The evidence you said doesn't exist: species becoming other species, exists.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Deleted member 23212
- Start date
The evidence you said doesn't exist: species becoming other species, exists.
OP
OP
Why, because you said you? I'm going to trust my word over yours.
Do you know what natural selection /environmental adaptation is. we evolve based on our surroundings not the other way around, that's why everything seems so perfectly hit because evolution is the guiding force for life in the universe. Everything works because it's for the betterment of our life, that goes for every single living species on this planet. Millions of years of natural selection. sure you've heard of survival of the fittest.
The very notion of belief itself can be be rhetorically whittled to the bare nub of its meaning. I'd like to talk to you a lot more about this, would you be interested in reading some of my literature?
I'm glad you finally seen the light because I was fearing that you might have been an idiot.
Bait Bait Bait.
I thought there was some fair and opened minded woke ass motherfuckers on here willing to hear a person out.
A wolf into a bull dog In less than 7000 years. The evidence is there that small changes begin to add up. And that's only less than 10K years! Imagine 100,000,000!
Hell let's go with 1,000,000,000 years. You can't even comprehend how long that is.
A discussion needs at least 2 partners. You made it absolutely clear to anyone that you do not care about having any 2nd opinion in your kind of discussion.
User banned (1 week): trolling and inflammatory posting over a series of posts
Now i go look up Kent Hovinsm.
Well first its Hovind. Minor detail i know.
The first few lines state he's a young earth person.
I believe the earth is many billions of years old, because the ever loving slew of evidence supports that contention.
Unlike evolutionary theory....which is a fraud, and a phoney, and has no corroborating evidece whatsoever.
After his dubious claim, i stopped reading.
Like, you don't have to debate him. Your lack of knowledge about how human beings came to exist isn't proof that theirs a magic man in the sky that made us. We can know absolutely nothing and have zero theories about where we come from and... believing that an omnipotent, all powerful being stitched us together from nothing would still be as non-scientific as it is today.
FYI, you're literally ripping the man's playbook on evolution debating tactics. The guy you just said was dubious...
I think I'd rather say that skeletons or nervous systems have a function rather than a purpose. They exist today because they have aided the various species in their survival throughout the process of evolution and not because someone or something figured we would need it. Take this for instance: Our skeletons still have a tailbone, but we don't have a tail anymore. Our ancestors didn't benefit from having tails, and over time the tails were reduced to nothing. It's essentially the same with any other part of our bodies or nature.
The reason why we see things as fitting together so well in nature, or everything seemingly having a function is because all the things that didn't have died out, basically.
I'll go further. People shouldn't debate people like him, if they value their time.
This is actually incredibly sad considering it's 2019 and you can access all relevant scientific papers with a view clicks if one has to really make sure we're part of earth's evolutionary history.
I think we can agree of that we both don't know. The idea of a self creating universe doesn't make any sense, because that would imply something came from nothing. The lays of thermodynamics, dictate energy cannot come from nothing. To me it makes sense that that something came before for that energy to exist.
How do we have proof that time existed only at the creation of the universe? Time is light, so I get that part, but I wasn't aware we had proved the existence of something that came before it?
There's probably been 10 minutes total of my time on this site and the old one where I would consider it wisely spent :)
Hence many people are Agnostic and not Atheist.
However just because we don't know how something came to be, doesn't mean its prove that there is something greater then us. We simply just don't know, and that's fine.
That what I put myself as. I'm just explaining as to why I find it more reasonable as opposed to a Self-Creating universe.
Isn't a gnostic atheist an agnostic theist? I find gnostic atheist somewhat contradictory. I mean, gnosticism describes several religious ideas. I find it somewhat confusing.
Anyhow, voted for agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deity but I won't rule out that they could possibly exist.
Anyhow, voted for agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any deity but I won't rule out that they could possibly exist.
Gnostic, in this context, basically talks about how concrete your beliefs are. Are you 100% or less.
I'm a gnostic atheist because I believe 100% that God isn't real. I believe it as firmly as I believe that I am real, which is to say, as much as we can say anything with any degree of certainty, I am that certain.
