Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I changed my mind on atheism and evolution.

dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

Judging by the usernames I think you're talking to him.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:33:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

Judging by the usernames I think you're talking to him.

Hah! Interesting. Let's see what he really knows.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:26:30 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
http://youtu.be...

So, you used to believe in evolution, but you've never understood it. At least you can admit that with your 12 areas where you don't understand evolution. So you used to believe evolution on faith, because you don't understand the evidence, or the process. And now you believe in creationism on faith, which has no evidence, and no once can rationally understand, because it's not rational.

Let's look at your first point. Both are true. Changes to the environment can require adaptation. Yet, adaptation doesn't require environmental changes.

Abiogenesis and evolution are totally separate processes, just as refining oil and manufacturing a car are completely separate processes. Abiogenesis addresses the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species.

And your comments on the "irreducible complexity" of the eye. That's completely fallacious. Even today we have living examples of microbes with an "eye-spot" - a simple photoreactive spot on their membranes. We have simple eye-dots - a depression of photosensitive skin such as found in some flat worms. We have animals with pin-hole eyes - a spherical cup, lined with photosensitive skin, with a tiny hole which serves as a lens to focus light onto the photosensitive lining (found in the Nautilus).

Typing the letter "A" with your pinky is the result of us finding a use for the pinky, not an example of the pinky having a purpose. And no, I'm not claimign the pinky is a vestigial organ. It's most certainly not. I'm simply pointing out that your logic is flawed. Occassionally, a human baby is born with a tail. Tying a spare diaper to that tail doesn't make it other than a vestigial organ. And we all have a tail while in the womb.

I believe in evolution because it makes sense, it's fully evidenced, and it has been demonstrated to be true. I guess you didn't know that.

I don't believe in creationism because it's unsupported by evidence, is self-refuting, and demonstrates all of the fundamentals of a fairytale.

Your arguments expose your ignorance. No one is claiming that everything came from nothing, and that's origin of the universe, which has nothing to do with evolution - NOTHING!

I would suggest that YOU think about it. Actually learn about evolution before you go running off to the imaginary constructs of men who didn't even realize their biology is that of an ape, a primate, and a mammal.

In short, each and every one of your points has been completely refuted, millions of times, on thousands of sites, in laboratories and through objective demonstration in most cases.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:26:30 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
http://youtu.be...

I couldn't stop staring at his pretty lips. Grrr! Which proves I'm an animal. Evolution happened.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
TheInterlang
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:24:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

LOL I don't really know how to speak into a microphone.
TheInterlang
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:26:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:36:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do you seem to think that atheism has anything to do with evolution?

They go hand in hand. Evolution provides an alternative explanation for the complexity of life.
TheInterlang
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:29:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My former reason for believing in evolution was that it was "scientific," and creationists were "religious." I now realized that Evo was untestable, full of holes, impractical to the rest of science, and really just a farce.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

Has no one ever informed you about the birds and the bees?
Life begins within life itself. New life begins and always began in the life which preceded it.
Life is a cycle which demands cyclic thinking. You will never understand a cycle using linear thinking. Linear thinking is like trying to figure out how a wheel works and keeps going round and round by using a straight line as a diagram of the wheel.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:50:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:26:30 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
http://youtu.be...

I couldn't stop staring at his pretty lips. Grrr! Which proves I'm an animal. Evolution happened.

Not so oddly, I didn't even notice. And while I appreciate the sterile beauty of a radioactive containment vessel, just as with him, it's the toxic waste which comes out of them which most concerns me.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:03:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:29:10 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
My former reason for believing in evolution was that it was "scientific," and creationists were "religious." I now realized that Evo was untestable, full of holes, impractical to the rest of science, and really just a farce.

Do you think species can give rise to a new species?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:06:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:55:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

Has no one ever informed you about the birds and the bees?
Life begins within life itself. New life begins and always began in the life which preceded it.
Life is a cycle which demands cyclic thinking. You will never understand a cycle using linear thinking. Linear thinking is like trying to figure out how a wheel works and keeps going round and round by using a straight line as a diagram of the wheel.

An infinite contingency presupposes the existence of itself in order to be actualized. An infinite contingency isn't real because the existence of any contingent thing isn't necessary. Simply nothing would ever exist rather than having any infinite contingency.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:08:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:30:12 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
I now call myself a Deist.

http://altreligion.about.com...
Do you consider yourself to be that kind of a Deist which is defined in the above link?

Do you believe in an invisible supernatural entity in the sky? If so, why?

Where do you think Life came from and why?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 12:06:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:55:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

Has no one ever informed you about the birds and the bees?
Life begins within life itself. New life begins and always began in the life which preceded it.
Life is a cycle which demands cyclic thinking. You will never understand a cycle using linear thinking. Linear thinking is like trying to figure out how a wheel works and keeps going round and round by using a straight line as a diagram of the wheel.

An infinite contingency presupposes the existence of itself in order to be actualized. An infinite contingency isn't real because the existence of any contingent thing isn't necessary. Simply nothing would ever exist rather than having any infinite contingency.

That's a load of speculative garbage Ben. The fact is that life exists. No speculation or presupposition of anything is necessary to know that is true. Life is evidence of itself. The fact that life reproduces life is also evidence of itself which can be observed at any time. How do you come to any conclusion that life in general once did not exist when you begin with the FACTUAL observation that it takes life to reproduce life in reality?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:24:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:59:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:50:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/9/2014 3:26:30 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
http://youtu.be...

I couldn't stop staring at his pretty lips. Grrr! Which proves I'm an animal. Evolution happened.

Not so oddly, I didn't even notice. And while I appreciate the sterile beauty of a radioactive containment vessel, just as with him, it's the toxic waste which comes out of them which most concerns me.

I was distracted by the lips ;) but I heard what he said. Why is it so difficult for theist to understand?

Here goes nothing: Some like to attribute the existence of the universe, life and the human experience to a magical process in which God did it just how we would imagine it. They even go as far as to say God molded Adam from dirt. I'm an artist. I could make you a little Adam out of clay. He'd have pretty lips. (Had to say it one more time) Why does God have to do things the way we would? What if God imagined it, wanted it, and then with a thought it started. Only the process took Billions of years. Seems to me a greater God could create it from a single objective thought and in that thought knew that it was going to be good. Now that's the only way intelligent design by a supreme being would in my opinion qualify for a supreme work of art. Why does God have to be involved in daily life? Maybe God doesn't care about daily life because it's freaking trivial. Why would God interfere with his own great experiment? Why can't people accept that we might just die and that's all. Or best case scenario there is a purpose and we could live on. Either way, get on with it and enjoy life. It's simple. Gosh. It doesn't mean anything whether or not someone believes there is a God.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:29:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 12:21:19 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/10/2014 12:06:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:55:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

Has no one ever informed you about the birds and the bees?
Life begins within life itself. New life begins and always began in the life which preceded it.
Life is a cycle which demands cyclic thinking. You will never understand a cycle using linear thinking. Linear thinking is like trying to figure out how a wheel works and keeps going round and round by using a straight line as a diagram of the wheel.

An infinite contingency presupposes the existence of itself in order to be actualized. An infinite contingency isn't real because the existence of any contingent thing isn't necessary. Simply nothing would ever exist rather than having any infinite contingency.

That's a load of speculative garbage Ben. The fact is that life exists. No speculation or presupposition of anything is necessary to know that is true. Life is evidence of itself. The fact that life reproduces life is also evidence of itself which can be observed at any time. How do you come to any conclusion that life in general once did not exist when you begin with the FACTUAL observation that it takes life to reproduce life in reality?

