Members rememberduane Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 exactly who made the big guy? what is he made of? Oh, I forgot...those are questions that are not supposed to be asked Exactly. God is simply an arbitrary point on an infinite regression of scepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members yabba Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 exactly who made the big guy? what is he made of? Oh, I forgot...those are questions that are not supposed to be asked your avatar is making my pants fit all tight and stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 It's not just medical advances, but our social structure has insisted on creating laws to protect people from themselves. This means that stupid people, who would normally do stupid things and kill themselves off, are being protected and allowed to procreate. Even more importantly, it is proven that people with low IQ's breed far more rapidly then people with higher IQ's.As a species, we are DEvolving, and have been for at least the last 60 years. I wonder what we'll end up as, or if we'll return to the sea.-W No such thing as "devolving". The evolutionary goal of an organism is to survive to reproduce, not to be intelligent. And it seems like the low IQ people are beating everyone in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Exactly. God is simply an arbitrary point on an infinite regression of scepticism. R-Duanne, to make such absolute 'conclusions' would put you in a place of knowledge you could not possibly possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AMSnell Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 im going to go find that other post and copy the thread I posted there...wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 No such thing as "devolving". The evolutionary goal of an organism is to survive to reproduce, not to be intelligent. And it seems like the low IQ people are beating everyone in that regard. unless you are watching a McGyver re-run:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nakedzen Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Here's a good explanation: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable).But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question:How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way?You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living matter? We only exist for a hundred years at best. Life takes millions upon millons of years to evolve into something you would recognize as being 'alive'. in our universe we can deduct that complex designs do not come from random and chaotic sources. Im guessing you have absolutely no education otherwise you would understand that nothing just 'happens'. Chaos is simply complexity that humans are unable to fully understand. The situation is that reality is a lot more complicated then a human brain is capable of either observing or understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 I do not expect an answer, as this question always stumps the evolution theory Uh, this question is answered in every biology textbook you could find, and has been answered in this thread already I think. Please don't ignore a perfectly good answer and say you "stumped" everyone, it makes you look like Echoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Raoul Duke! Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Awhile ago, it was established that an electric current through an atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon, and other elements present in organic matter created the compounds present in organic matter. Sexual reproduction occurs because Asexual reproduction requires more energy than sexual reproduction. so there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 This thread {censored}ing sucks. In one corner, you have people that have education. In the other corner you have idiot {censored}ing fundies that can't understand anything beyond the only book they believe which is the bible. If fundies like echoes had their way we would all go back 2000 years and devolve to when people believed the world was {censored}ing flat and the sun orbited the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pascal Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 How does non-living matter become living matter? Digestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 R-Duanne, to make such absolute 'conclusions' would put you in a place of knowledge you could not possibly possess. Actually, the point there was that you were making an absolute conclusion that would put you in a place of knowledge you could not possible possess. Do you understand what "arbitrary" and "infinite regression of scepticism" mean? Or do you need to read more before discussing things beyond your intellect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members branjispad Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING AT ALL! DEAL WITH IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pinkvoid Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 FWIW, I think most plants are not male or female. POT is a rare exception, but many plants have both male and female sex organs. POT is the answer!?! :eek: :love: :love: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveVHT Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Come on guys, don't be stupid... Didn't you know that Adam and Eve simply {censored}ed like bunnies in the garden of Eden and made a ton of different races... There is proof...just read the Bible...LOL :freak: :freak: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 According to NOVA, DNA, which is the building blocks for all life actually may have come from meteorites and space debris. All life has a sweet tooth, or more accurately, a need for sugars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ThomasD Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 The point is that the term "evolutionist" implies a competing and equally valid scientific theory. "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" do not count, and those are, I'm sure, what the original poster is implying. If I'm wrong and there are strongly supported *scientific* competing theories, feel free to fill me in. The term evolutionist only implies that there is a theory of evolution, and that people holding to that broad theory could be termed evolutionists - just as people who hold to string theory are called string theorists. Likewise it says nothing about competing theories or