You can split hairs and argue we can't be 100% certain of anything, but that's just a rhetorical argument I haven't got time for really. I'm as certain as can be. I think it's fair to call that 100% certain.
I just think about it like this. If nothing existed before our universe than there would be no laws to govern what can or can't happen. Anything can happen or nothing and the universe was that. But this is all ass pulling thinking.
Your main contention which you've blithely paraded around is flawed because
A) The evolutionary pressures which produced lions are different to those which produced mice ofcoarse if you had a few hundred years to isolate a lion population and provide them with just enough food to survive you start to see the species adapt their morphology, perhaps even given the right conditions becoming as small as cats or even mice(look up insular dwarfism). But then what would that new species? A lion? A mouse? No....quite possibly the combination of the genomic and phenomic characteristics it was able to keep would make it a new species.
B) we have observed speciation albeit on a smaller scale. In the selective breeding an expression of different phenotypes in plant flowers and fruit fly species. However even something as mundane as the creation of several mongrel do breeds can be viewed as the start speciation as it becomes more difficult as hybrid embryos between two breeds becomes increasingly difficult to bring to full term. And even looking at fossil record we can observe that mammalian fossils don't actually come before synapsids started appearing in the fossil record. These are a group of animals animals which show both reptilian and mammalian adaptations in their bone structures.
This isn't even considering the existence of evolutionary dead ends such as ligers and mules which show that even within the same species, animals cannot mate indefinitely.
So no I don't think your contention holds any merit on every single level of study . Whether it be zoology ,genetics, microbiology or paleontology.
I don't think you are that far off in all honesty. I think part of the reason we have a hard time envisioning the creation of the universe is that it would be such an alien event to us, that we would and probably never will have a way to explain it.
I don't know about any of that, but if we agree that something cannot come from nothing, then either the same should apply to any "god" or the universe could have been born from an earlier universe. So if something cannot come from nothing, then how can a "god" come from nothing?
You have to remember when it comes to religious belief and gods, once you start picking it apart it falls apart.
By that definition I'd be an agnostic atheist. I don't think it's possible to know whether god exists, and I'm not convinced that god does exist, so I do not have a positive belief that god exists.
Generally, I think faith is the better barometer for me. I don't have faith in god, so I am not a theist. I prefer to say "I don't have faith" or "I do have faith," (or whatever) because I find this is a less triggering statement for some theists or religious people than "I don't believe" or "There is no god."
.. changes vote ..
Generally, I think faith is the better barometer for me. I don't have faith in god, so I am not a theist. I prefer to say "I don't have faith" or "I do have faith," (or whatever) because I find this is a less triggering statement for some theists or religious people than "I don't believe" or "There is no god."
.. changes vote ..
It does to some. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about it and there is a presentation here:
I'm not convinced but at least there is a theory.
Yeah, it's all semantics. I've often used the Greek god analogy: just because I can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist, doesn't mean I'm Zeus agnostic. You can't prove a negative.
Agnostic implies that your worldview allows for the possibility. An "agnostic atheist" is still ultimately a religious position. I'm not religious, therefore I kind of have to be gnostic.
But you could spend the rest of eternity debating this and take any position imaginable and probably still be able to justify whatever label you want, so ultimately just go with a label that doesn't involve being a dick to people.
I just want to clarify that scientific laws are different from, say, laws a government passes. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We didn't peek into the source code of the universe and find variables being initialized and values defined for gravity. Our equations didn't come from a copy of the Constitution for the Universe written by God. They're simply man-made descriptions of matter, energy, and their interactions we observe, that we have high confidence in to be accurate within its defined scope. I can use a code to quickly express the properties of a rock--its color, hardness, structure, etc. My code does not dictate what the rock is or what it can do--it's the other way around. That's my understanding, as a layman.
We should also not assume that the laws of physics as we know them apply "before the big bang", if such a phrase is even coherent. It's my understanding that physicists say that the laws of physics could be different "before the big bang", we're not sure yet.
We should also not assume that the laws of physics as we know them apply "before the big bang", if such a phrase is even coherent. It's my understanding that physicists say that the laws of physics could be different "before the big bang", we're not sure yet.