Because of the scientific evidence of the Big Bang, the pervasiveness of the second law of thermodynamics, the finitude of resources on earth that couldn't support infinite life, the inevitable overpopulation of the earth (quadrupled in the last 100 years), and the logical impossibility of an infinite regress of contingent causes among some other problems that I could probably come up with if I thought about it more.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 12:44:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Skyangel, if nothing else, the simplest way I could probably ever convince you that life hasn't always existed is to acknowledge that all life depends on the sun's energy. The amount of hydrogen that can be converted to helium to continue the nuclear fusion process of the sun is finite and irreversible. Find one source that doesn't agree that the life of the sun is limited. We've seen stars become supernova and be destroyed by this process.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:02:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 12:29:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/10/2014 12:21:19 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/10/2014 12:06:20 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:55:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:38:18 PM, MEK wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:20:07 PM, dee-em wrote:
I got half-way through. He might have been an atheist (doubtful) but he knows nothing about evolution. He's merely parroting the creationist handbook.

If you'd like to post any (or all) of his questions here, there would be no problem answering them. He obviously doesn't want answers if he just creates a video on youtube instead of making an effort to research for himself.

I too could only tolerate his disturbing vocal tones for about 7 minutes. He poses a few interesting questions but most of them are malformed. For example, "how did life begin" is a question no one at this time can answer with certainty but just because we do not yet have an answer doesn't mean we will not have one in the future nor does it imply divine intervention. Some of his questions are a probably best answered by a philosopher who enjoys scifi rather than an atheist or scientist who deals with evidence based data.

Has no one ever informed you about the birds and the bees?
Life begins within life itself. New life begins and always began in the life which preceded it.
Life is a cycle which demands cyclic thinking. You will never understand a cycle using linear thinking. Linear thinking is like trying to figure out how a wheel works and keeps going round and round by using a straight line as a diagram of the wheel.

An infinite contingency presupposes the existence of itself in order to be actualized. An infinite contingency isn't real because the existence of any contingent thing isn't necessary. Simply nothing would ever exist rather than having any infinite contingency.

That's a load of speculative garbage Ben. The fact is that life exists. No speculation or presupposition of anything is necessary to know that is true. Life is evidence of itself. The fact that life reproduces life is also evidence of itself which can be observed at any time. How do you come to any conclusion that life in general once did not exist when you begin with the FACTUAL observation that it takes life to reproduce life in reality?

Because of the scientific evidence of the Big Bang, the pervasiveness of the second law of thermodynamics, the finitude of resources on earth that couldn't support infinite life, the inevitable overpopulation of the earth (quadrupled in the last 100 years), and the logical impossibility of an infinite regress of contingent causes among some other problems that I could probably come up with if I thought about it more.

The big bang theory was created by a religious scientist who had a preconceived religious notion that once upon a time nothing existed. His theory is based on that belief. He was basically attempting to provide a scientific explanation for how some God created the universe. Obviously his fairy tale notion evolved into a scientific notion which is accepted as fact today. However it is all based on nothing but speculation and on the whole idea that once upon a time the universe did not exist.
There is no logical impossibility of an "infinite regress" when it comes to a CYCLE of Truth. You can keep turning a wheel backwards infinitely and never find a beginning point because the beginning and end point on a circumference of a circle is in exactly the same place and it makes no difference where you place that point on the circumference. as long as the cycle or circle or wheel keep moving you have infinite regress.
Begin with truth and reality and you end with truth and reality.
Begin with fiction and fantasy and you also end with fiction and fantasy.
Begin with the idea that the universe once did not exist and you also end with a concept that the universe one day will no longer exist.
That can only be true in the perception of a finite individual who once was not aware of the existence of the universe and will one day no longer be aware of its existence. That however does not mean the universe will cease to exist after the individual is no longer aware of its existence. Neither does it mean the universe once did not exist because an individual once was not aware of its existence.
The problem you create are all in your own imagination. Stop presuming that once upon a time the universe did not exist and all your problems will be solved.
It takes Life to create Life. That is the truth which can be seen and observed in reality. It's very simple really. No rocket science is needed to understand it.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You two are both wrong. Two words...

SPACE MONKEYS

That's what really happened.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 1:31:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:26:27 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:36:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do you seem to think that atheism has anything to do with evolution?

They go hand in hand. Evolution provides an alternative explanation for the complexity of life.

So it is not possible to disbelieve in God unless you accept evolution? Why?

On the contrary, it is quite possible logically to not care if evolutionary theory is valid but still reject the existence of God due to the complete lack of evidence.

You seem to think that there are only two possible options:
1. Evolution
2. God-did-it

That's what is called a false dichotomy. Why can't there be another natural explanation for the complexity of life if evolution is falsified (somehow, after 160+ years of success)? What prevents a third, or more, choice?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:01:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:29:10 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
My former reason for believing in evolution was that it was "scientific," and creationists were "religious." I now realized that Evo was untestable, full of holes, impractical to the rest of science, and really just a farce.

You came to these realizations how exactly? Reading creationist 'literature' by any chance?

Untestable: It has been tested and scrutinised for over 160 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. Every single fossil ever discovered was a test for evolution, in the sense that each one had the potential to falsify it. None ever has.

Full of holes: Really? What are your credentials to make such a ridiculous claim? Have you studied evolutionary biology? If not, yours is just another argument from ignorance.

Impractical to the rest of science: Even if true, what does that have to do with its validity? How inane can you get? Of course, this claim too is untrue. Evolutionary theory is essential in medicine when developing vaccines to combat the ever-evolving strains of the flu virus, for example.

Really just a farce: Because you, in your ignorance, say so? You'll understand if we roll on the floor laughing.

Do you have anything else, or is this it for your 'attack' on evolution?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:55:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 3:26:30 PM, TheInterlang wrote:
http://youtu.be...

Is this you in the video? I'll play along and answer your questions, maybe bring you back into the light of scientific reason.

Question 1: What kind of evolutionist are you? Gradual or punctuated equilibrium?

Although generally those are the 2 camps of evolution theory I don't see how they are incompatible. We can evolve gradually over time and certain drastic environmental shifts could push evolution in a different way which would favor certain mutations over others.

Question 2: How did male and female evolve?

That's still somewhat of a mystery. But it's being studied. Here's a link that may go as evidence of the possibility of sexless unicellular organisms forming sexes. http://www.iflscience.com...

Question 3: Why would life want to reproduce? Wouldn't it just live forever?

This is kind of a stupid question. Boo hoo why aren't we immortal? Well immortality requires a lot of energy, so far there's only 1 know creature that has the energy to be to reach an "immortality" of sorts. In a sense evolution is the attempt at immortality, but not for the individual or even really the species (as species tend to evolve into new ones). Evolution is about the survival of our genes. Our genetic code. In a biological sense we are just vehicles for our genetic code to get passed on to a future generation so they can do the same. It may sound like a pointless perpetuation of life for the sake of life, but we don't really have a choice but to live. How's that for free will?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Question 4: How did life in general begin in the first place?

https://www.youtube.com...

This guy uses circular logic. We'd have to use a time machine to prove evolution? Life coming from inanimate matter proves intelligent design? This guy want agency where there may be none.

Question 5: How did life evolve on land?

http://news.discovery.com...

He creates a false dichotomy, one does not necessarily need lungs to breath on land, bugs don't have lungs and amphibians can absorb Oxygen through their skin.

Question 6: What about polystrate fossils?

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

Question 7: How does genetic similarity denote evidence for evolution?

This guy really doesn't understand evolution. No scientist will ever say we came from apes or apes came from us. Humans are apes. He goes on to talk about technology which has nothing to do with biological evolution. He asks "doesn't similarity denote a designer with a common style?" which is a dumb question because the answer is obviously NO. Earth has much biodiversity and artists are capable of making art in more than one medium or style.

Question 8: What about unrelated organisms that have similar features?

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

This guy just has no clue about how mammals are more related to each other than diff classes of animals. He's like oh fish and dolphins live in water! Dolphin must be a kind of fish!! The evidence to support convergent evolution is through DNA testing. We can find that bats have very little in common with birds despite having wings (have you every actually looked at their wings? they are not the same at all).

