly is. Someone's religion does not necessarily need a name, it's just simply convenient to have a name. Even an Atheist can be considered religious. I'm sure even you could find humor in that ^_^
@Vottaro For a second there, you had me believing that you were intelligent. Then I realised you got your INCORRECT information from Google Translate. Nice try at trying to sound intelligent, though. Maybe next time, when you aren't trying to outwit someone who has a solid grasp of the English language. I recommend people "hu typ liek dis" next time.
@Vottaro Just a housemate who is fluent in Latin. Y'know how it goes.
And Atheism is to religious what bald is to a hair colour.
So yeah, don't try to impress a greater knowledge of the English language when you don't actually have it. Religion does not mean "scrupulousness". We already have a word for that. It's "scrupulousness".
@Vottaro Pretentious little prick, ain'tcha? "MY Religion doesnt need a name"
"Hahaha, someone I dont know, I choose to believe doesnt know Latin!"
"YOU call one thing religion and know not of what religion truly is"
"Quoff quoff Guffaw"
You aren't intelligent, I personally had to do a Google Translate because I myself am not fluent in Latin. Guess what words came up first? Wanna retry that statement about you not using it?
@theotherdoomguy My my, aren't you the cynical little idiot. Read very closely what I said, look up the definition of religious and then translate from latin to English the word religiō. My god you are even making a huge point of a simple fun fact I happened to throw in for the hell of it (The latin Part). Also I see you are now being a hypocrite when it comes to google translate XD
@Vottaro I never stated that I knew Latin, because I don't. That's why I deferred before making any argument. Apologies for using an ad hominum previously, it was unnecessary.
Here is the definition of religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
@theotherdoomguy And thus I am religious. There may only be 15 members to my religious group, but hey, it still counts. Before going into cults and such, look up the definition of cult and tell me which of these fit the definition better, the IRS, the CIA, or The Catholic Church? The point of this question is for you to understand that calling something a cult is simply name calling as the definition is so loose that too many things can fit into it or at least come super close to fitting in
@Vottaro I already know the definition of cult. The problem here is that you are assuming a weak understanding of the English language. I assure you, with the utmost of emphasis, that this is not the case. So you have 15 members to your religious group, does it have a name? Also, the way you jumped to "I am not in a cult!" merely implies that you, in fact, are.
@theotherdoomguy By the definition of cult, Christianity is a cult. Also you assumed that I was a follower rather than a leader. I created this religious group a week ago. You see when a group commonly referred to as a cult comes to lobby enough members, they can demand religious status. For example, look at Scientology and Mormonism.
@theotherdoomguy Cult characteristics: (1) Formal Religious veneration (2) A religious System (3) Faddish Devotion (4) A group of persons showing such devotion (5) A group of people exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, thing, or idea (6) Employing Unethical, manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (7) Isolation from former friends and family (8) Debilitation (9) Use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience...........
@Vottaro (10) powerful group pressures (11) Information management (12) Promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it (13)Suspension of individuality and critical judgement (14) Designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the possible or actual detriment of members, their families, or the community (15) Double set of ethics. (16) raising funds for their own benefit
@Vottaro According to these traits, the CIA and the IRS scores positive on all except for the first and second and The Catholic church scores positive on all traits. Oddly enough, My group Scores less than the Catholic church as well as less than the CIA or IRS as to being considered a cult as about 9 of these traits don't even apply to it.
@Vottaro I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. What I've gleaned is someone who refuses to accept common uses for words, because he read in a dictionary somewhere that it means something slightly different, because the word in the context it is normally used marks him as a cultist, regardless of the stigma that is implied with the word. Here's what it boils down to.
You are in a cult. I am not. I don't care about your cult. You think that I think you're crazy. I feel nothing but apathy.
@theotherdoomguy no, you don't get it at all even though I've already explained it quite clearly. The word cult is simply a type of name calling. Even now the documentation from when Christianity was considered a cult still stands preserved and in tact. Christianity is an evil ideology, your god is repulsive I am extremely thankful that he is only mythical as if he were real, we'd all be suffering big time.
@Vottaro "your god" - You've completely lost track of who you've been debating with. Or were you under the misconception that I was a Christian all along?
In which case, you are terrible at understanding a person based on their text patterns and choice of words. Also, words' true meanings can't be understood purely from a dictionary, and hearing them in context in natural language is highly important to get a true meaning. Something you are sorely lacking. A piece of advice, from me to you...
@GsliMaIiy "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el". " - Isaiah 7:14
Immanuel means "god is with us."
Jesus, on the other hand, means "god saves." they are OBVIOUSLY different and the prophecy was NOT fulfilled. either Isaiah is a false prophet, or Jesus is not the messiah. or perhaps they were both crazy. RIGHT? RIGHT.
@GsliMaIiy 1. Fiction 101. If a story contains an ancient prophesy, the protagonist is going to fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled an ancient prophesy. Jesus was the protagonist of the new testament.
2. There are no records of Jesus in ancient roman texts. A miracle man would have be worth noting, I would think.
3. “Always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual.” Terry Pratchett wrote that in his book. It must be true.
The ironic thing about this is the reason Im an atheist is because I actually read and studied the bible. There is no way a rational human being can condone or justify most of the morals in the bible.
@vottoduder Bravo there however Atheism is not the only answer, please try and keep an open mind for advancing spirituality and philosophy that may happen to appear between now and 2050, if a religion arises that makes headway please look into it and if it holds any value create an atheistic version if you feel like it.
@Vottaro Atheism isnt an answer. Its basically a default position. Your born an atheist. I like philosophy (mainly western), but I have no clue what "spirituality" means or is and no one can seem to explain to me what it is. Im open to anything as long as there is a rational explanation for it backed up with some "real" evidence. But I like studying about religions, its my favorite subject. So if a new one pops up, I will definitely look into it.
There's a difference there, with God he's got the intelligence to decide and plan when to create.
Singularity has no brain with nothing to guide it so what caused this mindless energy to act and plan it out and create the expansion which created the galaxies, planets and so on?
yep it's true having faith in anything including the universe happening by pure chance is retarded like some people do.
But the world being created is a possibility as opposed to the 3 little pigs which there's no indication to them being real. so I wouldn't blame millions of people worldwide including scientists if they believe that a creator created the universe.
So "FFreeThinker" your name is ironic because with some real freethinking you would of realised that.
No I haven't care to explain what that is and whether that happened by chance or not.
There's only 2 possibilities behind everything that exists either this all happened by chance without any intelligence whatsoever or the opposite which means someone made it all.
If the universe or singularity always existed then what caused singularity to move? Why would it sit there for eternity then suddenly just expand at some random point in time? Where did the energy come from to cause the expansion? If you say the energy was always there then there's a problem because all the galaxies, planets etc should of always been there. So that energy would have to of come from the outside of TS & M (The universe) so that proves the universe wasn't always there.
From the last comment, all the galaxies and planets would always be there then if that same energy was always there which created all of these galaxies in the first place right?
If you say that particular energy was just always there then it suddenly acted at this random point and expanded the universe creating all the galaxies then what caused that energy to act? What caused that other energy to act that was always there? etc etc etc see what I mean?
When I say mouthy I mean rude. I Don't talk to rude people who just come on and spout crap like that. I shouldn't be rude back but I'm normally not but sometimes I just get annoyed. I'm only human and I get annoyed sometimes. I keep it as low as possible but hey I'm not perfect.
So you're advocating for a being that simply caused the big bang? Is that it? Or do you believe this God, is listening to prayers and causing miracles in our daily lives?
Because you did make a good point, you are assuming that a "being" played a hand in the cause of the big bang, when we both know there is no scientific evidence to assert that the big bang was uncaused, or divinely caused. I just want to know if you go further with that belief, into a Christian/Muslim/Jewish God...
No I'm advocating for the being that made all of this possible without the Big Bang.
It's not logical to suggest that singularity sat there for all eternity then it just expanded what sense does that make?? It's all theories can't be backed by any evidence. then during the expansion planets were formed assembled in a line and spins around the sun? It's an expansion of energy just has 1 direction so how can something so unguided form these things so neatly?
Maybe I should of been more clearer, I don't believe God made the universe by the Big Bang, that was in reference to the other person who believes the 2 atoms collided and made the expansion and I stated that I believe the creator had a hand in creating the universe that's all.
Miracles? Not many happen really especially in a confused world like today where many are not exactly sure if he's real or not despite being believers but do they believe 100% or do they believe for the sake of it or just to please their families?
It doesn't help when we have many liars in the world with self serving agendas that are out to ruin people's faith with bull crapping lies. So the world is confused and faith isn't within our grasp were too scared and the liars ruin it
Well let's start off by saying that the big bang did occur, or at least most likely occurred since that vast majority of scientific evidence supports that theory and it is supported by a large majority of the scientific community. Since this is a convo about God and not the big bang, I won't go into detail on the evidence, you can either take my word for it or look up all the evidence for yourself. That's up to you.
Why don't you accept the big bang theory? If a God did create the universe....
The Big Bang may be popular just like the Global Warming bull were fed and forced to pay more taxes for lol but for 1 if you can prove most of the scientific community is behind the Big Bang and Evolution etc then I'll accept. To be honest I don't give a damn what the truth is because the truth is something we can't do anything about so there's no point in worrying. People believe in things because they WANT it to be true and that's called lying.
@100pjp001 Global Warming is easily obversable. And approx 99% of scientists agree with this. The "contention" is from either unlearned buffoons, or a tiny fraction of science. It would be like me saying you don't exist. I have no reason to think so, and all the evidence shows I am wrong, but I hold to my conviction. This also applies to young-earth believers, and interfering deity believers. It's illogical. While I don't rule out a higher plane of existence, interfering God is just silly.
Yes the world is a little hotter than before but even scientists will say the earth goes through them stages with or without pollution and my problem is we get taxed nowadays with congestion charges (green tax). Our government like always lie to everyone give us bull about we've damaged this earth and we must pay taxes and it's become big business now.
@100pjp001 Yes, you are right, in that respect. There is evidence that humanity is increasing the rate, and that's where the green tax, etc. comes in, however.
... then it would have had to have done it in some way, and the evidence suggests the expansion of a singularity (which btw that other person had wrong). There were no two atoms colliding that caused the big bang, the big bang was just an infinitely dense point of energy, atoms did not form until seconds after the big bang. I don't' think there is such a being that caused the big bang, since it is not logical to assert that a being resides in some spiritual realm... A space of existence that...
Why don't I believe in the Big Bang? Not too sure what the update is on that but they believed at some point singularity started off as a spinning motion then it expanded and created all the galaxies, planets etc which explains why everything spins some spin the opposite way so abit confused about that. also this energy expands everything and along the way it stops to create these round planets assembled in a line and gives them laws to orbit around the sun.
Please don't tell me that you don't believe in evolution as well...??
"People believe in things because they WANT it to be true and that's called lying." No, that's called religion/faith.
Next your going to tell me you don't believe in gravity lol
The vast majority of scientist's believe in evolution/gravity/the big bang theory, not because they want it to be true, but because all the evidence supports those theories.
Do you know how a planet is even formed? the BB didn't stop to make them...
To be honest I'm 50 50 with evolution and gravity is a lot different to evolution we can see gravity work just not gravity itself which is why it's classified as a theory.
Evolution now, transformation from 1 specie to another? We don't see that work we just see similarities between species which is why the dna is similar but it doesn't prove relation at all just that we are similar. You can't prove a chimp to be our 300 billionth cousin, can't track that sorry lol.
Proving your parents through dna is a little different to proving a chimp to be our 300 billionth cousin, the distance in "relation" would be miles too great.
the only thing they can prove through dna as far as I'm concerned is that all the different kinds of "earthly" creatures have similarities. Why wouldn't we have similarities were from the same planet after all and we all rely on the same natural resources so why not share a common designer? It's possible enough anyway.
If DNA is reliable for determining relations within a species then it is also reliable for determining relations between species or else it would be reliable for niether, you can't have it both ways, plus, if we do have a common designer then why did he decide to place a retro virus in our DNA sequence in the exact same location as that of a Chimpanzee's, or is that a coinidence? seems like an awfully long shot if we didn't share a common ancestor.
And the point I'm making is that if the DNA you share with you parents convinces you you're related then why does the same not go for other organisms, after all you share 99.99% of your DNA with your parents, 99% with other people of the same generation, 98% with Chimpanzees, 85% with mice and other rodents and 75% with snakes, DNA is the strongest evidence for a descent from common ancestry and if you don't want to take my word for it then please feel free to look it up.
"if we do have a common designer then why did he decide to place a retro virus in our DNA sequence in the exact same location as that of a Chimpanzee's, or is that a coinidence?"
It's just like saying why do we all need eyes to see, is that a coincidence? were all given similar tools sometimes the exact same tools.
Evolution is guided by a simple factor, organisms that have atributes which are best suited for their environment are more likely to survive to reproduce and pass on their genetic information, as environments change, different atributes are selected for, if advantageous changes occur, such as light sensitive cells, natural selection can gradually build upon that.
I don't understand how the environment has anything to do with the added information onto dna. How were the species best suited for their environment before they had the tools to survive in their environment?
eg. if they needed to fly in their environment they would then have to spend millions of years before they get the wings as the change takes a long time millions of years or whatever time.
mutations also occur within the DNA sequence since it's replicating mechanism is imperfect, most are neutral and some are detrimental, however, there are some that can benifit the organism, one such example is the nylonase enzime which allows a species of bacteria to digest nylon, this allowed it to exploit a new food source and thus flourish, as for powerd flight, but it often has benifitial precursers such as the ability to glide, etc.
Yea I know about the mutations but like you said it replicates the information that currently exists within the dna so it doesn't explain how the first living cell that formed in some pond billions of years can be guided into all the things that are completely different that exist today through the replication of the same information all the time does it.
So are you saying that the ability to digest nylon which was not there before is not new? DNA may only be composed of 4 nucliotides, but if you change the sequence in which they're arranged you change the information they relay within the organism, now I have a question for you, do you have a genuine interest in learning about evolution or are you just engaging in a battle of naysaying?
Nah I do want to learn that's why I'm asking these questions to get a better understanding that's all. But because I do doubt Evolution at the moment I'm going to challenge the theory a little aren't I.
But I'd like to ask again, the tools needed for survival in the particular environments, how did the species survive before they accidentally mutated and grew them tools?
I'll try once more then, as it is stated, life began simply and as such was very generalized, as populations spread out to inhabit new areas some individuals might develpoe atributes that give them an advantage over others within their niche, gradually the benifitial mutations are allowed to compile until new species arise, and so the process continues and life forms slowly become more diverse and specialized, dose that make sense?
well it makes sense but it doesn't answer everything like how did they survive before they developed these attributes? The species move to a new environment unequipped and they then have to rely on beneficial mutations to make it possible for them to survive. Another problem is that these changes don't happen over night as evolutionists say so there's a problem. How do they survive before the changes happen which may or may not benefit them?
I've given you all the information I can, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and thus don't have all the detailed answers, now if you truely want to learn you have several options available, you can take a course on evolution, look up the scientific paras on the subject or just speak to someone more learned than I
Ok fair enough, but I hope from what I said that you understand why I doubt the theory. I will do more research definitely but for now it seems unlikely to me. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Take care now.
@100pjp001 I think I might be able to help. True, I am not a biologist, but I think I know of what you speak.
I believe your question to be, correct me if I'm wrong, 'If animals need adaptations to survive in an environment, how they lived there in the first place?'
My response is that often the environmental needs change slowly. Take the common cheetah and gazelle example. As the cheetah slowly gets faster so does the gazelle.
Also sometimes it can survive, but it's traits aren’t optimal.
Problem is it doesn't take millions of years to move to a different environment. Whether environments slowly change or not. So they are now in a different environment and there's no chance of them surviving because they don't have the required traits. So how do they manage it?
@100pjp001 "Problem is it doesn't take millions of years to move to a different environment."
Yes it does take them millions of years because they can't survive in that enviorment. They get as far as they can, adapt a little, go farther, adapt a little.. (repeat)
Also climet changes happen very slowly.
Also parhaps speices X can live in enviorment Y, but its not very good at it. So X evolves better traits for Y to survive better.
Different environments aren't that far from one another. Also it doesn't take that long to migrate to another environment.
So by magic they evolve the correct traits to give them the specific ability needed which happens to correspond with the natural sources of the new environment they move to. How amazing.
How the does the environment play a part in what traits they evolve in their genetic mutations?
@100pjp001 "it doesn't take that long to migrate to another environment."
I am being to get the feeling your just here to present a quetion and don't really want an aweser. I've already told you, yes it does take that long because they cant survive in thoughs enviorments. They can only live in the transitional areas until they have evolved enough. Like fish could only go on th beach before getting things like scales and such to travel farther inword.
You say they can adapt a little then advance, then adapt a little (repeat).
How's that possible if they advance even a little with a little something missing every time? So then hopefully the mutations happen and give them exactly what they need to survive. So til that happens if the mutations serve them well how do they manage it before the mutations take place which may or may not give them the correct thing anyway?
@100pjp001 "So til that happens if the mutations serve them well how do they manage it before the mutations take place which may or may not give them the correct thing anyway?"
Thrice I've answered this so read it carefully because I'm not repeating myself again. Say a dog has some light fur and it lives in the plains, later it migrates to the tundra. It has fur, so it can survive there, but not very well. Later as time goes on it evolves a fluffier coat.
@100pjp001 "So by magic they evolve the correct traits to give them the specific ability needed which happens to correspond with the natural sources of the new environment they move to."
Now I'm conviced your not intrested in learning. You clearly understand the theory yet you present this straw man in an atempt to come up with a reson to not believe in it. Natural selection isn't magic.
I'm just asking questions and indeed as I doubt the theory I'm gonna question it abit why not.
I did ask how the environment plays a part in the specific traits of the genetic changes which just happens to correspond well with their environment every time, it sounds like magic to me.
These mutations seem to prepare them for the environment they're about to live in to. What are the odds?!
@100pjp001 "I did ask how the environment plays a part in the specific traits of the genetic changes which just happens to correspond well with their environment every time, it sounds like magic to me."
Read up on this prosses called 'Natural Selection.' It explains all that.
"Transitional areas?? Really?"
So your saying that in africa, between the forest and the desert, there is no transition? Just all of a sudden the trees end and the sand begins? Thtas not how biomes work.
Natural Selection doesn't explain it at all. It's just a process that selects the strongest survivors, doesn't select "what" they change to does it?
So what's behind the mutations that produces these genetic changes which gives the genes the right information in order to produce these new tools for survival like eyes to see, wings to fly with. What's the guiding force to make that possible when before we never had eyes to see with or wings to fly with?
@100pjp001 Yes it does! By selecting them it restricts what traits are pased on hence controling what the next generation will be.
Mutations and other changes in how the ginetic code is read. Scientists have found out that there are aspects of the ginetic code that serve no perpus but to make evolution faster like introns in a mRNA strand.
For the areas that arn't transitional I remind you of the pre-adapted explination. Also there are vestigial fetures aswell.
"Yes it does! By selecting them it restricts what traits are pased on hence controling what the next generation will be."
Again it has nothing to do with "what" they turn into. So what's behind exactly what specific traits they gain? Don't say natural selection again cos it just blatantly isn't it only decides who lives on. It doesn't play a part in the gene activity.
@100pjp001 "it only decides who lives on. It doesn't play a part in the gene activity."
Thats like saying a text document can only store text, it can't be used to remind you of anything. By deciding who lives on it controls the gene activity. When a helpful mutation occurs, it lives longer making more children and evenchully becaming the domenant majority of the population. Harmful mutations die out and rarly spread.
Hence, by preventing geens from being passed on it is being controled.
Again it only "controls" who lives on and dies off it still doesn't answer "what" I repeat "what" changes are made in the dna does it?
I know NT keeps on the the species with the best traits. But it's the traits I'm asking about. Where does the specific new information within dna which give these new traits come from?
These harmful mutations aren't because of the new information but because the current information within the genes were processed incorrectly.
"Ah, I didn't understand your question, my bad. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, your question is 'What controls the DNA changes?'"
It did actually make sense. You had me thinking I typed something stupid lol, wouldn't surprise me if I did. But basically yea what controls the dna changes and decides the specific changes they make to produce any of these amazing things like our eyes etc please?
Complete chance as an answer, it isn't enough I don't agree with that sorry.
@100pjp001 Its not all chance, just trial and error. And we know this can work because that is how humans discovered most everything we have to some extent. We tryed something, it didn't work, we try again, and so on.
"99.9% of the accidents should all be sad if it's all chance"
They are, thats why evolution is so dang slow. The reson is seems to be so happy is because the sad die out and only the happy remains. Its a self corecting system.
Chance, see that's the whole problem I have with it chance produced the amazing life forms we see. Chance produced things that happen to appear painfully obvious they were designed by an intelligent identity.
Happy and sad accidents. 99.9% of the accidents should all be sad if it's all chance with no one to even roll the dice. Further more the majority of these "accidents" seem to be happy ones. It's just some are not as happier as others which is why they go extinct.
@100pjp001 "the whole problem I have with it chance produced the amazing life forms we see."
Chance didn't, chance provided the raw materials and natural selection made that into what we see today.
Imagen a gear system, only all your given is some pegs on a wall. You are given a gear with a random peg hole. It doesn't fit, so you throw it away and are handed another. This repeats until you receive one that fits and move on to the next. Evenchully you'll get the complete system by "chance."
"Chance didn't, chance provided the raw materials and natural selection made that into what we see today."
Yes so chance it's all built on the foundation of chance. Natural selection "the strongest of the bunch live on" (natural selection) "mutations occur at random times and produce random information for the dna during (NS)"
That's chance and that's what I call illogical to say random blind chance can produce the living machines of life even dna, don't make sense.
It's very unlikely that I will roll a 6 on a 6-sided die, but it is very likely that I will be able to choose one out of ten rolls that is a six. That is the difference between what you are arguing against and evolution. Evolution doesn't just roll the die and take what it's given. It keeps rolling until it gets something it can use.
Til then it keeps rolling things that are useless to life then? How does that work?
The dice would have to roll something useful every time just to survive anywhere wouldn't it? Otherwise how does anything survive in the first place? and that's my point how does something completely blind produce useful living things that are very seemingly like they were intelligently crafted? like someone producing a robot or machine the majority of the times!? How?
Not really. It just has to get it right once. After that, it's just a matter of heredity. It would be fairly unlike for it to work once and then never work again.
Also, you have some pretty high standards of useful. Life doesn't need to be perfectly crafted to do a specific job, it just needs to live.
Like I said the blind mutations have to be right in some way every time and I don't buy that at the moment. Doesn't make sense. The tools have to be perfect enough for the living thing to live otherwise the tools don't work at all.
Don't add up. And no it's not because I don't want to accept the truth and blah blah, I used to accept evolution and right now I'm unsure about if it happened or not.
@100pjp001 Look up the biological definition of life. Heredity is in all living things. If evolution get's something right once, it will then pass on to every proceeding generation. It doesn't need to try again every signal time.
Also, you make it seem like life is near impossible. There are cells that survive using only three (naturally occurring) tools. Not all life is as complex as the ones we see.
is there any outside help to influence the mutations to determine the new dna information?
Another thing actually how does blind chance from random chemicals produce something like dna. dna is an extremely complex thing altogether, it's no good saying it started off simple and got more advanced. dna's needed for the simplest life form even.
Apparently scientists are not sure how it all started off yet, that true?
@100pjp001 DNA information? We're not talking about an SQL database, we're talking about chemicals in a sequence. And sometimes extreme conditions can cause mutations.
Well firstly, I think we should discuss RNA. There are life forms that use RNA for heredity and RNA is much simpler and naturally occurring. Also, what's so complex about it? It's just Phosphate + Sugar + Acid.
No one is sure how life started. Abiogenisis has some support but it's still iffy.
@100pjp001 ""you didn't believe in miracles but yet you believe in one that beats any miracle in the Bible"
I would prefer the Bible stay out of this. It has no real place in a non-speritual or philisphical discustion. Also my position on miricals and god do not apply either. This is purely about the validity of evolution.
I would like to request that we avoid inconsiquenshal comments at the end of our arguments. They are an easy path to ad homonims and getting off topic.
"Mutations and other changes in how the ginetic code is read. Scientists have found out that there are aspects of the ginetic code that serve no perpus but to make evolution faster like introns in a mRNA strand."
That brings me back to my question what guides the dna to make evolution faster? How does dna know how to slowly develop the new information which develops the new traits example the eyes which let us see our surroundings? From pure blindness and now we can see.
The sad accidents are only due to the current information being processed the wrong way so sometimes say someone's leg might come out deformed when born into the world.
But we look around in the world and we see that the vast majority of "accidents" happen to be happy ones as opposed to sad! Functional life forms, seemingly designed life forms everywhere!
Thought you didn't believe in miracles but yet you believe in one that beats any miracle in the Bible lol.
@100pjp001 You're comparing today's world occuring in far too small a timeframe. Life has a lot of time to get to where it is. Trial and Error occured enough times for the world we see today to exist. There was no guiding force.
Ok I understand where you're coming from with the transitional areas, but not every part of the natural world is like that but yet everything on the planet evolves through that process by taking 1 step at a time transitionally you're saying, yet these certain areas that are not transitional, it takes only that 1 step to be somewhere completely different sometimes surely so how do they evolve in areas like that if to survive they have to remain in the same place?
@100pjp001 This is incorrect. If they move to an area they cant survive in, they die. Not evolve. What happens is that the area they are in, they can survive, but mutations can occur that make them better able to survive. Those traits are desirable, and they reproduce. Slowly, the trait becomes normal for all of them to have. The creature with the new trait may try migrating, and move into an area that it can survive in, that the predecessor without the trait could not. And so it continues.
But it seems quite a miracle that these blind mutations that happen give them as well as better tools but also the very tools needed to survive and correspond perfectly well with their current environment. Even more so of a miracle that they "migrate" to a different environment altogether and they happen to have been given the right means to live and pass on their dna in their new home too, I find that unbelievable literally.
@100pjp001 Congratulations, you've just pointed out how you literally dont want to hear the truth, and would much rather I said it all happened by magic that we cant explain. Sorry, but I've explained it, and you've just went "I see your facts, and I say, NO I DONT LIKE IT"
Evolution's just as magical because you believe the living machines of life just self assembled without any help lol.
Um actually I don't care what the truth is anymore but if something don't make sense to me I'm not going to accept it just because someone forces it on me like you're doing. You have explained something and I've explained why what you said makes no sense to me and why I disagree with you. Sorry if you don't "like" that. Maybe you don't like the truth.
@100pjp001 Not required evolutions to make them survive. It just makes them better at doing so. The better suited creatures are better suited for survival and to pass on their genes, thus making the desirable trait more common.
Now remember according to the theory of evolution and where life started from, life started from the first dna that formed in some pond billions of years back, then trillions of mutations of the replication of the information in the dna took place over millions of years and many different species happened.
Saying "the most suited for their environment live on and pass on their genes" doesn't explain anything at all about the new information, nothing.
But then as I was saying earlier the species didn't always have the tools to survive in their particular environment, so again before their genetic changes happened which happen at any given time beyond their control, how did they survive without them?
@100pjp001 You are making assumptions. "the species didn't always have the tools to survive in their particular environment"
They lived where they could, and there were always some that moved, usually into areas they couldnt live in, then they would die.
"Natural Selection for example is only responsible for what species live on and die off it has nothing to do with any of the information within dna" Natural Selection is intrinsically linked with dna
Natural Selection for example is only responsible for what species live on and die off it has nothing to do with any of the information within dna. How does that and the earthly environment play a part in what information gets added to dna?
Gravity's far more valid than evolution, we can see it work we can prove gravity right in front of us by chucking something in the air like a ball and seeing it drop.
With evolution were just told we have similar genes to the other animals so they must be our ancestors, that's not good enough sorry. we have similar genes to an animal just because we both have eyes to see with so we share the same info in the dna doesn't make that animal my "distant" cousin now does it.
@100pjp001 Then they aren't scientists. There is no evidence to refute evolution, so refuting it is ignoring science. Also, the tehory of evolution does not have a short answer. I've tried to give a gist, but you need to go to your local library, and start reading to discover the truth. And yes, that does make that animal your "distant cousin" as you put it. Go far enough back, and you'll find a common ancestor, regardless of whether you like that or not.
There is no evidence to refute evolution? It still needs to be fully proven first lol.
It's convenient that because when people express that they believe in God and they say "prove he isn't real" you then turn around and say "it's not up to us to prove he's not real but up to you to prove he is real"
So now you're doing the exact same thing with evolution "prove evolution is false" sorry I'm now turning around and saying it's not up to me.
It'll take more than saying that we have similar genes and we happen to be similar to the other animals to prove evolution. So what? we live on the same earth and we rely on the same natural resources why wouldn't we have similar tools to use which give us similar information within dna?
Don't think there's enough hard evidence for evolution, that's what my mind's telling me.
"And yes, that does make that animal your "distant cousin" as you put it"
What because we both live on the same earth rely on similar natural resources and have similar tools therefore having similar dna information? Doubt that, not enough to make that animal my billionth distant cousin sorry.
Can you not see why I doubt evolution yet no? Or you still think "I don't like the truth" I'm not afraid of the truth I've seen many horrible truths about reality trust me.
If I read up on evolution which I have done abit already I find the same argument that "similar genes" comes into play. But then I have only read a little on it. It's all seemingly put onto the text books like they're 100% facts and shoved down kids throats whether they like it or not can't say I agree with that.
Same with religion I'm open minded about religion and that shouldn't be forced on people neither, we've all been given a mind and it's our responsibility to use it.
@100pjp001 Here, this gives me hope for humanity. You may not accept evolution, but you aren't blindly accepting other hypotheses either. Thank you for your openness anyway. I've done enough research on Evolution to be certain of its validity, and I tried to impart that knowledge. I do recommend getting into the more technical things, as evolution is actually very fascinating, and there is a mass of evidence to support it, when you get down to it.
I did used to believe evolution and was fascinated too actually. But things didn't add up the more and more I learned about it so now I'm thinking it may or may not be valid.
Oh no I believe there's a deity behind existence itself but as I only have 10% of a brain like everyone else I can't fully understand everything about God and everything, but what I do understand is how to "love thy neighbour as thy self" the golden rule so I do that the best I can.
It's like were all in a room and in the next room there's an object and it's either black or white. Now no one can access the next room impossible for us so no one can determine for sure what colour that object is. So I take my chances on the object being white who can tell me otherwise?
Tell me what you think about that analogy I might not be accurate but that's how I think about the whole thing. I'm not right about everything but I try tho.
@100pjp001 It's a good analogy. I prefer the reasoning that we have no idea whether the box even exists or not, so making judgements on a box that might not even be there, or may be something entirely different, is something I just won't do.
I am firmly of the opinion that we don't know what happened to create everything. Science is giving answers to more things, but there is no sign of a god or lack of 1, so there is no point in weighing in either way.
Thank you but I do think it's either 1 or the other everything can only be made possible through intelligence only or not that's the box I'm referring to. me and my box lol.
yea exactly! no one knows what brought all of this here for sure that's why I don't see the problem with people having their beliefs in God and afterlife along with seeing their loved ones again etc. If you die and none of that's true, you've lost nothing by believing that impossible to be disappointed!
The reason I say that because if God/afterlife weren't true at all then you just die and go to sleep and not feel anything including the disappointment of that you'd have to wake up in the afterlife to be disappointed but you're in the afterlife so if that's the case there's no disappointment at all really with choosing that belief.
@100pjp001 Pascal's Wager. I know you aren't using it to try and convince me, but from experience, a lot of "Christians" (They aren't good people, they're egotistical, etc., unlike actual Christians that I do know) do use it as a least resort when they realise that the person they are trying to convert is actually intelligent enough to question what they are forcing on them.
Yea I know about them Christians people can claim to be of a certain group or sector and represent their leader but then it's their responsibility to follow their leader by following the rules in the rule book but there's many that don't unfortunately, the pope and his "holy" priests and bishops perfect example.
That's why I don't go to church because who do I trust when all that dirty crap's going on but I still believe in Jesus tho and his message.
Yep that's why were given a mind of intelligence to use it and find the truth with it. No one can force spirituality on anyone it's up to the individual to find it and if they want to inquire about it that's their choice too.
I agree with you about those particular Christians and I don't believe in them too.
Gravity's regarded as a theory because it's invisible to us we can't see the driving force behind it but we've seen it work in out in space with the nasa spacemen, the 0 gravity planes they have now. Whatever that force is it forces things back down onto the Earth's surface so it's there it's "testable, observable" (science)
Evolution is not on the same level as that as I've explained in previous comments just similar genes doesn't explain relation and not science in my view.
"The vast majority of scientist's believe in evolution/gravity/the big bang theory, not because they want it to be true, but because all the evidence supports those theories."
Here we go again more bull on the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution blah blah blah so you've spoken to every scientist in the world have you then? Truth is it's a mix of scientists that either believe or don't believe in evolution.
... That has never been proven to exist. I don't think you believe in poltergeist... So what makes you believe there is a being that has the power to create the universe, that has put out no evidence of it's existence to anyone, and does not act in our lives through miracles (since miracles, by definition cannot occur)?
The facts are, that no one knows what/who/nothing created and/or caused the big bang, but I can assure you that it wasn't a God, (or at least not the God depicted by the bible)
"but I can assure you that it wasn't a God, (or at least not the God depicted by the bible)"
How can you assure me of that? No one can assure anyone of how everything came to be but just believe it. Yes I do "believe" that a creator made this. No I don't believe uncontrolled energy like the Big Bang just expanded and created the laws of the universe and assembled planets in a line and cause them to orbit the sun definitely not.
The universe is a limited concept of time space and matter all limited concepts so it can't of always been there?
Now with God it's different, he's not limited to time, space and matter if he was then he wouldn't be God. So therefore he's always existed eternally and then decided at some point in time to create all of this. Maybe your thinking "but is that not the same as the energy sitting there then "deciding" to expand the universe?"
@100pjp001 You're making a lot of assumptions about God. In response to your other questions, perhaps two atoms came into contact in that singularity that caused the universe to expand outward.
What caused those 2 atoms to collide? If this singularity was always there and those 2 atoms were always there then it should of already happened. What the 2 atoms from colliding before then?
It's the same point as I made already. Singularity and these 2 atoms are the masters of the universe but with no intelligence so what caused that theory of your's to happen.
You're assuming the atoms happened I assume there was a creator who had a hand in it, why not.
@Shapkin1502 This statement assumes that time existed before the big bang. That's an assumption. And lack of evidence does alow you to choose not to believe something exists. Forexample, I choose to believe that there ISNT an invisible pink unicorn outside my window. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do?
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@Shapkin1502 "historical written accounts of non Christians" Funny, if you could provide THOSE documents, then we'd believe you much more quickly. OH WAIT, I FORGOT, THEY DON'T EXIST.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@Shapkin1502 Cancer.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@Shapkin1502 That's a terrible assumption to make. You are taking it on blind faith that the people who wrote the Bible were who they said they were. If I was to tell you right now that I am Richard Dawkins, would you believe me?
As for the burden of proof, some me where a deity of any form is observable. Otherwise thee is no reason to believe in it. True science does not refute the possibility of a deity, there just isnt any evidence yet, so there's no point in believing in one.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
i bought the Ancestor's Tale and the Greatest Show On Earth, those are mindblowing books
thegoochieguy 6 months ago
he would believe the 3 little pigs was a true story
thegoochieguy 6 months ago
See this is fucking sad, you compared faith to the internet? 4chan, funny picture sites, FACEBOOK, and fucking wikipedia bro? So if I go change a bunch of shit on there since and make some fake ass source link, its automatically true? Nice, also videos like this only promote losers to type paragraph long comments. It's sad really, how many people get butthurt over this, typing essays of comments. Grow the fuck up. *Looks at my own comment* "Fuck"
chillicheesecat 8 months ago
Rofl @ 3:59. Jesus fighting Santa with a lightsaber.
DuykRuyk 8 months ago
Cross reference your information people, see that the evidence these religious people present for their religions is erroneous!
reuben 10 months ago
Jesus Christ is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfilled o-v-e-r 300 Messianic Prophecies in the Old Testament. (All 300 (plus) predictions are available for anyone on earth to research.
2. Many secular sources admit that Jesus Christ walked the earth (see "The Real Jesus Christ" @ uners.binary.net)
3. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14: 6)
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy A biblical quote is not proof of anything...the bible was not written by any divine primemover, but humans....humans tend to lie or exagerate to get their view past normal logical scrutiny.
I have never found or seen any proof of a living jesus.
The Romans where a very meticulous people, they tended to record everything going on in their empire...not one word of Jesus anywhere, one should think the miracles he performed would be worthy mentioning somewhere ;)
ueks69 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy the bible wrote about jesus about 70 years after he died. and there is no historical information of jesus outside the bible. all that is probably bullshit. sorry. stop wasting your life, assuming you are not a troll.
icareg 9 months ago
@icareg Yes it is very much so bullshit, read Acharya Sanning's book called The Christ Conspiracy, it explains why and how Christianity came to be. If a religion must be to make people feel better on the path they take in life, it must have an analysis ran on it for both psychological and societal effects. Religions is a good way to reprogram human nature little by little however, it's pretty much an art that has yet to be done flawlessly.
Vottaro 8 months ago
@Vottaro by the way's I'm an Anti-Abrahamic Theist. Please if you began with an Abrahamic religion, please do not stray directly to atheism, that's just a lazy way out and believe me, Atheist apologist are almost as bad as christian apologists. If you are to transition from a religion, look around, if you look well enough, you will find at least one thing that science does not yet have a complete answer for and because of that skipping directly to atheism is just plain lazy.
Vottaro 8 months ago
@Vottaro Not filling your gaps in knowledge with some crazy story that literally could have anything in it in order to fill those little holes. I sure hope you guys don't do this.
Koshy2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vottaro " you will find at least one thing that science does not yet have a complete answer for"
There are many things we havent figured out yet. Science is just the method. We need technology, education and time to get answers we havent found yet. And whats wrong with saying "I dont know"? Just because you can make up a religion that gives you an answer doesnt mean you have found knowledge.
vottoduder 2 months ago
@Vottaro So what makes your religion in any way more valid than an Abrahamic religion? Do you have Empiric proof. I'm not saying that I am atheist, personally I'm of the opinion that all organised religion and even the concept of understanding something beyond our ability to comprehend is nothing but pure foolishness. There may be a god(s) out there. We, however have no way to tell, nor could we comprehend something that vast.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy My religion has a more flexible and stable frame, it's more like a skeleton than an exoskeleton, Religions confined to books are most often more like an exoskeleton, they confine what lies beneath within the person even going as far as to discourage them through fear and false claims (Discourage them from evolving inside).
Anyhow my religious beliefs are far more moral than any Abrahamic religion......
Vottaro 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy in fact mine discourages sexism, slavery, and pedophilia and states that respect be earned and virtues make a man mature (Inner Maturity).