the general validity of anything else. I cannot read his mind, nor impute much motive given only a couple sentences. So frankly, I do not know what he is attempting to imply, only that he asked an essentially non-sensical question (might as well apply the rules of Cricket to string theory as apply evolution to first causes.) My question to him would be how he could group so many diverse concepts (there are alot of competing ideas about just what is evolution) under one banner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members branjispad Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 1) there's obviously a god2) its obvious he doesnt give a {censored} there i pissed off everyone in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EdgeOfDarkness Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Come on guys, don't be stupid... Didn't you know that Adam and Eve simply {censored}ed like bunnies in the garden of Eden and made a ton of different races... There is proof...just read the Bible...LOL :freak: :freak: Come'on we all know god did that so people could not communicate and finish building the tower that would allow them to reach heaven, they were very close to reaching heaven after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 So what type of accident of evolution would dictate that we should evolve male and female? Sure it makes sense for the gene pool, but how did the evolving world know that would be so? IMO there must have been an outside influence, something that knew how it should be. All the science in the world cannot explain how or why we had the need to evolve into male and female. Again it would be easier and more productive if we had only one sex, and that would go along with the theory, not the other way around. I do not expect an answer, as this question always stumps the evolution theory. There is no way that evolution can explain the need for two sexes, it simply goes against the idea. FWIW, I think most plants are not male or female. POT is a rare exception, but many plants have both male and female sex organs. Um, this has been explained in mny papers. Sexual reproduction creates more variation in DNA chains then asexual reproduction. In short, it greatly increases a species ability to survive and thrive. Between the evolution of asexual organisms and sexual organisms, there were organisms (and there still are, starfish for example) that can produce both sexually and asexually. Because sexual reproduction proved to be more successful, the need, and hence the ability to reproduce asexually died off, and more advanced organisms did not retain the ability to reproduce asexually. Instead, sexual reproduction evolved and became more advanced. All of this can be modeled via computer these days, and it certainly is not a mystery. Not to mention the simple logic that if we had one sex, we would all have the ability to become pregnant. It is more efficient to have a gender to incubate a fetus whilst the other is out hunting/gathering to provide for the others. It'd expend too much energy to hunt/gather whilst pregnant. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soc_monki Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 So what type of accident of evolution would dictate that we should evolve male and female? Sure it makes sense for the gene pool, but how did the evolving world know that would be so? IMO there must have been an outside influence, something that knew how it should be. All the science in the world cannot explain how or why we had the need to evolve into male and female. Again it would be easier and more productive if we had only one sex, and that would go along with the theory, not the other way around. I do not expect an answer, as this question always stumps the evolution theory. There is no way that evolution can explain the need for two sexes, it simply goes against the idea. FWIW, I think most plants are not male or female. POT is a rare exception, but many plants have both male and female sex organs. who said it was an accident...or that it wasnt? how do you know? i dont. but thats one thing that people are trying to figure out. when life started it was just single celled organisms (or maybe even less than that...mitochondria and some other stuff possibly). cells are asexual. but when these cells started coming together and started to create what we know as many-celled organisms, where cells started to specialize and evolve, who knows WHY life forms were created to be how they are? environmental influence? happy accident? i for one dont believe there was "something" there to guide the process. it happened, and id like to know why, but we may never know. and no, many plants arent male OR female...many have both parts. the fruit of a plant is female, the pollen is "sperm" and insects or animals pick that up and transfer it to other plants of the same species to initiate fertilaztion. so while they may not be male or female, they still receive genetic data from other plants. and yes it would be easier and more productive to have one sex possibly...but also think of how much slower we would evolve and adapt! with 2 sexes and the mingling of genes we can evolve probably hundreds of times faster than an organism that is asexual (look at amoebas...do you think they have evolved much since the beginning of time? LOL) stumped the evolutionists...its easy to see that a single sex is slow to evolve and doesnt work very well. not to mention its boring...just like the single celled organisms who utilize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members potaetoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 No such thing as "devolving". The evolutionary goal of an organism is to survive to reproduce, not to be intelligent. And it seems like the low IQ people are beating everyone in that regard. they're not really beating anyone. everyone's getting fat right now. as soon as something bad happens (like an asteroid impact, global famine, horrible pandemic, etc.) the herd will be thinned again. dumb people who can't figure out how to cope without walmart and taco bell and 7-11 won't last too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soc_monki Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 1) there's obviously a god 2) its obvious he doesnt give a {censored} there i pissed off everyone in this thread. you need to try harder...im not pissed off besides, even if you DID piss me off, your Avatar more than makes up for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.