Question 9: How do you explain "all or nothing structures"

He then goes on to ask what evolved first? the stomach or the food necessary for the stomach to digest it? He doesn't even bother to think they all evolved at the same time, unless of course its intelligent design! What a joke.

Then he goes on to misquote darwin. great. http://en.wikiquote.org...

Question 10: How did music evolve?

He goes on to cite straw men. And then he asks "what evolved first the ability to make music or appreciate it?" Which makes no sense because music has to be recognized, if not then it's just a bunch of sounds. So the ability to make and appreciate music would have to happen at the same time. This is not evidence for intelligent design.

https://www.youtube.com...

Question 11: What has evolution done to science that's good?

I'm not really sure where he's going with this question. But evolution has definitely contributed to our understanding of medicine and how we understand life in general. You can't have biology w/o understanding evolution. All this guys talks about is straw men as if it's evidence.

Question 12: Why do you believe in evolution?

There's a difference between looking for evidence to create a theory and having a theory and needing evidence to prove it. Evolution was founded first through observation, Darwin did not come lightly to the idea of evolution but that is where the evidence pointed him to. He did not say 'evolution is real now I just have to find the evidence!'. He found the evidence first and he based his conclusion from there. Creationism is the exact opposite. Its coming up with the theory 'God did it' then looking for evidence to prove it while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:22:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 12:44:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Skyangel, if nothing else, the simplest way I could probably ever convince you that life hasn't always existed is to acknowledge that all life depends on the sun's energy. The amount of hydrogen that can be converted to helium to continue the nuclear fusion process of the sun is finite and irreversible. Find one source that doesn't agree that the life of the sun is limited. We've seen stars become supernova and be destroyed by this process.

So what? What if the sun does not work on any kind of nuclear fusion? What if that is a false conclusion drawn by scientists due to a lack of complete information? That theory in a few thousand years from today might be just as ridiculous as an ancient theory about the earth being flat. How many still believe a flat Earth theory today? Beliefs change. Old beliefs become myths and legends as new beliefs take their place.

One source that does not agree the life of the sun is limited is me. I do not just simply agree with sources I read. The masses have been proved wrong in the past as we all know. Just because many people agree that something is true does not necessarily make it true. It would be wiser to question all of it than take it all for granted.

I am questioning the logic and reality of a sun which is believed to have a limited fuel source.
Why just believe it has a limited fuel source because some scientist created a theory which said so and has absolutely no physical evidence that it even runs on any fuel source. It is all based on speculation.

Ask yourself where the suns so called fuel source came from in the first place?
Did the gasses just appear out of nowhere?
What if science is wrong and the sun is not fueled by any gas at all?

There are many illusions in the universe. Observing something like a star "dying" or "being born" does not mean it is "dying" or "being born" any more than the sun is dying every night when it disappears over the horizon and out of view. Just because something ends up becoming dark and invisible to humans does not mean it ceases to exist or ceases to shine or burn.

Our sunset/sunrise illusion on planet earth is one simple example of something which appears to disappear or "die out" when seen from one perspective and also appears to rise or appear as something new every day but in reality we know it does not set ( die) or rise ( be born). It does not do what it appears to do at all. It is obviously the movement of various things in the universe which create illusions of things coming and going, appearing and disappearing. Human conclusions drawn from observations of illusions can lead many astray especially when they are unaware that they are only observing an illusion.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 3:36:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 1:17:27 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
You two are both wrong. Two words...

SPACE MONKEYS

That's what really happened.

What really happened was that a giant purple pixie pooted after it ate a pink party pie and the end result was a huge explosion from its nether regions which left a whole lot of shrapnel floating around in space. Humans decided to call all that shrapnel the universe and made up various convincing stories about how it came to be what we observe today. People just pick which stories they like the most and sound most convincing to them. It's all a matter of personal taste and depends what kind of entertainment you like the most.