Vottaro 3 weeks ago
@Vottaro And what is this religion of yours? You sound like a natural philosopher, but that is not a religion.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy The word "religion" comes from the Latin noun religiō, which means, among other things, "scrupulousness" or "conscientiousness." You call one thing a religion and know not of what religion truly is. Someone's religion does not necessarily need a name, it's just simply convenient to have a name. Even an Atheist can be considered religious. I'm sure even you could find humor in that ^_^
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro For a second there, you had me believing that you were intelligent. Then I realised you got your INCORRECT information from Google Translate. Nice try at trying to sound intelligent, though. Maybe next time, when you aren't trying to outwit someone who has a solid grasp of the English language. I recommend people "hu typ liek dis" next time.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy No actually I didn't use google translate at all XD
Also why do you say it's incorrect eh?
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro Just a housemate who is fluent in Latin. Y'know how it goes.
And Atheism is to religious what bald is to a hair colour.
So yeah, don't try to impress a greater knowledge of the English language when you don't actually have it. Religion does not mean "scrupulousness". We already have a word for that. It's "scrupulousness".
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy Well, he's not so fluent in Latin then LOL. Read my statement again.
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro Pretentious little prick, ain'tcha? "MY Religion doesnt need a name"
"Hahaha, someone I dont know, I choose to believe doesnt know Latin!"
"YOU call one thing religion and know not of what religion truly is"
"Quoff quoff Guffaw"
You aren't intelligent, I personally had to do a Google Translate because I myself am not fluent in Latin. Guess what words came up first? Wanna retry that statement about you not using it?
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy My my, aren't you the cynical little idiot. Read very closely what I said, look up the definition of religious and then translate from latin to English the word religiō. My god you are even making a huge point of a simple fun fact I happened to throw in for the hell of it (The latin Part). Also I see you are now being a hypocrite when it comes to google translate XD
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro I never stated that I knew Latin, because I don't. That's why I deferred before making any argument. Apologies for using an ad hominum previously, it was unnecessary.
Here is the definition of religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy Here is the Definition of religious 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2.imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3.scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4.pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5.appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
religion is not a prerequisite for morality, and a sense of morality is often gained from an observation.
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy And thus I am religious. There may only be 15 members to my religious group, but hey, it still counts. Before going into cults and such, look up the definition of cult and tell me which of these fit the definition better, the IRS, the CIA, or The Catholic Church? The point of this question is for you to understand that calling something a cult is simply name calling as the definition is so loose that too many things can fit into it or at least come super close to fitting in
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro I already know the definition of cult. The problem here is that you are assuming a weak understanding of the English language. I assure you, with the utmost of emphasis, that this is not the case. So you have 15 members to your religious group, does it have a name? Also, the way you jumped to "I am not in a cult!" merely implies that you, in fact, are.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy By the definition of cult, Christianity is a cult. Also you assumed that I was a follower rather than a leader. I created this religious group a week ago. You see when a group commonly referred to as a cult comes to lobby enough members, they can demand religious status. For example, look at Scientology and Mormonism.
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy Cult characteristics: (1) Formal Religious veneration (2) A religious System (3) Faddish Devotion (4) A group of persons showing such devotion (5) A group of people exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, thing, or idea (6) Employing Unethical, manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (7) Isolation from former friends and family (8) Debilitation (9) Use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience...........
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro (10) powerful group pressures (11) Information management (12) Promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it (13)Suspension of individuality and critical judgement (14) Designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the possible or actual detriment of members, their families, or the community (15) Double set of ethics. (16) raising funds for their own benefit
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro According to these traits, the CIA and the IRS scores positive on all except for the first and second and The Catholic church scores positive on all traits. Oddly enough, My group Scores less than the Catholic church as well as less than the CIA or IRS as to being considered a cult as about 9 of these traits don't even apply to it.
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
@Vottaro I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. What I've gleaned is someone who refuses to accept common uses for words, because he read in a dictionary somewhere that it means something slightly different, because the word in the context it is normally used marks him as a cultist, regardless of the stigma that is implied with the word. Here's what it boils down to.
You are in a cult. I am not. I don't care about your cult. You think that I think you're crazy. I feel nothing but apathy.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy no, you don't get it at all even though I've already explained it quite clearly. The word cult is simply a type of name calling. Even now the documentation from when Christianity was considered a cult still stands preserved and in tact. Christianity is an evil ideology, your god is repulsive I am extremely thankful that he is only mythical as if he were real, we'd all be suffering big time.
Vottaro 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vottaro "your god" - You've completely lost track of who you've been debating with. Or were you under the misconception that I was a Christian all along?
In which case, you are terrible at understanding a person based on their text patterns and choice of words. Also, words' true meanings can't be understood purely from a dictionary, and hearing them in context in natural language is highly important to get a true meaning. Something you are sorely lacking. A piece of advice, from me to you...
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GsliMaIiy "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el". " - Isaiah 7:14
Immanuel means "god is with us."
Jesus, on the other hand, means "god saves." they are OBVIOUSLY different and the prophecy was NOT fulfilled. either Isaiah is a false prophet, or Jesus is not the messiah. or perhaps they were both crazy. RIGHT? RIGHT.
yinyangcali 9 months ago
@GsliMaIiy 1. Fiction 101. If a story contains an ancient prophesy, the protagonist is going to fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled an ancient prophesy. Jesus was the protagonist of the new testament.
2. There are no records of Jesus in ancient roman texts. A miracle man would have be worth noting, I would think.
3. “Always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual.” Terry Pratchett wrote that in his book. It must be true.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy Jesus is fictional, he's a cut and paste work from various older deities.
Vottaro 3 weeks ago
The ironic thing about this is the reason Im an atheist is because I actually read and studied the bible. There is no way a rational human being can condone or justify most of the morals in the bible.
vottoduder 1 year ago 3
@vottoduder Bravo there however Atheism is not the only answer, please try and keep an open mind for advancing spirituality and philosophy that may happen to appear between now and 2050, if a religion arises that makes headway please look into it and if it holds any value create an atheistic version if you feel like it.
Vottaro 2 months ago
@Vottaro Atheism isnt an answer. Its basically a default position. Your born an atheist. I like philosophy (mainly western), but I have no clue what "spirituality" means or is and no one can seem to explain to me what it is. Im open to anything as long as there is a rational explanation for it backed up with some "real" evidence. But I like studying about religions, its my favorite subject. So if a new one pops up, I will definitely look into it.
vottoduder 2 months ago
Once again another intelligent, thoughtful and well researched piece.
It hasn't a Snickers chance at t Weight Watchers meeting to get through the ignorance mechanism of the morons on this board.
sol3a1 1 year ago
(continued)
There's a difference there, with God he's got the intelligence to decide and plan when to create.
Singularity has no brain with nothing to guide it so what caused this mindless energy to act and plan it out and create the expansion which created the galaxies, planets and so on?
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its a business. they know it.
DSCW33 1 year ago
yep it's true having faith in anything including the universe happening by pure chance is retarded like some people do.
But the world being created is a possibility as opposed to the 3 little pigs which there's no indication to them being real. so I wouldn't blame millions of people worldwide including scientists if they believe that a creator created the universe.
So "FFreeThinker" your name is ironic because with some real freethinking you would of realised that.
Try again!
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 Universe did not happen by pure chance... ever heard of the oscillating universe theory.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram
No I haven't care to explain what that is and whether that happened by chance or not.
There's only 2 possibilities behind everything that exists either this all happened by chance without any intelligence whatsoever or the opposite which means someone made it all.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 If God could have always existed, why couldn't the universe (in some form or another)?
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram
If the universe or singularity always existed then what caused singularity to move? Why would it sit there for eternity then suddenly just expand at some random point in time? Where did the energy come from to cause the expansion? If you say the energy was always there then there's a problem because all the galaxies, planets etc should of always been there. So that energy would have to of come from the outside of TS & M (The universe) so that proves the universe wasn't always there.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@atheistram
From the last comment, all the galaxies and planets would always be there then if that same energy was always there which created all of these galaxies in the first place right?
If you say that particular energy was just always there then it suddenly acted at this random point and expanded the universe creating all the galaxies then what caused that energy to act? What caused that other energy to act that was always there? etc etc etc see what I mean?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 clearly you haven't studied big bang theory. you're in fucking preschool.
myfreepaysite1 1 year ago
@myfreepaysite1
I don't talk to mouthy idiots like you so next decent intelligent atheist please.
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100pjp001 i'm not an atheist you twat.
myfreepaysite1 1 year ago
@100pjp001 You call myfreepaysite1 mouthy, he put 11 words, meanwhile you've got every comment posted on the page (when I looked at it anyway.
paintballwizard239 1 year ago
@paintballwizard239
When I say mouthy I mean rude. I Don't talk to rude people who just come on and spout crap like that. I shouldn't be rude back but I'm normally not but sometimes I just get annoyed. I'm only human and I get annoyed sometimes. I keep it as low as possible but hey I'm not perfect.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
So you're advocating for a being that simply caused the big bang? Is that it? Or do you believe this God, is listening to prayers and causing miracles in our daily lives?
Because you did make a good point, you are assuming that a "being" played a hand in the cause of the big bang, when we both know there is no scientific evidence to assert that the big bang was uncaused, or divinely caused. I just want to know if you go further with that belief, into a Christian/Muslim/Jewish God...
igotsachubby 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
No I'm advocating for the being that made all of this possible without the Big Bang.
It's not logical to suggest that singularity sat there for all eternity then it just expanded what sense does that make?? It's all theories can't be backed by any evidence. then during the expansion planets were formed assembled in a line and spins around the sun? It's an expansion of energy just has 1 direction so how can something so unguided form these things so neatly?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
Maybe I should of been more clearer, I don't believe God made the universe by the Big Bang, that was in reference to the other person who believes the 2 atoms collided and made the expansion and I stated that I believe the creator had a hand in creating the universe that's all.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
Miracles? Not many happen really especially in a confused world like today where many are not exactly sure if he's real or not despite being believers but do they believe 100% or do they believe for the sake of it or just to please their families?
