Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Evidence disproving a Loving Creator God!

bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 4:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are many, many examples of animal life cycles that prove, to me, that the life on our little planet is not the result of the Loving design of a God who is claimed to be LOVE itself.

In my opinion, this can only be the result of unguided evolution.
What do you think.

Reproductive behavior and life cycle of The emerald cockroach wasp or jewel wasp

As early as the 1940s it was reported that female wasps of this species sting a cockroach (specifically a Periplaneta americana, Periplaneta australasiae or Nauphoeta rhombifolia)[1] twice, delivering venom. A 2003 study[2] using radioactive labeling demonstrated that the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia of the roach. It delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of its victim. The biochemical basis of this transient paralysis is discussed in a 2006 paper.[3] Temporary loss of mobility in the roach facilitates the second venomous sting at a precise spot in the victims's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the roach will first groom extensively, and then become sluggish and fail to show normal escape responses.[4] In 2007 it was reported that the venom of the wasp blocks receptors for the neurotransmitter octopamine.[5]

The wasp proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae.[1] Researchers believe that the wasp chews off the antenna to replenish fluids or possibly to regulate the amount of venom because too much could kill and too little would let the victim recover before the larva has grown. The wasp, which is too small to carry the roach, then leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the burrow, the wasp lays a white egg, about 2 mm long, on the roach's abdomen. It then exits and proceeds to fill in the burrow entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the roach in.

With its escape reflex disabled, the stung roach will simply rest in the burrow as the wasp's egg hatches after about three days. The hatched larva lives and feeds for 4"5 days on the roach, then chews its way into its abdomen and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of eight days, the wasp larva consumes the roach's internal organs in an order which maximizes the likelihood that the roach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the roach's body. Eventually the fully grown wasp emerges from the roach's body to begin its adult life. Development is faster in the warm season.

Adults live for several months. Mating takes about one minute, and only one mating is necessary for a female wasp to successfully parasitize several dozen roaches.

While a number of venomous animals paralyze prey as live food for their young, Ampulex compressa is different in that it initially leaves the roach mobile and modifies its behavior in a unique way. Several other species of the genus Ampulex show a similar behavior of preying on cockroaches.[1] The wasp's predation appears only to affect the cockroach's escape responses. Research has shown that while a stung roach exhibits drastically reduced survival instincts (such as swimming, or avoiding pain) for approximately 72 hours, motor abilities like flight or flipping over are unimpaired.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:05:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In some ways this is similar to the tarantula hawk wasp which seeks out a tarantula and stings it leading to paralysis. The tarantula is then transported to a burrow where the wasp lays eggs on the spider and then closes off the excavation. When the eggs hatch, the young wasps feed on the spider beginning at the foot end of the legs and slowly working in as they mature. The spider is fully alive throughout being devoured over many days, until the young wasps eventually eat enough of the body to cause the tarantula to die.

Not the work of a loving designer.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:09:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As I said, there are many, many life cycles that disavow the design of a god who IS love.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:11:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:09:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
As I said, there are many, many life cycles that disavow the design of a god who IS love.
I wonder if the believers in a Loving god will join the discussion?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:24:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 4:41:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
There are many, many examples of animal life cycles that prove, to me, that the life on our little planet is not the result of the Loving design of a God who is claimed to be LOVE itself.

In my opinion, this can only be the result of unguided evolution.
What do you think.


Be careful in your wording here-- evolution IS guided-- by natural selection.

Reproductive behavior and life cycle of The emerald cockroach wasp or jewel wasp

As early as the 1940s it was reported that female wasps of this species sting a cockroach (specifically a Periplaneta americana, Periplaneta australasiae or Nauphoeta rhombifolia)[1] twice, delivering venom. A 2003 study[2] using radioactive labeling demonstrated that the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia of the roach. It delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of its victim. The biochemical basis of this transient paralysis is discussed in a 2006 paper.[3] Temporary loss of mobility in the roach facilitates the second venomous sting at a precise spot in the victims's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the roach will first groom extensively, and then become sluggish and fail to show normal escape responses.[4] In 2007 it was reported that the venom of the wasp blocks receptors for the neurotransmitter octopamine.[5]

The wasp proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae.[1] Researchers believe that the wasp chews off the antenna to replenish fluids or possibly to regulate the amount of venom because too much could kill and too little would let the victim recover before the larva has grown. The wasp, which is too small to carry the roach, then leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the burrow, the wasp lays a white egg, about 2 mm long, on the roach's abdomen. It then exits and proceeds to fill in the burrow entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the roach in.