It doesn't help when we have many liars in the world with self serving agendas that are out to ruin people's faith with bull crapping lies. So the world is confused and faith isn't within our grasp were too scared and the liars ruin it
100pjp001 1 year ago
Well let's start off by saying that the big bang did occur, or at least most likely occurred since that vast majority of scientific evidence supports that theory and it is supported by a large majority of the scientific community. Since this is a convo about God and not the big bang, I won't go into detail on the evidence, you can either take my word for it or look up all the evidence for yourself. That's up to you.
Why don't you accept the big bang theory? If a God did create the universe....
igotsachubby 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
The Big Bang may be popular just like the Global Warming bull were fed and forced to pay more taxes for lol but for 1 if you can prove most of the scientific community is behind the Big Bang and Evolution etc then I'll accept. To be honest I don't give a damn what the truth is because the truth is something we can't do anything about so there's no point in worrying. People believe in things because they WANT it to be true and that's called lying.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 Global Warming is easily obversable. And approx 99% of scientists agree with this. The "contention" is from either unlearned buffoons, or a tiny fraction of science. It would be like me saying you don't exist. I have no reason to think so, and all the evidence shows I am wrong, but I hold to my conviction. This also applies to young-earth believers, and interfering deity believers. It's illogical. While I don't rule out a higher plane of existence, interfering God is just silly.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Yes the world is a little hotter than before but even scientists will say the earth goes through them stages with or without pollution and my problem is we get taxed nowadays with congestion charges (green tax). Our government like always lie to everyone give us bull about we've damaged this earth and we must pay taxes and it's become big business now.
So that green tax part of it is bull.
100pjp001 3 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Yes, you are right, in that respect. There is evidence that humanity is increasing the rate, and that's where the green tax, etc. comes in, however.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
... then it would have had to have done it in some way, and the evidence suggests the expansion of a singularity (which btw that other person had wrong). There were no two atoms colliding that caused the big bang, the big bang was just an infinitely dense point of energy, atoms did not form until seconds after the big bang. I don't' think there is such a being that caused the big bang, since it is not logical to assert that a being resides in some spiritual realm... A space of existence that...
igotsachubby 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
Why don't I believe in the Big Bang? Not too sure what the update is on that but they believed at some point singularity started off as a spinning motion then it expanded and created all the galaxies, planets etc which explains why everything spins some spin the opposite way so abit confused about that. also this energy expands everything and along the way it stops to create these round planets assembled in a line and gives them laws to orbit around the sun.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Please don't tell me that you don't believe in evolution as well...??
"People believe in things because they WANT it to be true and that's called lying." No, that's called religion/faith.
Next your going to tell me you don't believe in gravity lol
The vast majority of scientist's believe in evolution/gravity/the big bang theory, not because they want it to be true, but because all the evidence supports those theories.
Do you know how a planet is even formed? the BB didn't stop to make them...
igotsachubby 1 year ago
@igotsachubby
To be honest I'm 50 50 with evolution and gravity is a lot different to evolution we can see gravity work just not gravity itself which is why it's classified as a theory.
Evolution now, transformation from 1 specie to another? We don't see that work we just see similarities between species which is why the dna is similar but it doesn't prove relation at all just that we are similar. You can't prove a chimp to be our 300 billionth cousin, can't track that sorry lol.
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100pjp001 next time know what youre talking about before you open your mouth so you dont look like a fool.
wikikikikiwill 1 year ago
@100pjp001
So I guess that means that the DNA you share with your parents doesn't prove you're related to them, which makes paternity tests absolutely useless.
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
Proving your parents through dna is a little different to proving a chimp to be our 300 billionth cousin, the distance in "relation" would be miles too great.
the only thing they can prove through dna as far as I'm concerned is that all the different kinds of "earthly" creatures have similarities. Why wouldn't we have similarities were from the same planet after all and we all rely on the same natural resources so why not share a common designer? It's possible enough anyway.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
If DNA is reliable for determining relations within a species then it is also reliable for determining relations between species or else it would be reliable for niether, you can't have it both ways, plus, if we do have a common designer then why did he decide to place a retro virus in our DNA sequence in the exact same location as that of a Chimpanzee's, or is that a coinidence? seems like an awfully long shot if we didn't share a common ancestor.
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
"If DNA is reliable for determining relations within a species then it is also reliable for determining relations between species"
Again the point is that the distance is too great to trace us that far back. I might be wrong maybe it's not who knows.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
And the point I'm making is that if the DNA you share with you parents convinces you you're related then why does the same not go for other organisms, after all you share 99.99% of your DNA with your parents, 99% with other people of the same generation, 98% with Chimpanzees, 85% with mice and other rodents and 75% with snakes, DNA is the strongest evidence for a descent from common ancestry and if you don't want to take my word for it then please feel free to look it up.
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
Is that how they determine someone's biological parents if the DNA is 99.99% similar? Also is that the only way?
I definitely will look it up.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
"if we do have a common designer then why did he decide to place a retro virus in our DNA sequence in the exact same location as that of a Chimpanzee's, or is that a coinidence?"
It's just like saying why do we all need eyes to see, is that a coincidence? were all given similar tools sometimes the exact same tools.
Can I ask what guides evolution?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
Evolution is guided by a simple factor, organisms that have atributes which are best suited for their environment are more likely to survive to reproduce and pass on their genetic information, as environments change, different atributes are selected for, if advantageous changes occur, such as light sensitive cells, natural selection can gradually build upon that.
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
I don't understand how the environment has anything to do with the added information onto dna. How were the species best suited for their environment before they had the tools to survive in their environment?
eg. if they needed to fly in their environment they would then have to spend millions of years before they get the wings as the change takes a long time millions of years or whatever time.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
mutations also occur within the DNA sequence since it's replicating mechanism is imperfect, most are neutral and some are detrimental, however, there are some that can benifit the organism, one such example is the nylonase enzime which allows a species of bacteria to digest nylon, this allowed it to exploit a new food source and thus flourish, as for powerd flight, but it often has benifitial precursers such as the ability to glide, etc.
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
Yea I know about the mutations but like you said it replicates the information that currently exists within the dna so it doesn't explain how the first living cell that formed in some pond billions of years can be guided into all the things that are completely different that exist today through the replication of the same information all the time does it.
So where does the new info come from then?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
So are you saying that the ability to digest nylon which was not there before is not new? DNA may only be composed of 4 nucliotides, but if you change the sequence in which they're arranged you change the information they relay within the organism, now I have a question for you, do you have a genuine interest in learning about evolution or are you just engaging in a battle of naysaying?
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
Nah I do want to learn that's why I'm asking these questions to get a better understanding that's all. But because I do doubt Evolution at the moment I'm going to challenge the theory a little aren't I.
But I'd like to ask again, the tools needed for survival in the particular environments, how did the species survive before they accidentally mutated and grew them tools?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
I'll try once more then, as it is stated, life began simply and as such was very generalized, as populations spread out to inhabit new areas some individuals might develpoe atributes that give them an advantage over others within their niche, gradually the benifitial mutations are allowed to compile until new species arise, and so the process continues and life forms slowly become more diverse and specialized, dose that make sense?
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
well it makes sense but it doesn't answer everything like how did they survive before they developed these attributes? The species move to a new environment unequipped and they then have to rely on beneficial mutations to make it possible for them to survive. Another problem is that these changes don't happen over night as evolutionists say so there's a problem. How do they survive before the changes happen which may or may not benefit them?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001
I've given you all the information I can, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and thus don't have all the detailed answers, now if you truely want to learn you have several options available, you can take a course on evolution, look up the scientific paras on the subject or just speak to someone more learned than I
Psittacosaurus 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
Ok fair enough, but I hope from what I said that you understand why I doubt the theory. I will do more research definitely but for now it seems unlikely to me. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Take care now.
100pjp001 1 year ago
Comment removed
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@100pjp001 I think I might be able to help. True, I am not a biologist, but I think I know of what you speak.
I believe your question to be, correct me if I'm wrong, 'If animals need adaptations to survive in an environment, how they lived there in the first place?'
My response is that often the environmental needs change slowly. Take the common cheetah and gazelle example. As the cheetah slowly gets faster so does the gazelle.
Also sometimes it can survive, but it's traits aren’t optimal.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
Problem is it doesn't take millions of years to move to a different environment. Whether environments slowly change or not. So they are now in a different environment and there's no chance of them surviving because they don't have the required traits. So how do they manage it?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "Problem is it doesn't take millions of years to move to a different environment."
Yes it does take them millions of years because they can't survive in that enviorment. They get as far as they can, adapt a little, go farther, adapt a little.. (repeat)
Also climet changes happen very slowly.
Also parhaps speices X can live in enviorment Y, but its not very good at it. So X evolves better traits for Y to survive better.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
Different environments aren't that far from one another. Also it doesn't take that long to migrate to another environment.
So by magic they evolve the correct traits to give them the specific ability needed which happens to correspond with the natural sources of the new environment they move to. How amazing.
How the does the environment play a part in what traits they evolve in their genetic mutations?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "it doesn't take that long to migrate to another environment."
I am being to get the feeling your just here to present a quetion and don't really want an aweser. I've already told you, yes it does take that long because they cant survive in thoughs enviorments. They can only live in the transitional areas until they have evolved enough. Like fish could only go on th beach before getting things like scales and such to travel farther inword.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
You say they can adapt a little then advance, then adapt a little (repeat).
How's that possible if they advance even a little with a little something missing every time? So then hopefully the mutations happen and give them exactly what they need to survive. So til that happens if the mutations serve them well how do they manage it before the mutations take place which may or may not give them the correct thing anyway?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "So til that happens if the mutations serve them well how do they manage it before the mutations take place which may or may not give them the correct thing anyway?"
Thrice I've answered this so read it carefully because I'm not repeating myself again. Say a dog has some light fur and it lives in the plains, later it migrates to the tundra. It has fur, so it can survive there, but not very well. Later as time goes on it evolves a fluffier coat.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "So by magic they evolve the correct traits to give them the specific ability needed which happens to correspond with the natural sources of the new environment they move to."
Now I'm conviced your not intrested in learning. You clearly understand the theory yet you present this straw man in an atempt to come up with a reson to not believe in it. Natural selection isn't magic.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
I'm just asking questions and indeed as I doubt the theory I'm gonna question it abit why not.
I did ask how the environment plays a part in the specific traits of the genetic changes which just happens to correspond well with their environment every time, it sounds like magic to me.
These mutations seem to prepare them for the environment they're about to live in to. What are the odds?!
Transitional areas?? Really?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "I did ask how the environment plays a part in the specific traits of the genetic changes which just happens to correspond well with their environment every time, it sounds like magic to me."
Read up on this prosses called 'Natural Selection.' It explains all that.
"Transitional areas?? Really?"
So your saying that in africa, between the forest and the desert, there is no transition? Just all of a sudden the trees end and the sand begins? Thtas not how biomes work.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
Natural Selection doesn't explain it at all. It's just a process that selects the strongest survivors, doesn't select "what" they change to does it?
So what's behind the mutations that produces these genetic changes which gives the genes the right information in order to produce these new tools for survival like eyes to see, wings to fly with. What's the guiding force to make that possible when before we never had eyes to see with or wings to fly with?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 Yes it does! By selecting them it restricts what traits are pased on hence controling what the next generation will be.
Mutations and other changes in how the ginetic code is read. Scientists have found out that there are aspects of the ginetic code that serve no perpus but to make evolution faster like introns in a mRNA strand.
For the areas that arn't transitional I remind you of the pre-adapted explination. Also there are vestigial fetures aswell.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
"Yes it does! By selecting them it restricts what traits are pased on hence controling what the next generation will be."
Again it has nothing to do with "what" they turn into. So what's behind exactly what specific traits they gain? Don't say natural selection again cos it just blatantly isn't it only decides who lives on. It doesn't play a part in the gene activity.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "it only decides who lives on. It doesn't play a part in the gene activity."
Thats like saying a text document can only store text, it can't be used to remind you of anything. By deciding who lives on it controls the gene activity. When a helpful mutation occurs, it lives longer making more children and evenchully becaming the domenant majority of the population. Harmful mutations die out and rarly spread.
Hence, by preventing geens from being passed on it is being controled.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
Again it only "controls" who lives on and dies off it still doesn't answer "what" I repeat "what" changes are made in the dna does it?
I know NT keeps on the the species with the best traits. But it's the traits I'm asking about. Where does the specific new information within dna which give these new traits come from?
These harmful mutations aren't because of the new information but because the current information within the genes were processed incorrectly.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "what changes are made in the dna does it?"
Ah, I didn't understand your question, my bad. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, your question is 'What controls the DNA changes?'
To which I would respond, complete chance and happy, or sad, accidents. Not all mutations are bad.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
"Ah, I didn't understand your question, my bad. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, your question is 'What controls the DNA changes?'"
It did actually make sense. You had me thinking I typed something stupid lol, wouldn't surprise me if I did. But basically yea what controls the dna changes and decides the specific changes they make to produce any of these amazing things like our eyes etc please?
Complete chance as an answer, it isn't enough I don't agree with that sorry.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 Its not all chance, just trial and error. And we know this can work because that is how humans discovered most everything we have to some extent. We tryed something, it didn't work, we try again, and so on.
"99.9% of the accidents should all be sad if it's all chance"
They are, thats why evolution is so dang slow. The reson is seems to be so happy is because the sad die out and only the happy remains. Its a self corecting system.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
Chance, see that's the whole problem I have with it chance produced the amazing life forms we see. Chance produced things that happen to appear painfully obvious they were designed by an intelligent identity.
Happy and sad accidents. 99.9% of the accidents should all be sad if it's all chance with no one to even roll the dice. Further more the majority of these "accidents" seem to be happy ones. It's just some are not as happier as others which is why they go extinct.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "the whole problem I have with it chance produced the amazing life forms we see."
Chance didn't, chance provided the raw materials and natural selection made that into what we see today.
Imagen a gear system, only all your given is some pegs on a wall. You are given a gear with a random peg hole. It doesn't fit, so you throw it away and are handed another. This repeats until you receive one that fits and move on to the next. Evenchully you'll get the complete system by "chance."
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
"Chance didn't, chance provided the raw materials and natural selection made that into what we see today."
Yes so chance it's all built on the foundation of chance. Natural selection "the strongest of the bunch live on" (natural selection) "mutations occur at random times and produce random information for the dna during (NS)"
That's chance and that's what I call illogical to say random blind chance can produce the living machines of life even dna, don't make sense.
100pjp001 3 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Built on a foundation of != built by.
It's very unlikely that I will roll a 6 on a 6-sided die, but it is very likely that I will be able to choose one out of ten rolls that is a six. That is the difference between what you are arguing against and evolution. Evolution doesn't just roll the die and take what it's given. It keeps rolling until it gets something it can use.
DragonGreenFire 1 week ago
@DragonGreenFire
Til then it keeps rolling things that are useless to life then? How does that work?
The dice would have to roll something useful every time just to survive anywhere wouldn't it? Otherwise how does anything survive in the first place? and that's my point how does something completely blind produce useful living things that are very seemingly like they were intelligently crafted? like someone producing a robot or machine the majority of the times!? How?
100pjp001 1 week ago
@100pjp001 That's what experts call extinction.
Not really. It just has to get it right once. After that, it's just a matter of heredity. It would be fairly unlike for it to work once and then never work again.
Also, you have some pretty high standards of useful. Life doesn't need to be perfectly crafted to do a specific job, it just needs to live.
DragonGreenFire 1 week ago
@DragonGreenFire
Like I said the blind mutations have to be right in some way every time and I don't buy that at the moment. Doesn't make sense. The tools have to be perfect enough for the living thing to live otherwise the tools don't work at all.
Don't add up. And no it's not because I don't want to accept the truth and blah blah, I used to accept evolution and right now I'm unsure about if it happened or not.
100pjp001 1 week ago
@100pjp001 Look up the biological definition of life. Heredity is in all living things. If evolution get's something right once, it will then pass on to every proceeding generation. It doesn't need to try again every signal time.
Also, you make it seem like life is near impossible. There are cells that survive using only three (naturally occurring) tools. Not all life is as complex as the ones we see.
DragonGreenFire 1 week ago
@DragonGreenFire
is there any outside help to influence the mutations to determine the new dna information?
Another thing actually how does blind chance from random chemicals produce something like dna. dna is an extremely complex thing altogether, it's no good saying it started off simple and got more advanced. dna's needed for the simplest life form even.
Apparently scientists are not sure how it all started off yet, that true?
100pjp001 1 week ago
@100pjp001 DNA information? We're not talking about an SQL database, we're talking about chemicals in a sequence. And sometimes extreme conditions can cause mutations.
Well firstly, I think we should discuss RNA. There are life forms that use RNA for heredity and RNA is much simpler and naturally occurring. Also, what's so complex about it? It's just Phosphate + Sugar + Acid.
No one is sure how life started. Abiogenisis has some support but it's still iffy.
DragonGreenFire 1 week ago
@100pjp001 ""you didn't believe in miracles but yet you believe in one that beats any miracle in the Bible"
I would prefer the Bible stay out of this. It has no real place in a non-speritual or philisphical discustion. Also my position on miricals and god do not apply either. This is purely about the validity of evolution.
I would like to request that we avoid inconsiquenshal comments at the end of our arguments. They are an easy path to ad homonims and getting off topic.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@100pjp001 Beneficial mutations and harmful mutations occur in the exact same way.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@DragonGreenFire
"Mutations and other changes in how the ginetic code is read. Scientists have found out that there are aspects of the ginetic code that serve no perpus but to make evolution faster like introns in a mRNA strand."
That brings me back to my question what guides the dna to make evolution faster? How does dna know how to slowly develop the new information which develops the new traits example the eyes which let us see our surroundings? From pure blindness and now we can see.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "How does dna know how to slowly develop the new information"
Insertions, Duplications, Deletions, and Substitution
This response is assuming you are aware that DNA is not actively making any decisions. Evolution is a prosses of trial and error.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@DragonGreenFire
The sad accidents are only due to the current information being processed the wrong way so sometimes say someone's leg might come out deformed when born into the world.
But we look around in the world and we see that the vast majority of "accidents" happen to be happy ones as opposed to sad! Functional life forms, seemingly designed life forms everywhere!
Thought you didn't believe in miracles but yet you believe in one that beats any miracle in the Bible lol.
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 "The sad accidents are only due to the current information being processed the wrong way"
The sad I am talking about is say, a cheata being born slightly slow then the others, or an ant that's not as strong. This we do see a lot of.
The sad you seem to be refering to is DNA misactivations, or carge problems. These are rarer but not the topic in quetion.
DragonGreenFire 11 months ago
@100pjp001 You're comparing today's world occuring in far too small a timeframe. Life has a lot of time to get to where it is. Trial and Error occured enough times for the world we see today to exist. There was no guiding force.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@DragonGreenFire
Ok I understand where you're coming from with the transitional areas, but not every part of the natural world is like that but yet everything on the planet evolves through that process by taking 1 step at a time transitionally you're saying, yet these certain areas that are not transitional, it takes only that 1 step to be somewhere completely different sometimes surely so how do they evolve in areas like that if to survive they have to remain in the same place?
100pjp001 11 months ago
@100pjp001 This is incorrect. If they move to an area they cant survive in, they die. Not evolve. What happens is that the area they are in, they can survive, but mutations can occur that make them better able to survive. Those traits are desirable, and they reproduce. Slowly, the trait becomes normal for all of them to have. The creature with the new trait may try migrating, and move into an area that it can survive in, that the predecessor without the trait could not. And so it continues.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
But it seems quite a miracle that these blind mutations that happen give them as well as better tools but also the very tools needed to survive and correspond perfectly well with their current environment. Even more so of a miracle that they "migrate" to a different environment altogether and they happen to have been given the right means to live and pass on their dna in their new home too, I find that unbelievable literally.
100pjp001 3 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Congratulations, you've just pointed out how you literally dont want to hear the truth, and would much rather I said it all happened by magic that we cant explain. Sorry, but I've explained it, and you've just went "I see your facts, and I say, NO I DONT LIKE IT"
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Evolution's just as magical because you believe the living machines of life just self assembled without any help lol.
Um actually I don't care what the truth is anymore but if something don't make sense to me I'm not going to accept it just because someone forces it on me like you're doing. You have explained something and I've explained why what you said makes no sense to me and why I disagree with you. Sorry if you don't "like" that. Maybe you don't like the truth.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Not required evolutions to make them survive. It just makes them better at doing so. The better suited creatures are better suited for survival and to pass on their genes, thus making the desirable trait more common.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@Psittacosaurus
Now remember according to the theory of evolution and where life started from, life started from the first dna that formed in some pond billions of years back, then trillions of mutations of the replication of the information in the dna took place over millions of years and many different species happened.
Saying "the most suited for their environment live on and pass on their genes" doesn't explain anything at all about the new information, nothing.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@Psittacosaurus
But then as I was saying earlier the species didn't always have the tools to survive in their particular environment, so again before their genetic changes happened which happen at any given time beyond their control, how did they survive without them?
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100pjp001 You are making assumptions. "the species didn't always have the tools to survive in their particular environment"
They lived where they could, and there were always some that moved, usually into areas they couldnt live in, then they would die.
"Natural Selection for example is only responsible for what species live on and die off it has nothing to do with any of the information within dna" Natural Selection is intrinsically linked with dna
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@Psittacosaurus
Natural Selection for example is only responsible for what species live on and die off it has nothing to do with any of the information within dna. How does that and the earthly environment play a part in what information gets added to dna?
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 Gravity is as valid as evolution. They are both scientific theories.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Gravity's far more valid than evolution, we can see it work we can prove gravity right in front of us by chucking something in the air like a ball and seeing it drop.
With evolution were just told we have similar genes to the other animals so they must be our ancestors, that's not good enough sorry. we have similar genes to an animal just because we both have eyes to see with so we share the same info in the dna doesn't make that animal my "distant" cousin now does it.
100pjp001 3 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Then they aren't scientists. There is no evidence to refute evolution, so refuting it is ignoring science. Also, the tehory of evolution does not have a short answer. I've tried to give a gist, but you need to go to your local library, and start reading to discover the truth. And yes, that does make that animal your "distant cousin" as you put it. Go far enough back, and you'll find a common ancestor, regardless of whether you like that or not.
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
There is no evidence to refute evolution? It still needs to be fully proven first lol.
It's convenient that because when people express that they believe in God and they say "prove he isn't real" you then turn around and say "it's not up to us to prove he's not real but up to you to prove he is real"
So now you're doing the exact same thing with evolution "prove evolution is false" sorry I'm now turning around and saying it's not up to me.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
It'll take more than saying that we have similar genes and we happen to be similar to the other animals to prove evolution. So what? we live on the same earth and we rely on the same natural resources why wouldn't we have similar tools to use which give us similar information within dna?
Don't think there's enough hard evidence for evolution, that's what my mind's telling me.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
"And yes, that does make that animal your "distant cousin" as you put it"
What because we both live on the same earth rely on similar natural resources and have similar tools therefore having similar dna information? Doubt that, not enough to make that animal my billionth distant cousin sorry.
Can you not see why I doubt evolution yet no? Or you still think "I don't like the truth" I'm not afraid of the truth I've seen many horrible truths about reality trust me.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
If I read up on evolution which I have done abit already I find the same argument that "similar genes" comes into play. But then I have only read a little on it. It's all seemingly put onto the text books like they're 100% facts and shoved down kids throats whether they like it or not can't say I agree with that.
Same with religion I'm open minded about religion and that shouldn't be forced on people neither, we've all been given a mind and it's our responsibility to use it.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Here, this gives me hope for humanity. You may not accept evolution, but you aren't blindly accepting other hypotheses either. Thank you for your openness anyway. I've done enough research on Evolution to be certain of its validity, and I tried to impart that knowledge. I do recommend getting into the more technical things, as evolution is actually very fascinating, and there is a mass of evidence to support it, when you get down to it.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
I did used to believe evolution and was fascinated too actually. But things didn't add up the more and more I learned about it so now I'm thinking it may or may not be valid.
Oh no I believe there's a deity behind existence itself but as I only have 10% of a brain like everyone else I can't fully understand everything about God and everything, but what I do understand is how to "love thy neighbour as thy self" the golden rule so I do that the best I can.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
It's like were all in a room and in the next room there's an object and it's either black or white. Now no one can access the next room impossible for us so no one can determine for sure what colour that object is. So I take my chances on the object being white who can tell me otherwise?
Tell me what you think about that analogy I might not be accurate but that's how I think about the whole thing. I'm not right about everything but I try tho.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@100pjp001 It's a good analogy. I prefer the reasoning that we have no idea whether the box even exists or not, so making judgements on a box that might not even be there, or may be something entirely different, is something I just won't do.
I am firmly of the opinion that we don't know what happened to create everything. Science is giving answers to more things, but there is no sign of a god or lack of 1, so there is no point in weighing in either way.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Thank you but I do think it's either 1 or the other everything can only be made possible through intelligence only or not that's the box I'm referring to. me and my box lol.
yea exactly! no one knows what brought all of this here for sure that's why I don't see the problem with people having their beliefs in God and afterlife along with seeing their loved ones again etc. If you die and none of that's true, you've lost nothing by believing that impossible to be disappointed!
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
The reason I say that because if God/afterlife weren't true at all then you just die and go to sleep and not feel anything including the disappointment of that you'd have to wake up in the afterlife to be disappointed but you're in the afterlife so if that's the case there's no disappointment at all really with choosing that belief.
I'm not forcing anything but that's how I see it.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@100pjp001 Pascal's Wager. I know you aren't using it to try and convince me, but from experience, a lot of "Christians" (They aren't good people, they're egotistical, etc., unlike actual Christians that I do know) do use it as a least resort when they realise that the person they are trying to convert is actually intelligent enough to question what they are forcing on them.
theotherdoomguy 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Yea I know about them Christians people can claim to be of a certain group or sector and represent their leader but then it's their responsibility to follow their leader by following the rules in the rule book but there's many that don't unfortunately, the pope and his "holy" priests and bishops perfect example.
That's why I don't go to church because who do I trust when all that dirty crap's going on but I still believe in Jesus tho and his message.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Yep that's why were given a mind of intelligence to use it and find the truth with it. No one can force spirituality on anyone it's up to the individual to find it and if they want to inquire about it that's their choice too.
I agree with you about those particular Christians and I don't believe in them too.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
@100pjp001 As for gravity, if it were more valid than evolution, then why is it a scientific theory as well?
theotherdoomguy 3 weeks ago
@theotherdoomguy
Gravity's regarded as a theory because it's invisible to us we can't see the driving force behind it but we've seen it work in out in space with the nasa spacemen, the 0 gravity planes they have now. Whatever that force is it forces things back down onto the Earth's surface so it's there it's "testable, observable" (science)
Evolution is not on the same level as that as I've explained in previous comments just similar genes doesn't explain relation and not science in my view.
100pjp001 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@igotsachubby
"The vast majority of scientist's believe in evolution/gravity/the big bang theory, not because they want it to be true, but because all the evidence supports those theories."
Here we go again more bull on the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution blah blah blah so you've spoken to every scientist in the world have you then? Truth is it's a mix of scientists that either believe or don't believe in evolution.
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@igotsachubby
"the big bang was just an infinitely dense point of energy"
Unguided energy doesn't create order so how does this energy create such orderly planets in a line that orbits the sun?
Do you believe that this dense point of energy was always there?
100pjp001 1 year ago
... That has never been proven to exist. I don't think you believe in poltergeist... So what makes you believe there is a being that has the power to create the universe, that has put out no evidence of it's existence to anyone, and does not act in our lives through miracles (since miracles, by definition cannot occur)?
The facts are, that no one knows what/who/nothing created and/or caused the big bang, but I can assure you that it wasn't a God, (or at least not the God depicted by the bible)
igotsachubby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@igotsachubby
"but I can assure you that it wasn't a God, (or at least not the God depicted by the bible)"
How can you assure me of that? No one can assure anyone of how everything came to be but just believe it. Yes I do "believe" that a creator made this. No I don't believe uncontrolled energy like the Big Bang just expanded and created the laws of the universe and assembled planets in a line and cause them to orbit the sun definitely not.
100pjp001 1 year ago
@atheistram
The universe is a limited concept of time space and matter all limited concepts so it can't of always been there?
Now with God it's different, he's not limited to time, space and matter if he was then he wouldn't be God. So therefore he's always existed eternally and then decided at some point in time to create all of this. Maybe your thinking "but is that not the same as the energy sitting there then "deciding" to expand the universe?"
(next comment)
100pjp001 1 year ago
@100pjp001 You're making a lot of assumptions about God. In response to your other questions, perhaps two atoms came into contact in that singularity that caused the universe to expand outward.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram
What caused those 2 atoms to collide? If this singularity was always there and those 2 atoms were always there then it should of already happened. What the 2 atoms from colliding before then?
It's the same point as I made already. Singularity and these 2 atoms are the masters of the universe but with no intelligence so what caused that theory of your's to happen.
You're assuming the atoms happened I assume there was a creator who had a hand in it, why not.
100pjp001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@100pjp001 Because there is absolutely no evidence for a creator.
atheistram 1 year ago
Comment removed
100pjp001 1 year ago
Our entire existence is based on belief. You believe that what your senses tell you what is the reality.
The eyes take pictures for you, your ears hear sounds for you, yo