With its escape reflex disabled, the stung roach will simply rest in the burrow as the wasp's egg hatches after about three days. The hatched larva lives and feeds for 4"5 days on the roach, then chews its way into its abdomen and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of eight days, the wasp larva consumes the roach's internal organs in an order which maximizes the likelihood that the roach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the roach's body. Eventually the fully grown wasp emerges from the roach's body to begin its adult life. Development is faster in the warm season.

Adults live for several months. Mating takes about one minute, and only one mating is necessary for a female wasp to successfully parasitize several dozen roaches.

While a number of venomous animals paralyze prey as live food for their young, Ampulex compressa is different in that it initially leaves the roach mobile and modifies its behavior in a unique way. Several other species of the genus Ampulex show a similar behavior of preying on cockroaches.[1] The wasp's predation appears only to affect the cockroach's escape responses. Research has shown that while a stung roach exhibits drastically reduced survival instincts (such as swimming, or avoiding pain) for approximately 72 hours, motor abilities like flight or flipping over are unimpaired.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fundamentalists would point out that everything was really nice before original sin. Lambs laid down with lions, cats and mice got along, etc.

See how long you can explain that scenario as historically accurate with a straight face...

Otherwise, all I can say to the insect predators here is: eeewe, gross!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:58:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
First one must understand what God loves, and according to scripture God is Love. Therefore men don"t define what love is, or what love should be, or what should be loved. If men go by what they define is love, or love, then they will never see God"s love.

Again, another so called expertise on something an atheist don"t know, or believe.

Just because God made something doesn"t mean He has to love it, if He gave it life He gave it more then it would of had without giving it life.

Your view says that if someone makes something and discards it, then they don"t love though they maybe loving something else they are keeping to and for themselves. So bulproof, when you make poopy, do you keep and love it because you made it? Remember now if you discard it then there is evidence that you are not capable of love and you don"t love, and you are an evil being. (that would be according to you)

Just another childish view of things from someone who thinks they are entitled something.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 7:55:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:58:29 AM, DPMartin wrote:
First one must understand what God loves,
You fail to define what god loves.
and according to scripture God is Love.
That is what I said and what I proved to be a lie, if said god actually created the Jewel Wasp.
Therefore men don"t define what love is, or what love should be, or what should be loved. If men go by what they define is love, or love, then they will never see God"s love.
Since your god has never defined anything, LOVE is most definitely defined by and invented by MAN.
Again, another so called expertise on something an atheist don"t know, or believe.
Pathetic really that the theist claims to own LOVE, just really pathetic.

Just because God made something doesn"t mean He has to love it, if He gave it life He gave it more then it would of had without giving it life.
God is LOVE, explain how he can't love whatever he creates?
Your view says that if someone makes something and discards it, then they don"t love though they maybe loving something else they are keeping to and for themselves.
This is meaningless drivel.
So bulproof, when you make poopy, do you keep and love it because you made it? Remember now if you discard it then there is evidence that you are not capable of love and you don"t love, and you are an evil being. (that would be according to you)
Do the other children in your sandpit find your musings amusing?
Just another childish view of things from someone who thinks they are entitled something.
See above.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 9:07:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?
Well... Yama doesn't really love anything.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 5:31:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?

I'm curious as to why you ignored my statement yet will almost certainly jump to abuse the next Christian/Jew/Muslim who comes along. Do you not feel as comfortable bashing the other religions?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:25:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:58:29 AM, DPMartin wrote:
First one must understand what God loves, and according to scripture God is Love. Therefore men don"t define what love is, or what love should be, or what should be loved. If men go by what they define is love, or love, then they will never see God"s love.

Again, another so called expertise on something an atheist don"t know, or believe.


Just because God made something doesn"t mean He has to love it, if He gave it life He gave it more then it would of had without giving it life.

Your view says that if someone makes something and discards it, then they don"t love though they maybe loving something else they are keeping to and for themselves. So bulproof, when you make poopy, do you keep and love it because you made it? Remember now if you discard it then there is evidence that you are not capable of love and you don"t love, and you are an evil being. (that would be according to you)

Just another childish view of things from someone who thinks they are entitled something.

"So bulproof, when you make poopy, do you keep and love it because you made it?"

D:D:D you finished me off man
Never fart near dog
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:40:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 7:55:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:58:29 AM, DPMartin wrote:
First one must understand what God loves,
You fail to define what god loves.

According to the Bible, he loves that which is evil, wicked and sinful... people.
And yet he sends them to eternal torment for not being him.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 10:31:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 9:07:41 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?
Well... Yama doesn't really love anything.

Good for it!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 10:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 5:31:06 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?

I'm curious as to why you ignored my statement yet will almost certainly jump to abuse the next Christian/Jew/Muslim who comes along. Do you not feel as comfortable bashing the other religions?

What are you on about, I saw your post and responded. Get over yourself. This thread relates to an all loving creator god, is that yours?
It would seem not, considering the post I just responded to.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 10:35:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 10:34:19 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/11/2014 5:31:06 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 10/11/2014 8:16:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
So folks, what do you think this says about your god's all encompassing love?

I'm curious as to why you ignored my statement yet will almost certainly jump to abuse the next Christian/Jew/Muslim who comes along. Do you not feel as comfortable bashing the other religions?

What are you on about, I saw your post and responded. Get over yourself. This thread relates to an all loving creator god, is that yours?
It would seem not, considering the post I just responded to.
Nope. Yama is more judgement of souls based on the weight their lives has carried.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 12:10:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
All this really proves is that evil is subjective in the physical sense and that it has no real basis in reality.

A snake has venom that can put humans in excruciating pains. In relation to the human, the snake and its venom are evil and bad. They cause suffering. In relation to the snake, it's how it defends itself. It's something good, something desirable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 12:10:23 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
All this really proves is that evil is subjective in the physical sense and that it has no real basis in reality.

A snake has venom that can put humans in excruciating pains. In relation to the human, the snake and its venom are evil and bad. They cause suffering. In relation to the snake, it's how it defends itself. It's something good, something desirable.

Good and evil are not mentioned anywhere in the thread til now.
I don't see your point.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 12:59:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 12:56:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/12/2014 12:10:23 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
All this really proves is that evil is subjective in the physical sense and that it has no real basis in reality.

A snake has venom that can put humans in excruciating pains. In relation to the human, the snake and its venom are evil and bad. They cause suffering. In relation to the snake, it's how it defends itself. It's something good, something desirable.

Good and evil are not mentioned anywhere in the thread til now.
I don't see your point.

You're trying to say that God is not all loving (i.e. not good) because of the "bad" things he created, or the "evil" system of nature. You pointing toward the cruel methods other creatures use to survive would be indicative of that (and cruel is bad ... duh).

I'm saying that doesn't prove God isn't all loving. I mean, if God existed, the physical world wouldn't even matter that much compared to the next world, whatever that is.

All this really proves is that evil or "badness" is subjective. In relation to one thing, it's evil. In relation to another, it's good. It doesn't have a basis in reality and has no true existence.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 1:08:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 12:59:49 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 10/12/2014 12:56:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/12/2014 12:10:23 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
All this really proves is that evil is subjective in the physical sense and that it has no real basis in reality.

A snake has venom that can put humans in excruciating pains. In relation to the human, the snake and its venom are evil and bad. They cause suffering. In relation to the snake, it's how it defends itself. It's something good, something desirable.

Good and evil are not mentioned anywhere in the thread til now.
I don't see your point.

You're trying to say that God is not all loving (i.e. not good) because of the "bad" things he created, or the "evil" system of nature. You pointing toward the cruel methods other creatures use to survive would be indicative of that (and cruel is bad ... duh).

I'm saying that doesn't prove God isn't all loving. I mean, if God existed, the physical world wouldn't even matter that much compared to the next world, whatever that is.

All this really proves is that evil or "badness" is subjective. In relation to one thing, it's evil. In relation to another, it's good. It doesn't have a basis in reality and has no true existence.

Which is perhaps why I'm not discussing it.
Is it likely that a god who is LOVE would create such a creature?
Or is it more likely that evolution by natural selection would result in such a creature?
No good.
No evil.
Absolutely superfluous to the discussion.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin